Apple Announces Wonderful Toys

XMilkProject writes "Apple just released 5 new products, all of which should show up on the Apple Store within minutes. You can already see the most interesting new product, the iPod Hi-Fi, a supposed high fidelity boombox for your iPod. Other new products are an iPod Leather Case and three new media-center-style Intel Mac minis which will hit the Apple Store within the hour."

Comments

"The most interesting new product"?

[daveschroeder]

How about the new Mac mini, which has a 1.5GHz Intel Core Solo or 1.66GHz Core Duo, 512MB RAM (expandable to 2GB), a combo drive or DVD±R/RW SuperDrive, up to 120 GB drive, DVI/VGA/composite/S-Video out on Intel GMA950 graphics (up to 1920x1200), 802.11a/b/g, Bluetooth 2.0+EDR, gigabit ethernet (!), four USB 2.0 ports, FireWire 400 (Yes, FireWire is here to stay, folks), analog and digital (S/PDIF) in/out, and an IR remote with Front Row media center software that supports sharing music, photos, and videos between libraries on any other machine on the local network, starting at $599 ($579 govt/education), all in the same tiny form factor as the old Mac mini (6.5"x6.5"x2")?

And a freaking set of speakers and a $99 leather case for the iPod are the "most interesting"? ;-)

I love how the submission is like "IPOD SPEAKERS", "LEATHER IPOD CASE", and then at the end, "oh yeah, and media center Intel-based Mac minis, too". ;-)

What I want to know is what Apple's going to do with its new 107,000 square foot Tier IV data center... iTunes Movie/Media Store, anyone?

Re:"The most interesting new product"?

[XMilkProject]

Well to be fair, everyone knew an intel version of the mini was coming out, but I agree it is cool, I just purchased one.

Also, at the time the story was submitted, only the HiFi was available on the apple site so far, the mini's hadn't shown up.

Re:"The most interesting new product"?

[daveschroeder]

Yeah, I figured you jumped on the submission. It was just the way it was worded that made me smile...like a leather iPod case is bigger news than Intel-based Mac mini media centers. ;-)

Just giving you a hard time. And I got one of the minis too.

Re:"The most interesting new product"?

[tdeuces]

Agreed -- the Mac mini announcement was the biggest and they seemed to have glossed over that in the summary. The Intel GMA950 graphics worries me a bit. From this spec page it looks like the graphics is shared with the main memory. Especially since these machines come, by default, with only 512 MB RAM.

Re:"The most interesting new product"?

[daveschroeder]

If it's anything like the previous Mac mini, and anything like Apple's general design philosophy for such devices, it will probably be whisper quiet and almost inaudible save for the hard disk.

Re:"The most interesting new product"?

[thexgodfather]

All I know is I can finnally afford a fast Mac computer... and it comes in the form of Mac mini that will happily record all the TV shows I want... Wait till Apirl 1st there will be all sorts of goodies released then! Apple is going to blow you away!! Time to stock up on apple stock

Re:"The most interesting new product"?

[ericdano]

Yeah, me too. However, since the MiniMac now supports up to 2 gigs of Ram, that shouldn't be too much on an issue. Now if some of the programs I use regularly (Protools, Finale, Digital Performer) were Intel compat......I'd get one.

Re:"The most interesting new product"?

[ericdano]

Yes. Being a MiniMac (1.62 gigahertz I think) owner, it is EXTREMELY quiet. However, the 5200RPM drive is just really slow. I ended up taking it out and using a firewire drive (MiniStack) to run it off of. It's quite a bit faster now. I think that is the big flaw in the model they are offering now. There should be an option for 7200RPM drives for extra.

The other problem with the minimac that they have fixed in this Intel version is the memory. Even a gig of ram in my MiniMac can be filled up no problem, then the little guy slows to a crawl. 2 Gigs of Ram is a welcome addition.

Now, just need more programs to be Universal Binary....

Re:"The most interesting new product"?

[Anonymous Coward]

what exactly is your concern with protools? all the latency-sensitive DSP crunching is offloaded to your bundled digidesign hardware appliance. the host CPU just draws widgets and manipulates files.

Re:"The most interesting new product"?

[hitchhikerjim]

Not only that, but it only runs 1920x1024 in analog mode. It won't even run my 23" display! ...and the processor in it is slower than the slowest of the coreDuo laptops. They could have at least matched the laptop specs.

I find myself disappointed yet again.

Re:"The most interesting new product"?

[Strudelkugel]

An interesting announcement would be:

Apple announces a decent mouse at a reasonable price.

First thing I got rid of when after I bought an iMac was the mouse. Tried a mightymouse, but that sucked, too. The computer is nice with lots of nifty features, but Apple is in Rolex territory when it comes to peripherals.

I thought about getting a Mini, but it's not really cost effective when compared to the iMac once you up the drive and add the cost of a monitor.

Seems to me the Mini is an underpowered iMac, and not cost competitive with a Mediacenter PC. Might be a good deal once they starting hitting eBay, though.

The boom box looks like Apple jumped the shark. Why not get a multi-function box and plug the iPod into an AUX port? At least you get FM, and probably XM or Sirius if you want it. I don't really get the non-video iPod, though. My cell phone has an MP3 player, so another music player that doesn't record and lacks a radio at a price higher than my phone is questionable. Wonder what they will come up with next that will actually be interesting.

Re:"The most interesting new product"?

[jcr]

What I want to know is what Apple's going to do with its new 107,000 square foot Tier IV data center... iTunes Movie/Media Store, anyone?

Oh, I don't think that's hard to guess at all. Upgrading the video to standard-def, then HD 720, HD 1080, longer programs, wider variety of material, deals with every studio that's got shows sitting on the shelf not making money... Just that could easily fill up that new data center within a year and a half.

-jcr

Re:"The most interesting new product"?

[Omicron]

I agree. A leather case and a dockable boombox for $349 != Wonderful Toys. Whoopty.

Re:"The most interesting new product"?

[flyingsquid]

An interesting announcement would be: Apple announces a decent mouse at a reasonable price.

You can pick up lots of those hockey-puck mice on eBay for about three bucks.

Re:"The most interesting new product"?

[Pii]

Is there any reason not to simply replace the drive with a larger, faster one? It's just a SATA drive, right?

Re:"The most interesting new product"?

[anagama]

I got an iHome (iSigh) for my iPod. It isn't big but the sound is fine for the bedroom. The best part is that it is an alarm clock that will use your ipod as the music source (also has AM/FM radio and beeper). One thing -- it's the easiest digital alarm clock to set -- it has a round spinning wheel to set the time and works forward or backward.

Re:"The most interesting new product"?

[Golias]

However, the 5200RPM drive is just really slow. I ended up taking it out and using a firewire drive (MiniStack) to run it off of. It's quite a bit faster now. I think that is the big flaw in the model they are offering now. There should be an option for 7200RPM drives for extra.

From the specs page:

A variety of hard drive capacities are available for Mac mini. All Mac mini models include standard Serial ATA hard drives featuring data transfers up to 1.5 Gigabits per second. All hard drives run at 7,200 revolutions per minute (rpm).

Re:"The most interesting new product"?

[ericdano]

Size. They are laptop drive. But if you are going to buy one, and want the faster drive, why not give the option of adding it inplace of the 5200RPM drive?

Re:"The most interesting new product"?

[Anonymous Coward]

How about the new Mac mini....
Wow, that is amazing....as slow, overpriced, piece of crap! Now cue the Apple fanboys justifying the price and making jokes about Micro$loth WinBlows, but you know this is the truth. You have to spend more on it to make it even usable in terms of speed...

I love how the submission is like "IPOD SPEAKERS", "LEATHER IPOD CASE", and then at the end, "oh yeah, and media center Intel-based Mac minis, too". ;-)
Maybe it is because they are right on what REAL people really care about? You know, the people actually buying Apples ipod stuff and keeping them profitable....

Re:"The most interesting new product"?

[ericdano]

Nope, you are wrong.

Apple's specs page says they are at 5400RPM.

Show me a link where they have 7200 listed.

Re:"The most interesting new product"?

[Anonymous Coward]

[...]but it only runs 1920x1024 in analog mode. It won't even run my 23" display!

How are you going to connect your 23" cinema display in analogue mode anyway? Of course I can't say for sure, but the old mac mini worked just fine with the 23". I'd be astonished if that wasn't still true.

Re:"The most interesting new product"?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Is there any reason not to simply replace the drive with a larger, faster one? It's just a SATA drive, right?"

It's a 2.5" drive. You could find a 7200RPM drive in that form factor but you wouldn't get much more capacity than the old drive and you'd be spending another $200, which is a lot for a $500 computer.

Re:"The most interesting new product"?

[Golias]

Go to the mini in the Apple Store, select a model, where they list hard drive options, click on "Read More." The text in my previous post is pasted directly from there.

The specs page you linked to is probably the one for the old mini.

Re:"The most interesting new product"?

[Golias]

Oh what the heck. I'm in a good mood. I'll do the work for you:

Not positive this link will work, since it's a drill-down in their store, but have fun.

Re:"The most interesting new product"?

[Pii]

I knew that had to be something more to it...

Thanks for the reply. I guess external drives are the way to go.

Re:"The most interesting new product"?

[ericdano]

Interesting, cause if you went to the link I listed it is NOT the old mini mac, unless they ran Intel chips as well. And it says 5400 RPM.

Re:"The most interesting new product"?

[NoStrings]

I picked up an iHome last weekend, and so far have been somewhat underwhelmed. The clock lacks a backlight (that I can find), which makes it useless as a night-time clock. It is also very sensitive to static electricity. If I touch the iPod and discharge a shock, it resets the clock to 12:00. Not very good for a clock that I am relying on to wake me up to be at work on time.

That being said, it does sound great.

Re:"The most interesting new product"?

[ericdano]

Something is not right, cause the main mini mac specs page lists it as 5400 RPM.

Right here. And it's the NEW model.

Re:"The most interesting new product"?

[object88]

Why not get a multi-function box and plug the iPod into an AUX port?

Not disagreeing that the iBoombox is a little... odd, but the integration with an iPod makes sense. You're not running your iPod's batteries down, and there are no extra wires hanging around. And it looks like the iBoombox does have an aux-in (minijack or SPDIF), so it would work with your digital radio receiver, CD player, 8-track, etc.

Re:"The most interesting new product"?

[Golias]

I'm going to trust the store over a brochure which was probably written a month before the Stevenote.

Re:"The most interesting new product"?

[Keith Russell]

Yeah, something is out of whack. The spec sheets state that the 60 GB and 80 GB drives are 5400 rpm. That "Learn more" page says that "all" drives are 7200 rpm. But I can't find a page where they explicitly state the spin speed of the optional 100 GB and/or 120 GB drives.

Re:"The most interesting new product"?

[anagama]

Something is wrong with yours then because mine has backlit face (blue, 3 levels of adjustable brightness by hitting snooze) and the keys are backlit in orange just like my 3d gen ipod keys. Take it back before your return period expires because it is broken.

Re:"The most interesting new product"?

[Golias]

Does anybody even make a 5400RPM SATA?

It could be that they originally planned it to be 5400s (which was still a jump up from the 4500RPM drives in the first G4 minis of the line) and were pleasantly suprised that their supplier was going to send them something better at the price point they wanted.

Re:"The most interesting new product"?

[Strudelkugel]

it would work with your digital radio receiver, CD player, 8-track, etc.

But $350???

For that much, one could buy the iHome described above and a Wally World boombox and still have money to spend on iTunes.

Re:"The most interesting new product"?

[reaktor]

Seems to me the Mini is an underpowered iMac

I agree, it's pretty close when you add everything up, plus the iMac comes standard with a 160GB desktop hard drive, and an actual video card.
Mac mini with DVDRW drive + any 17" LCD = ~$950. And you're getting a slow ass 80GB laptop hard drive.

I guess it comes down to the size and 'coolness' factor.

Re:"The most interesting new product"?

[maccalvin5]

The boom box looks like Apple jumped the shark. Why not get a multi-function box and plug the iPod into an AUX port? At least you get FM, and probably XM or Sirius if you want it. I don't really get the non-video iPod, though. My cell phone has an MP3 player, so another music player that doesn't record and lacks a radio at a price higher than my phone is questionable. Wonder what they will come up with next that will actually be interesting.

the way apple manages its products now isn't based on a wait-til-it's-perfect theme. it's more like, release-new-product-which-will-sell-just-as-well-a nd-then-upgrade-it-rapidly. this way the tech still makes it to market, but there are stepping stones. 350 dollar stepping stones.

that damn stereo is too expensive.

Re:"The most interesting new product"?

[biglig2]

It's OK, honestly, there's a lot of hype and so on but the simple fact is that if you buy a non-apple mouse there's only a small chance that Steve will creep into your house that night and eat your liver. Very small chance indeed.

Re:"The most interesting new product"?

[OwnedByTwoCats]

$800 for a 1.66 GHz Core Duo mini. You pay a big premium for the small size. Yes, it has a dual-layer DVD burner. But Notebook hard drive, with notebook hard-drive performance. Integrated video.

No Keyboard. No Monitor. No mouse. No spreadsheet. No drawing program. Pricy for what you do get.

Re:"The most interesting new product"?

[Golias]

I suspect Apple is targeting the people who buy those crappy Bose radios.

If they wanted to sell it mainly as a boom box, the iPod would not be sticking out of the top like that, but rather would slide in to a plastic enclosure like a cartrige. It would also have a single top handle.

They are probably hoping that boomers will use this for a personal stereo in their dens, offices, sewing rooms, sitting rooms, patios, etc.

It does look a lot more like a piece of mod furniture than something you would set on your tailgate while grilling brats outside Lambeau Field.

Re:"The most interesting new product"?

[OwnedByTwoCats]

Whether the boom box is expensive or not depends an awful lot on how it sounds, and how it is marketed. If it compares favorably to the Bose Wave Radio or Boom-Box, then it's a deal. The tuned-port woofer suggests premium sound, not $59 boom-box sound.

But you can't tell until you hear it.

Re:"The most interesting new product"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Have fun spending all the rest of your money fixing that Volkswagen as the elctrical system and everything else falls to shit...

Re:"The most interesting new product"?

[milkman_matt]

Not disagreeing that the iBoombox is a little... odd, but the integration with an iPod makes sense. You're not running your iPod's batteries down, and there are no extra wires hanging around. And it looks like the iBoombox does have an aux-in (minijack or SPDIF), so it would work with your digital radio receiver, CD player, 8-track, etc.

What I don't like is -- The HiFi seems to be made for home use -- If I'm at home I'd rather plug an airport express for $129 into my AV receiver and pump it through my surround system. The one upside to the HiFi is the fact that you can take it out to the pool or something, but for home use? I'd rather control it using iTunes on my powerbook through an Airport Express. Either that or hook up a mac mini to the AV receiver a'la home theater box and do it that way. Managing what I'm playing, changing songs, etc seems like it would be awkward if you're doing it on a -docked- iPod...

Re:"The most interesting new product"?

[StikyPad]

A Mac Mini "Media Center" with only DVI out? That makes sense. You'd think they would have thrown in at least an S-Video out. Or do they just expect that anyone who would buy it would already own a TV with DVI in?

No HDCP out, so no HD, no video inputs of any kind, so an external tuner is required if you want to use it as a PVR, although good luck storing more than a couple of shows on an 80GB drive.

Adding a remote does not a media center make. And while Jobs touts 6 buttons as an improvement, fewer buttons means more menu navigation. I prefer buttons with direct access to the operations I want to perform, thanks.

Re:"The most interesting new product"?

[afidel]

Yes, lots of places make laptop 5400RPM SATA drives, just type those three terms into google would tell you that. Given that the Technical Specifications sheet lists 5400RPM I would say that is the speed until several people have them in their hands and confirm 7200RPM.

Re:"The most interesting new product"?

[daveschroeder]

Did you miss the part where you can actually do VGA, Composite, S-Video, and HDMI out? (And this isn't a DVR...so it doesn't need video in. If you need video (or TV) in, either get a third party product to go along with your Mac mini. This isn't for recording TV or external sources. Your external "source" is the iTunes store. That's Apple's strategy.)

And yes, you can most certainly do HD video without HDCP. (???)

And only a "couple of shows" on an *80 GB* drive (you can get up to 120, and keep the price of the whole unit in mind, please, and if you think you can build a better PC, no one's forcing you to buy a Mac mini)? LOL!

And as for your button complains, apparently you've never used, or even seen, Front Row.

Next troll?

Re:"The most interesting new product"?

[fyngyrz]

Generally, the reason that shared ram between main memory and graphics hardware is an issue is because when the memory is talking to the graphics hardware, the CPU can't get at it, and vice-versa. The higher the display resolution, the more often the graphics hardware MUST get at the RAM, and so the CPU has to wait. This means that the effective, overall speed of such a system drops according to how much RAM is being used for display, and how fast the display refresh rate is (because this controls how soon the graphics adaptor must read the memory again.)

Some memory designs are built so that all memory access is shared, and so even if, say, the graphics adaptor is only using 128 MB of memory, the CPU is still blocked from getting at ANY of the system RAM when the graphics adaptor is accessing.

Now, there are other ways to design RAM systems, and I am not privvy to how the Intel Mac Mini is designed, but I can tell you that the above is why people are nervous about a shared design; there have been many cases where such a shared design meant that the only way to eke decent performance out of a computer is to use low resolution 8-bit gfx. I own a machine like this; it is a Dell server, came with no OS and I put Linux on it. If you set Linux for 24-bit desktop, the machine just pigs down to a crawl, doesn't matter if it's trying to get at the display memoy or not, the amount of access to RAM that is available is just about zero. But put it in 800x600 with 256 colors, and it just flies along (it's a 3 GHz machine, it should!)

As far as I am concerned, it's an unknown until we get some benchies done. Big ol RAM-bound sort with the display in hires, same job with the display in blind-old-man mode, then see what, if any, are the execution time differences. That'll tell the most important tale right there.

Re:"The most interesting new product"?

[toddestan]

You can pick up lots of those hockey-puck mice on eBay for about three bucks.

Yeah, but he said a decent mouse. If you only pay $3 for one of those useless hockey puck mice, you're still getting ripped off.

Re:"The most interesting new product"?

[googrit]

The "learn more" page with 7200 rpm must be in error, because the sizes of the drives are 80, 100, and 120 GB, and I am pretty sure there aren't any 120 GB 7200 rpm notebook drives yet.

Re:"The most interesting new product"?

[Anonymous Coward]

"They could have at least matched the laptop specs."

1.83 GHz MacBook... $1999
1.66 GHz Mini $799

If they'd been able to "at least match the laptop specs", then what would you have been paying $1200 for? Just the screen, keyboard and trackpad, or...?

Two-core systems make processor speed a much smaller issue. People buy faster computers to feel faster. A dual-core system tends to feel much faster no matter what because the UI doesn't get held up by other processes nearly as much.

I bought a 1.8 GHz single processor G5. Luckily it had a manufacturing defect and I had to return it within three days. I say luckily because when I returned it, I paid the extra to get a dual 2.0. The difference was night and day. UI and loading delays on the 1.8 had been serious. On the dual 2.0 they were essentially unnoticeable, like on a cartridge based game console.

Re:"The most interesting new product"?

[StikyPad]

Hi, it's me again. The same "troll." Because anyone who isn't a fanboy is a troll, obviously.

Yes, I did miss the part about the VGA, Composite, S-Video, and HDMI out. I only saw the connectors on the back. If there's an adapter, then I retract my complaint about lack of such.

And yes, you can most certainly do HD video without HDCP. (???)

Not really. True, there are no BluRay or HD-DVD drives even on the market yet, but could you add one when they're released in May? I doubt it. I'm not saying it makes the Mac Mini worthless, just not great as a media center, even for the price.

And only a "couple of shows" on an *80 GB* drive

80GB is tiny for PVR purposes, especially when you factor in that the same storage is used for the OS and any other software you want to install. PVR, in my opinion, is part of what makes a "media center PC" a media center PC. Roughly 50% of it, in fact.

no one's forcing you to buy a Mac mini

So I can only voice my opinion when someone's forcing me to buy things? I'll keep that in mind in the future. Thanks for straightening me out.

And as for your button complains, apparently you've never used, or even seen, Front Row.

I'm not going to argue about fewer buttons = less efficient input; that's a given. Think cell phones vs. keyboards. Unless FrontRow can read my mind, it's going to need more menus for the same functionality when compared to a more complete remote.

Next troll.

Re:"The most interesting new product"?

[R3d M3rcury]

"[...] the simple fact is that if you buy a non-apple mouse there's only a small chance that Steve will creep into your house that night and eat your liver."

Since he's a vegan (or pescatarian or whatever restricted diet he observes), I think you're real safe from him eating your liver.

Phil, on the other hand, looks like he'd eat your liver if you considered using a non-Apple mouse. So you're not completely safe.

Better stick with Linux, I guess.

Re:"The most interesting new product"?

[inkfox]

What kind of shitty 23" display do you use analog with?

Re:"The most interesting new product"?

[daveschroeder]

Yes, I did miss the part about the VGA, Composite, S-Video, and HDMI out. I only saw the connectors on the back. If there's an adapter, then I retract my complaint about lack of such.

Yes, there are adapters for those things. But since I said it had those things in my original post that you were replying to, I figured that you either 1.) missed it, or 2.) didn't even read my post.

Not really. True, there are no BluRay or HD-DVD drives even on the market yet, but could you add one when they're released in May? I doubt it.

What does this have to do with being able to do HD out of a Mac mini without HDCP? I can do HD video right now (and will be able to with an Intel-based Mac mini), not with HDCP. And also, has it occurred to you that Apple might start selling HD content via the iTunes store, which also won't require HDCP?

I'm not saying it makes the Mac Mini worthless, just not great as a media center, even for the price.

Well, it's actually pretty perfect for people who use iPhoto to manage their photos, use iTunes to manage (or download) their music (and download videos and TV shows), and also have (an)other Mac(s) that have such items on them, since it's able to dynamically detect and connect these things over the network, in a manner than normal people can use.

In fact, this is *far* more desirable than a typical Windows or MythTV media center type system to quite a large number of people. Far more people than you realize.

80GB is tiny for PVR purposes, especially when you factor in that the same storage is used for the OS and any other software you want to install.

That's pretty funny, considering most DVRs - even those intended for *HD* purposes - from commercial cable and satellite operators have 40 or 80GB drives. For example, the Motorola BMC9012 and 9022D that Charter is currently deploying as "Charter DVR" has a 40GB hard drive. It stores 42 hours of standard definition content, 14 hours of HD content, or a mix of both.

Believe it or not, this is more than enough for ordinary humans.

And, regardless, you can get up to a 120GB drive in the Mac mini. "Tiny" for a "real" media center, I know. (Not to mention there's a dual-layer DVD burner, but I digress.)

PVR, in my opinion, is part of what makes a "media center PC" a media center PC. Roughly 50% of it, in fact.

Well, 1.) that's your opinion, and 2.) no one ever said the Mac mini was a PVR. Also, in case you'd missed it, Apple's model for accessing content from TV is not recording it, but downloading it. Sure, not *everything* is there, but imagine a TV download store with the breadth of the iTunes Music Store, where essentially everything is available for download, all without commercials. If you're a a retard with no life who needs to watch dozens of TV shows a week, or hoard TV shows just for the sake of doing it on terabyte disks in your leet MythTV tower system, downloading TV from iTunes - or the Mac mini, for that matter - probably isn't for you. But if you're a normal person, in an environment where the iTunes offerings are greatly expanded, you might be able to see a day where downloading the shows you want from iTunes on demand is actually cheaper - and a better experience - than paying for your cable or satellite operator and recording them. In fact, you might only keep your broadband connection and choose to use the iTunes/iPod/Mac/etc. paradigm to obtain and manage your media.

Sure, go ahead and laugh, but that's *exactly* what Apple has positioned themselves for, and *exactly* what will make them just as successful in that arena as the music store that just got done selling 1 billion songs.

Why deal with the nightmare hassles of tuning various cable and satellite providers in different markets, multiple tuners, and all of this crap when you can sell content directly from the content originators to the end customer, on-demand, and with (currently, anyway) no commercials?

So I can only voice my opinion when som

Re:"The most interesting new product"?

[Millenniumman]

They could have at least matched the laptop specs. The MacBook Pro is a high end, professional level computer. The Mac Mini is the low end, inexpensive model. Is there any regular computer maker (id est, a computer maker that sells all price points of computers, rather than a niche high end company) whose most expensive laptop is less powerful than its least expensive desktop?

Re:"The most interesting new product"?

[GaryPatterson]

I'm not going to argue about fewer buttons = less efficient input; that's a given. Think cell phones vs. keyboards. Unless FrontRow can read my mind, it's going to need more menus for the same functionality when compared to a more complete remote.

Seriously? You equate more buttons with more efficient?

This is nothing like phones versus keyboards. It's about how you don't need thirty buttons for an interface to a media device. The Apple remote is pretty nice and it's actually all you need.

If you get the chance, try it out.

The contrary case can be illustrated by the iPod - an elegant, efficient interface with only the click wheel and one button. Compare that with the many-buttoned interfaces offered by competitors, who continually fail to scratch the iPod market.

Re:"The most interesting new product"?

[Shanep]

If you set Linux for 24-bit desktop, the machine just pigs down to a crawl, doesn't matter if it's trying to get at the display memoy or not, the amount of access to RAM that is available is just about zero. But put it in 800x600 with 256 colors, and it just flies along (it's a 3 GHz machine, it should!)

Yes, I have never liked a portion of main memory being used as actual frame buffer memory. It must be one of the worst money grabbing cludges of a design the computer industry has ever seen. In good company with WinMODEMS and brain dead GDI printers. But that is expected more often the cheaper you go. I am surprised the old SCSI loving, Firewire pushing Apple, of all companies, would stoop that low.

If someone were to actually use this new Mac Mini at the highest advertised resolution of 1920x1200 with 24bit colour and a typical 60Hz (for LCD's), this equates to a CONSTANT bandwidth requirement from main memory of about 396Mbytes/sec for 3 bytes per pixel or about 527Mbytes/sec for 4 bytes per pixel (which is sometimes used for alignment performance advantages).

~400 to ~500 Mbytes/sec taken from your main memory bandwidth. Yikes. Even with that fast 667MHz DDR2 RAM that's a pretty hefty chunk.

What I would really like to know, is if the older surplus PPC Mini's are still available, possibly at a reduced cost? I would like another Mini as my home web and mail server, since the power is so low I wouldn't feel bad about leaving it on constantly (I would replace the HDD with CF and mostly run out of a ramdisk under OpenBSD). I'll have to watch eBay.

Re:"The most interesting new product"?

[larkost]

You are disappointed that the lowest end Apple desktop is not faster than the high end laptop? Why?

And you do realize that your 23" display will work fine if you use it in digital mode, since the Mac mini supports 1920x1200 in digital mode (and explicitly supports the 23" Cinema Display).

I think you find yourself with really wrong expectations again.

Re:"The most interesting new product"?

[pete-classic]

The S/PDIF has always been the sticking point with me. Now that it's got it, I'm getting on! (That'll be my first Mac.)

I'd rather not have to get the goofy 1/8th inch adapter, but that's a pretty small matter.

Yay!

-Peter

Re:"The most interesting new product"?

[Golias]

Given that the order page specifically says that they are 7200 drives, and they can get sued if they deliver anything else, I'd say it's a good bet that they are 7200 drives.

Re:"The most interesting new product"?

[Golias]

Strike all that. They edited their order page to read 5400.

It's still a step up from the old mini, which spun at 4500.

Re:"The most interesting new product"?

[Golias]

The "learn more" page with 7200 rpm must be in error

It was. They fixed it today.

Re:"The most interesting new product"?

[fyngyrz]

As I understand it, dealers still have plenty of the G4 units, it's just that you can't get them from the Apple store.

Back when I was designing graphics hardware (a couple of decades, now) there was "dual ported ram" that actually had two access ports which ran asynchronously. This allowed the display hardware to get at the ram without ever abusing the CPU's ability to do so, as the CPU used another bus.

Seems like that'd be the correct solution here, make the lower 64 megs (or whatever the graphics might need) with a dual port design, and the rest out of your usual run of the mill stick of RAM. Then a shared RAM design changes from a liability to an asset because everything runs at full speed, all the time.

Of course, that stuff was expensive then, and if it's even available now, it's probably still expensive.

One more thing -- some graphics hardware can use alpha as the last byte of 32 bits, and can use region overlay and positioning (as in windows, sprites, and cursors) so there is another reason to use four bytes instead of three. And of course if you're feeding the thing GPU instructions or chains of XY co-ordinates, four bytes might be just the ticket there as well.

Re:"The most interesting new product"?

[biglig2]

Well, obviously the detail work of actually eating the liver would be left to Apples Special Projects (Canibalism) department, but he'd definitely be closely supervising the process.

Don't see a model ....

[p.rican]

for $499. Seem to be starting at $599 w/ 512MB RAM, 1.6GHz Intel core solo and 80 Gig Hard drive. I'll still grag the Power mac mini for the lower price point.

Re:Don't see a model ....

[generic-man]

The Mac mini has shared video memory, so you really get 448 MB (512 - 64) of usable system memory.

Jeez, shared memory. Even my $300 Dell doesn't stoop that low.

Re:Don't see a model ....

[Tumbleweed]

These now include wifi and bluetooth, which I think is where the price disparity comes in (though I could be wrong).

Re:Don't see a model ....

[Anonymous Coward]

> Jeez, shared memory. Even my $300 Dell doesn't stoop that low.

Exactly what graphics card is in your $300 Dell? AFAIK all budget Dells ship with Intel GMA (or even worse, Intel Extreme Graphics), which use shared video memory, and many don't have AGP or PCIe slots.

Re:Don't see a model ....

[generic-man]

I'm pretty sure it's Intel Extreme Graphics but it doesn't appear to take any of the system RAM away. StatBar claims I have 256 MB of RAM available to Windows, the total amount of RAM that came with the system.

Re:Don't see a model ....

[tverbeek]

Yeah, even with educational discounts, the cheapest new Mac available is now $579. Granted, it's largely psychological, but they've lost the switch-enticing marketing hook of being able to say, "You can get a new Mac for under $500."

Re:Don't see a model ....

[miscz]

Some Intel GMAs have memory (64mb) and take more (another 64mb) if they are in need AFAIK.

Re:Don't see a model ....

[robbieduncan]

It's worse than that. From the tech spec pages (small print at the bottom)

Memory available to Mac OS X may vary depending on graphics needs. Minimum graphics memory usage is 80MB, resulting in 432MB of system memory available.

Re:Don't see a model ....

[jcr]

I think they're just charging the early-adopter premium right now. When the costs for the parts drop, so will the price of the Mini.

-jcr

Re:Don't see a model ....

[Anonymous Coward]

They updated MacMinis to include Bluetooth and Wifi dy default a couple of months ago

Re:Don't see a model ....

[tverbeek]

When the costs for the parts drop, so will the price of the Mini.

That's not really Apple's way of doing things, though. More likely the cost of the parts will go down, Apple will upgrade to faster/bigger parts, and the price will stay the same.

Re:Don't see a model ....

[anagama]

AC is right -- the previous models (except for the cheapest 499 model) had wifi and bluetooth, but no modem (the 499 model only had a modem). Given that video is shared in these new minis and the 599 model only has 512mb ram and single core processor, I wonder if it will actually be all that much faster than the g4 model. At least w/ the g4, all the installed ram was useable by the system and did not have to be shared.

Sooo....

[AKAImBatman]

...we're supposed to get worked up over a leather case for an iPod all while Slashdot continues to ignore Jonathan Schwartz's offer of free hardware for Slashdot? I must be missing something.

Re:Sooo....

[7macaw]

Because, unlike them ugly gray SunFire boxes, iPod gear is so cute! :P

Re:Sooo....

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't see anything in that link about free hardware. I did see a link for a "don't pay for 60 days" for sun servers, but that's not free in any interpretation of the word.

Re:Sooo....

[lga]

Have you told any of the editors? You can't expect them to read comments, you know.

Re:Sooo....

[AKAImBatman]

I submitted a story twice. The first time it was outright rejected. The second time it was left in Pending for days. It's still in pending. :-/

Re:Sooo....

[Anonymous Coward]

That free trial is so tempting...

We are busy writing video codecs at work, mostly floating point implementations (for research), but also one in integer only thats blazingly fast.

I'd like to see if the UltraSparc T1 cpu can handle this type of work. Although I doubt it, since we use vector integer to speed up our code. Currently our codec is memory starved on an intel cpu.

Re:Sooo....

[mr i want to go home]

It was on the front page, what...a week or two ago?

Re:Sooo....

[TheRaven64]

Currently our codec is memory starved on an intel cpu

Is bandwidth or latency your biggest problem? If it's bandwidth, then I'm not sure what Niagara would do for you, but if it's latency then you could probably get a big boost by splitting your codec into 32 threads (I presume you can just split the image into 4x8 blocks, or something). Then, every time you got a cache miss on a core it would switch to the next thread and start processing that. You might get a similar speedup with a P4 with HyperThreading (or a POWER4/5 with SMT), but to a slightly lesser degree.

Re:Sooo....

[AKAImBatman]

Dude, pay more attention.

Last week, CowboyNeal said: "Mr. Schwartz, if you're reading this, feel free to send us one with "Attn: CowboyNeal" on the label."

The story is that Schwartz has replied with: "to the folks at slashdot, send me your contact data, we're happy to send a Niagara system for you to take a look at. Something tells me you fit the target demographic perfectly... (no floating point, heavy threading, etc.)"

Kapesh?

Re:Sooo....

[pintomp3]

read the comments? they don't even RTFA!

Re:Sooo....

[thogard]

I would love to see that Sparc CPU in a mac but I don't think its going to happen since King Steve wants to play golf with the CEO of a company that used to be on top of the x86 architecture.

Why is Steve so good when he has to appease the board but delivers such junk after he's been crowned King of Apple?

Re:Sooo....

[mr i want to go home]

Ah, sir - apologies. Perhaps CN has no wish for this to be public knowledge (free advertising blah blah blah). Just make a link to the story in your sig.

Wow, a leather case

[Anonymous Coward]

How exciting, I almost wet my pants.
And a boombox for the ipod, now if that isn't a novell idea...

And yes, they switched some more of their computers to intel, who would have thought.

Another Apple commercial brought to you by /.

Re:Wow, a leather case

[100 Percent Troll]

Novell Idea??? I'd hte to see a Novell iPod...all command-liney and stuff....YUK!

Kind of underwhelming

[Anonymous Coward]

These are basically the products that were slated for this past January, but were yanked last minute. Expect the really cool stuff in April 1 when Apple celebrates it's anniversary!

New Products

[justaj]

The mac mini got a nice update, though a tv tuner card would have been nice. Not sure i'd pay $350 for a boombox though...

Re:New Products

[i_should_be_working]

Not sure i'd pay $350 for a boombox though...

Oh, I would, for sure. I can't wait to spend money on a high fidelity system to listen to sub-CD quality songs piped from a portable device.

Bye bye stereo!

Re:New Products

[yammosk]

If they put in a tv tuner card, why would anyone buy TV Shows of iTunes?

Re:New Products

[elister]

"If they put in a tv tuner card, why would anyone buy TV Shows of iTunes?"

Maybe because they forgot to program the tuner to record it?

I would have been more impressed if they slapped in a Digital HD tuner card and some basic software to time record events. If users cant figure out how to program the tuner to record shows (some people cant even figure out how to download MP3s illegally) they can buy them from Apple. Who cares if the quality is worse than analog TV, its hassle free.

PS
I would never buy a Mac for this purpose. MyHD records, XBMC Plays and for alot less than a Mac Mini, even if it had a HD Tuner.

Re:New Products

[Gilmoure]

'Cause no one's showing My Mother, the Car?

Re:New Products

[squiggleslash]

If they put in a tv tuner card, why would anyone buy TV Shows of iTunes?

Great... typo/grammar error.

"iTunes is filmed in front of a live, studio, audience!"

Re:New Products

[c_forq]

sub-CD quality songs

You know there are things called losses formats right? Not just loss-less compression, but flat out no compression. There are also music people who use iPods for transferring (and listening to) music they are working on. I know a few people who listen to what they have already recorded when moving to a different studio location, or listen to the raw cut on their way to taking it to the person mastering and mixing.

Re:New Products

[i_should_be_working]

What does transferring music have to do with a non-portable $350 system?

Re:New Products

[c_forq]

It is portable. Notice the battery compartment on the back.

Re:New Products

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you fucking stupid? He said That you don't have to listen to compressed formats, which was a response to your post.

Being taken over by fucking nimrods, I swear.

Re:New Products

[i_should_be_working]

We have different views on what portable is.

But anyway, that's beside my original point. I was just poking fun at this thing being called hi-fi. mp3s aren't hi-fi. Yes, someone can play lossles music on it, but then the ipod isn't hi-fi either. Nothing about this is hi-fi. Yet Apple calls it a hi-fi home stereo. Funny.

Re:New Products

[c_forq]

We have differant views on what Hi-fi is.

Seeing as High fidelity was a marketing term used for things such as FM radio receivers. Wikipedia notes both MP3 and the iPod under their article on Hi-fi.
Nowadays, hi-fi equipment usually includes signal sources such as CD players and Digital Audio Broadcasting (DAB) tuners, an amplifier, and loudspeakers. Some modern hi-fi equipment can be digitally connected using fiber optic and TOSLINK cables and can have univeral serial bus (USB) ports and wireless fidelity (WiFi) support. One modern component that is making fast gains in acceptance is the music server consisting of one or more computer hard drives that holds music in the form of computer files such as MP3s. Increasingly, audiophiles are connecting portable versions of music servers like Apple's iPods to their systems for relatively quick and easy access to thousands of songs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hi-fi

I would like to note that the iPod Hi-Fi also contians a mini-TOSLINK input too.

Re:New Products

[i_should_be_working]

Wikipedia has different views on what Hi-Fi is. From the same article (How'd you miss that I wonder, it's at the top):

High fidelity or hi-fi reproduction is a quality standard that means the reproduction of sound or images is very faithful to the original. High fidelity aims to achieve minimal or unnoticeable amounts of noise and distortion. The term high fidelity tends to be applied to any reasonable-quality home-music system, though some believe that a higher standard than this is intended, and in 1973, the German Deutsches Institut für Normung (DIN) standard DIN 45500 laid down mimimum requirements for measurements of frequency response, distortion, noise and other defects and gained some recognition in hi-fi magazines.

mp3s have noticeable amounts of noise and distortion. The iPod has noticeable amounts of noise and distortion. Not Hi-Fi. Not even according to the lowest standard quoted above.

Re:New Products

[xouumalperxe]

If they put in an mp3 encoder in iTunes, why would anyone buy songs off of iTMS?

Looks like the new iMac could make

[krisp]

a great HTPC. With spdif and 4 usb, could easily hook up a few USB television tuners and run mythtv. If i hadn't just built a windows mce htpc, i'd go this route.

Re:Looks like the new iMac could make

[ladybugfi]

What tv-tuner cards (preferably digital, DVB) would you use with this new Mac mini? Without them it's several cards short of full deck.

Re:Looks like the new iMac could make

[Anonymous Coward]

Can myth be run on a mac mini? Do you have to ditch the Apple OS?

Re:Looks like the new iMac could make

[glennrrr]

I'd buy a refurbed El Gato EyeTV 500 for $199. It's an extremely sensitive HDTV Firewire tuner. I don't know when they'll have an Intel version of their software out, so wait till that's available.

Re:Looks like the new iMac could make

[glennrrr]

There is a mythfrontend for the Mac. No mythbackend, AFAIK. I'm hopeful that when and if it's compiled for Intel, a Mac Mini will be able to keep up with 1080i, I'd really like to know how the choice of integrated graphics in the new Mac Mini affects full screen video performance.

Re:Looks like the new iMac could make

[modecx]

When the MythTV guys get the frontend to work on the Intel Macs, the mini should work very reasonably for non-HD playback, as many people have done with the G4 minis.

The big difference, as far as I can see, is that the Intel graphics chipset should support high definition resolution MPEG2 decoding, at least according to Intel's site... So, even if the CPU dosen't have enough horsepower to decode HD, the graphics should. The PPC mini, on the other hand, could not decode MPEG2 at HD resolutions fast enough to be enjoyable. This might make the mini a very attractive part to have in a geek's home theatre when combined with an HD capable MythTV backend server--it's small and damned near silent... Plus, it could be perfectly silent if the mini was net-booted from the Myth server... One shouldn't even need the dual core model.

New Mac mini video chipset! Made for Home theater!

[Danathar]

In case anybody cares...the video chipset on this thing was MADE for home theater! It has hardware motion compensation, MPEG-2 hardware decoding, support for native HDTV resolutions and 16x9 aspect displays..among other nice stuff. It's NOT a big 3d gaming platform but definitely has the stuff for decoding video.

http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/gma950/

How... underwhelming!

[Antitorgo]

Is it just me, or was that thing waaaay overhyped?

Re:How... underwhelming!

[maverick97008]

It is probably just you.

Re:How... underwhelming!

[gasmonso]

All aboard the iPod bandwagon. Woooooo!!!! woooo!!!!!

Re:How... underwhelming!

[Anonymous Coward]

definitely

mac mini was expected at some point. the only real change was use of bonjour making it more something for the living room.
iPod cases.. can anyone say rip off??
ipod hifi, wow they've invented the stereo! next they'll invent one with a radio!

Re:How... underwhelming!

[jellomizer]

It was but not really by apple. Apple just said we will be releasing some fun new things, then had a small room to show some people. It was the media and the average Joe who was buisy speculating and pumping rumers, making it bigger then it should be. On the MWE we felt like some things were missing, and those were the things. I couple of small items that wern't quite ready yet. I am sure most of us were hopeing for a One more thing. Like a 17" MacBook or something that will shake the computing world. But we just got an update of some fun new products. It is your fault for getting into the hype, not apple per say.

Re:How... underwhelming!

[kebes]

It's not just you. When Apple released the news about the iMac and the MacBook Pro, Apple stock (AAPL; Nasdaq) rose about 8% during the speech! It was funny to watch the stock soar with every sentence that came out of Steeve's mouth.

This time around, however, the stock dropped 3% since today's opening price (as of 2:45pm EST anyways). I think this time around people are less impressed. It's now "business as usual" for Apple to be deliver new products in a timely fashion (everyone expected the mini to arrive). Most of the new stuff (the leather carrying case and the boombox) actually point to the fact that sales of ipods will not last forever, and so they are trying to capitalize on side-products related to the ipods. While this means some short-term gains, it is clear that they cannot continue selling ipods (and accessories) at the current rate forever.

I wouldn't say I'm underwhelmed, but this announcement was certainly not the amazing news that the intel-switch or the MacBook Pro release were.

Re:How... underwhelming!

[jcr]

I think this time around people are less impressed.

Every time Apple ships another machine and omits the antigravity feature, the stock takes a hit. On days with no news, we usually see a fifty cents to a dollar in gains.

-jcr

Re:How... underwhelming!

[mgabrys_sf]

The whole market is getting clobbered today - particularly Google - and you're thinking Apple's investor traffic is giving a shit about 2 product announcements?

I'd recommend you stay away from day trading for a while.

Re:How... underwhelming!

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of the new stuff (the leather carrying case and the boombox) actually point to the fact that sales of ipods will not last forever, and so they are trying to capitalize on side-products related to the ipods. While this means some short-term gains, it is clear that they cannot continue selling ipods (and accessories) at the current rate forever.

They'd better be able to ride that shiny little bugger for another couple of years, anyway, or there will be a lot of unhappy shareholders. Because neither accessories nor anemic computer sales nor even another billion 99-cent songs will ever come close to replacing the cash cow.

Wonder how it compares to...

[TechSnack]

the Bose (http://www.bose.com/controller?event=VIEW_PRODUCT _PAGE_EVENT&product=wr_wave_index) WaveRadio... For around $350 it looks like a better deal, since I can plugin the iPod into this too.. and get great sound...

Re:Wonder how it compares to...

[Overzeetop]

the Bose Wave Radio...I can plugin the iPod into this too.. and get great sound...

Well, one out of two ain't bad ;-)

Re:Wonder how it compares to...

[lxt]

It doesn't.

There's a reason Bose stands for "Buy Other Sound Equipment". They shell out a lot of money of marketing on technology that is way behind the current standard, and it's because of this impressive mass marketing that people think their products are at the "cutting edge". They're not. Bose 802s are a nightmare speaker to deal with, requiring their own controllers and EQs made buy Bose...for little to no gain to sound fidelity, for a lot of the price. Their personal hi-fi equipment is not much better. Really overhyped, little actual performance for the money.

That is to say, they're not *bad* speakers, and their iPod dock gives a good sound - but for the money, you could do so, so, much better.

Re:Wonder how it compares to...

[DogDude]

If the iPod thingies have a 1/8" standard headphone output, can't you plug the damned thing into ANYTHING? If I owned an iPod, why would I want to pay even more for some custom amp? Radio Shack sells these 1/8" nifty wires that let you plug ANY audio device into, well, pretty much any other audio device.

Re:Wonder how it compares to...

[Anonymous Coward]

You'll eventually have to buy one because soon http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11409391/ you won't have a Radio Shack to run out to. Besides, the headphone jack signal is not line level.

Re:Wonder how it compares to...

[kidcharles]

Looking at the "Hi-Fi" unit it instantly occurred to me that this thing has GOT to sound better than the similar crap that Bose produces. Just looking at the speakers and ports I'd say, at least mechanically if not electronically, it might have pretty good sound for the size. I still think it's sad that despite the march of technology in terms of computational power, "old school" concerns like sound quality are often neglected.

Re:Wonder how it compares to...

[siliconwafer]

Bose makes great products. Apple does too. But what is Apple's track record with home audio? I already know that Bose makes great home audio products, I have some of them and am extremely pleased.

Have you listened to the apple product? To the bose product? Side by side? Done an A/B of them?

I'll take the Bose.

$99 for a leather case?

[stefanlasiewski]

"iPod leather cases. We've been working on these for a while. We're gonna sell these for $99, they go on sale in mid March."

I got a leather case for my iPod, with a microfiber lining for free. I've seen dozens of similar leather pouches for $5. What can a $99 leather case get me?

Re:$99 for a leather case?

[confusion here]

An Apple logo, duh.

Re:$99 for a leather case?

[jellomizer]

I can go to Walmart and get a par of sneakers for like $10 why should I go to a shoe store and pay $200 for an other pair?

Its called style. Some people care more then others. If they want to look cool they pay a lot of money for it.

Re:$99 for a leather case?

[minus_273]

"What can a $99 leather case get me?"

the same thing a $500 Mp3 player can get you ;)

Re:$99 for a leather case?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe it's genuine Tiger skin leather.

Re:$99 for a leather case?

[Anonymous Coward]

"What can a $99 leather case get me?"

the same thing a $500 Mp3 player can get you ;)

Fruity bumsex?

Re:$99 for a leather case?

[tverbeek]

I can go to Walmart and get a par of sneakers for like $10 why should I go to a shoe store and pay $200 for an other pair?

Because you want shoes made by foreign laborers earning $1/hour instead of by slave laborers paid 5cents/hour?

Re:$99 for a leather case?

[llZENll]

no kidding, i was about the post the same thing. only apple could sell a $1 piece of animal hide for $99 bucks. oh but wait, I MUST HAVE ONE!

Re:$99 for a leather case?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is a profit leader leather case for Apple to support loss leader products.

Re:$99 for a leather case?

[Politburo]

What can a $99 leather case get me?

Another Apple logo.

Re:$99 for a leather case?

[nblender]

> What can a $99 leather case get me?

Laid.

Re:$99 for a leather case?

[Tweekster]

yes but those shoes actually have style....unlike the crap here.

Re:$99 for a leather case?

[FaasNat]

Oh man. You don't know what you started. All tech geeks are going to buy one of these now. Watch the Apple store for the 3 month back order... :-D

Re:$99 for a leather case?

[MouseR]

They're gonna sell a ton.

Re:$99 for a leather case?

[Mr. Underbridge]

Well, yeah, but by a cute little angst-ridden emo guy. Dunno about you, that's not my idea of a good time.

Re:$99 for a leather case?

[The Cubelodyte]

Laid, eh? You mean by other humans, or is it just a Fleshlight (NSFW) competitor for geeks who really, really love Apple products?

And no, before you reply with questions about how I know about Fleshlights, I don't own one. Sandwich bags and sofa cushions work just fine, thanks.

Re:$99 for a leather case?

[idonthack]

Sandwich bags and sofa cushions

W
T
F
!!!

Re:$99 for a leather case?

[Zhe Mappel]

What can a $99 leather case get me?

The gratitude of thieves.

Re:$99 for a leather case?

[StikyPad]

What can a $99 leather case get me?

If you buy 100 of them, you could probably stitch together a nice jacket.

Re:$99 for a leather case?

[StikyPad]

Unless she's a card carrying PETA member, in which case you'll just get blood thrown at your iPod which also, I think, might void the warranty.

Re:$99 for a leather case?

[geofferensis]

It has the word iPod on it too. Two of those letters are vowels, which are pricey.

Re:$99 for a leather case?

[Anonymous Coward]

A chemist friend of mine bought some real nice leather couches for his house... then he started dating a vegan hippy type. I helped him swap the nice couches with the old ones he had in the basement. He didn't find my offer to buy then for $10 amusing and she did find them.

Apple goodies

[Anonymous Coward]

5 new peoducts and iPOD leather case is one of them? This reminds me of 100+ new features advertised in Panther. Some of those 'features' turned out to be bug fixes.

Mod Parent Up for Truth + Sarcasm + Wit :P

[Anonymous Coward]

No kidding. Can't say I'm surprised about the Intel based Mac Minis. Now, to just get them down to a reasonable price point ...

Intel GMA950 graphics

[mzs]

Graphics and Video Support
Intel GMA950 graphics processor with 64MB of DDR2 SDRAM shared with main memory

Memory available to Mac OS X may vary depending on graphics needs. Minimum graphics memory usage is 80MB, resulting in 432MB of system memory available.

How capable is this Intel integrated graphics? How does it compare to that in the old ($100 cheaper) PPC mini or the new Duo iMac?

Re:Intel GMA950 graphics

[Anonymous Coward]

You're better of with the old chipset.

Re:Intel GMA950 graphics

[FuturePastNow]

It's roughly equivalent to the Radeon 9200 in the old Mini, and about 10% as powerful as the x1600 the other new Macs use. In other words...enjoy getting 10fps in World of Warcraft.

Here's some tech specs: http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1821808 ,00.asp

Re:Intel GMA950 graphics

[plj]

How capable is this Intel integrated graphics? How does it compare to that in the old ($100 cheaper) PPC mini or the new Duo iMac?

Don't know, but I still remember how they used to make a big number about how the Mac Mini had a dedicated GPU, and cheap PCs didn't. Google remembers too (read the chapter “Lock the Target”).

Funny how it is no longer important at all. Even though Mac minis definitely do not have any slots for those add-on graphics cards. Welcome to the wonderful world of advertising...

Re:Intel GMA950 graphics

[mixmasta]

Warcraft 3 works fine on my Sony ... (pentiumM 1Ghz, intel 855 graphics machine).

Is WOW that much more demanding? Shouldn't a 950 and 500 more mhz improve it?

Re:Intel GMA950 graphics

[FuturePastNow]

Well, I was thinking of a friend of mine, who really wants a new Mini so he can play WoW on his HDTV. It's almost certainly going to be unplayable at those resolutions; it is for my friend now with the current Mini, and the graphics are not much of an improvement (the computer should be faster for everything else, though).

And yeah, the system requirements for WoW are a bit higher...although it's really not very demanding as far as modern games go.

Re:Intel GMA950 graphics

[Anonymous Coward]

Warcraft II runs like a demon on my 16MB TNT. Is Warcraft 3 really that demanding?!

Re:Intel GMA950 graphics

[mixmasta]

IC .... my laptop has a 1280x768 widescreen, same as the most common hdtv. Sony TR2A

Re:Intel GMA950 graphics

[MojoStan]

I still remember how they used to make a big number about how the Mac Mini had a dedicated GPU, and cheap PCs didn't. Google [72.14.207.104] remembers too (read the chapter "Lock the Target").

Funny how it is no longer important at all.

I thought that argument stopped being important for low-end computers (and even most "mainstream" computers) when PCI Express (8 GB/s bandwidth) and GMA 900 (DirectX 9/OpenGL 1.4) arrived in 2004. Integrated graphics did suck somewhat back in the days of AGP and Intel Extreme Graphics.

At least Mac fanbois will stop using that lame argument.

Re:Intel GMA950 graphics

[FuturePastNow]

We'll see...but the benchmarks for GMA950 are just sad. Apple is going to have to make far more efficient use of the chip than Intel's Windows drivers, and I don't think the performance is there.

I just hope the Macbook non-Pro has a discrete graphics chip...even an x600 or an x1300 would be good.

Two new Intel Mac Minis were announced today.

[Inoshiro]

Not three.

Standard features: Tiger + iLife '06, Apple Remote + Front Row, Airport Extreme + Bluetooth, DVI Video Out, USB, FireWire, Gigabit Ethernet. This is nice because you don't have to get an upgrade to get Airport Extreme and bluetooth.

"All Mac mini models also include an integrated Intel GMA950 graphics processor with 64MB of shared DDR2 SDRAM(1), 10/100/1000 Gigabit Ethernet, four external USB 2.0 ports, FireWire 400 port, optical digital and analog audio in/out, and built-in mono speaker."

Optical out is a nice thing to have standard now, although I'm not sure about the video processor. The GMA950 is not capable of running games (see this Extremetech review). It uses a minimum of 80mb of the memory in the Mac Mini, further reducing what you can use for applications. In short, it's a major step down from the old Mac Minis, and not useful for those who liked running WoW on their Minis.

Low-end model: 1.5Ghz Core Solo 667 mhz fsb, 512mb memory, integrated graphics, 60GB drive, combo drive - $599 US, 699$ CDN reg.

High-end model with Core Duo - 1.67Ghz, 80GB drive + SuperDrive 8x (dual-layer capable) - $799 US, 949$ CDN reg.

They've also updated the iTunes and Frontrow capabilities; now you can stream any movies or music from any computer running iTunes, and it interfaces with the Frontrow software that is included (with a nice little remote).

A bettel looking option is the new universal dock + remote (about 100$) that lets you use a video iPod like a little media device attached to speakers or a TV. Very portable!

Re:Two new Intel Mac Minis were announced today.

[pyros]

They've also updated the iTunes and Frontrow capabilities; now you can stream any movies or music from any computer running iTunes, and it interfaces with the Frontrow software that is included (with a nice little remote).

I think that means I should be able to stream my rhythmbox 0.9.3.1 library on Ubuntu 6.04 to Front Row!

Re:Two new Intel Mac Minis were announced today.

[SkywalkerOS8]

I think you're mistaken. The iPod + universal dock only displays pictures and video. Otherwise output to the TV is blank. The iPod's interface is not available through the video output. Also there is no way to 'press' the iPod's 'Menu' button with the remote. So you're limited to navigating through the current playlist and have no way to switch playlists with the Apple Remote. I know all of this because I expected what you did, a sweet little media center, and ended up returning the dock after discovering the iPod's interface would not displayed on my TV. The video iPod has no support for 16:9 displays so the picture and video output is annoyingly stretched on a widescreen TV. I could change the settings on my TV, but I prefer an option with native 16:9 support. Front Row provides 16:9 support so I'll probably end up picking up one of these Mac minis, assuming the initial reviews are good.

Re:Two new Intel Mac Minis were announced today.

[interlingua.ro]

The video iPod has no support for 16:9 displays so the picture and video output is annoyingly stretched on a widescreen TV

Have you looked under Videos -> Video Settings?

Re:Two new Intel Mac Minis were announced today.

[hackstraw]

Does anybody have any experience with Tiger on x86?

Are the bugs the same in magnitude and frequency vs Power Tiger?

I have Tiger and Panther, and the bugs in Tiger are getting to me.

The finder used to just be broken. Now it only occasionally does funny stuff with selecting random files/folders and launching them simultaneously with a double click. I don't know if this is fixed, but NEVER save user data under Tiger when deleting a user. Do it yourself first by moving the home directory or archiving it yourself. Tiger with no feedback or progress will archive the home directory into a .dmg file which will take forever with 20+ gigs of data. Scrolling is WAYYY to fast in Tiger, I cannot select files via dragging the mouse or DNDing when scrolling is involved is nasty. Antialiased fonts on Tiger are hideous compared to Panther. Plus the occasional lockups in CoreAudio. And other little bugs I cannot think of offhand.

Spotlight in Tiger is excellent. I really like that, but overall Tiger is worse than Panther in my opinion. Also, quicksilver for Panther is just about as good. I've never used quicksilver with removable media though, Spotlight is pretty robust with removable media.

Re:Two new Intel Mac Minis were announced today.

[WasterDave]

Tell you what though, the dual core one will make a *fabulous* number crunching node. Particularly since it has gigE as well.

Dave

Re:Two new Intel Mac Minis were announced today.

[Inoshiro]

You can get a Celeron D 3.0Ghz CPU + 512mb RAM + board for 99$ CDN after rebate, or 180$ w/o. The 600$ difference is more than enough to throw in a small hd, case, GigE, and power supply.

The Apple computer offers design and software, not raw power.

Re:Two new Intel Mac Minis were announced today.

[gordyf]

I've never noticed any of the problems you claim to have. Perhaps your Tiger install is hosed? Bad memory maybe?

Seriously. Your problems are atypical of a normal Tiger installation.

Re:Two new Intel Mac Minis were announced today.

[geekoid]

Gaming is not the minis market, nor part of it's strategy. It's nice that you can play it, but the system is trying to be a head end for the home entertainment system.

So, where did you go to see someone try to play WoW on it?

Re:Two new Intel Mac Minis were announced today.

[hackstraw]

The antialiasing is a known issue.

I don't know or care if they have fixed the deleting user under Tiger. I don't have the desire to test it when its just as easy for me to archive the data myself.

I've issued bug reports for the finder with Apple, and they told me it was a "known issue", and they have done some updates to improve it, but it now has new bugs.

Granted, the scrolling may be a preference I set, I could test it under a new user to see if it is an issue I introduced.

The CoreAudio bugs seem to be a known issue as well.

Does the parent know something about Tiger that I don't? I mean, how can it be said that these known bugs are not bugs?

I'm not knocking the parent, but I would prefer a more robust environment like Panther provides with the features of spotlight. And if its something unique to me, I would like to know.

I do not see how bad RAM would cause scrolling to go to fast, or antialiased fonts to be fuzzy, or archiving a user's home directory slowly without any feedback, or any of these issues.

Re:Two new Intel Mac Minis were announced today.

[Anonymous Coward]

The Celeron D would be much slower than the Core Duo for many tasks. The Core Duo really is a bit of a speed demon.

Re:Two new Intel Mac Minis were announced today.

[Sketch]

"The GMA950 is not capable of running games (see this Extremetech review). It uses a minimum of 80mb of the memory in the Mac Mini, further reducing what you can use for applications. In short, it's a major step down from the old Mac Minis, and not useful for those who liked running WoW on their Minis."

"If you think the Radeon 9200 in the PPC Mac Mini is a graphics powerhouse, you are mistaken. I haven't played WoW, but if the framerate isn't too high, it can probably do it just fine. I have tried Quake 3 (which the WoW engine is based on), and the performance leaves something to be desired. Good thing I didn't buy the mini to be a gaming box. ;) On the plus side, it does run Q2 just fine.

However, Quake 3 also ran just as well, if not better, on my friend's Centrino laptop which was powered by the GMA945 core. So I wouldn't expect much of a difference in your 3D gaming performance...maybe even a gain in some cases due to much improved CPU power.

Re:Two new Intel Mac Minis were announced today.

[HardCase]

The Radeon does a reasonable job with WoW, at least the 64MB model. It's no speed demon, but outside of extremely busy areas, it does a workmanlike job at 1024x768. It's faster than my Centrino (Pentium M) notebook with integrated video. Apple claims that the graphics performance from the integrated video will be slightly better...whatever that means.

1GB of RAM improved the performance on my Mini. I'm sure the processor upgrade will help, too, but it'll still be bound by the graphics.

-h-

Re:Two new Intel Mac Minis were announced today.

[dynamo]

That is not normal. Your system is screwy.
It sounds like maybe your mouse could be part of the problem.. also you can slow down scrolling settings in the Appearance tab in prefs.

Re:Two new Intel Mac Minis were announced today.

[hackstraw]

I thought the scrolling could be a preference and looked for it, I'll double check that.

The other things are known issues, many verified with Apple via their bug reporting system.

Re:Two new Intel Mac Minis were announced today.

[ChunderDownunder]

Yeah right.

Do you honestly think a celeron D is a match for a core duo?

Benchmarks have shown the previous single core Pentium-M chip to be competitive with a Pentium 4. With 2 cores the high end mac-mini would eat your celeron D for breakfast.

[Price is a factor compared to your generic PC, certainly, but Dave's comment that the dual core one will make a *fabulous* number crunching node is valid.]

Re:Two new Intel Mac Minis were announced today.

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't have any home entertainment hardware, and the software could be driven by a 603e.

Re:Two new Intel Mac Minis were announced today.

[Anonymous Coward]

From article you've linked to:

Intel's new GMCH will probably run Longhorn's upper tier Aero Glass interface pretty well.

Tadaaa. It's chip for running Quar... Aero.

Re:Two new Intel Mac Minis were announced today.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're on some crack, son. That's the low-end Yonah, which performs worse than the P4 at floating-point operations. The real benefit for using the low-end Yonah would be that it would beat the Celeron D in power usage. Of course for the price of the Yonah in the Mini you could buy an X2 that would beat it in integer and floating point performance while using marginally more power. Now go masturbate furiously to the small number of benchmarks over at Anandtech for the Core Duo.

Re:Two new Intel Mac Minis were announced today.

[Onan]

I have tried Quake 3 (which the WoW engine is based on) ...

I don't... think that's correct, is it? I don't particularly follow the games industry, but I've never heard this asserted before, some very light research now doesn't seem to produce anything supporting it. The only places google can find people mentioning warcraft and quake at the same time seem to be general gaming pages that include them unrelatedly.

I'd find it pretty surprising if they had any common ancestry, as they differ in many fundamental design choices. WoW does not have collisions between mobile entities; does not have any of the sort "hitbox" for detecting shot success as shots are not aimed as such; does not have the detailed reflections on object surfaces that I seem to recall seeing in quake; is based around being played third-person, and rotating the camera and character independently.

I'm not saying it's impossible that was some relationship, but I think that the "put some textures on some surfaces" code that would actually be shared between the two is so small that I would be surprised if Blizzard would have bothered licensing it. And even if they did so, they would have had to modify it enough that it probably shouldn't be considered "the same engine" from a performance standpoint.

Re:Two new Intel Mac Minis were announced today.

[MojoStan]

I'm not sure about the video processor. The GMA950 is not capable of running games (see this Extremetech review). It uses a minimum of 80mb of the memory in the Mac Mini, further reducing what you can use for applications. In short, it's a major step down from the old Mac Minis, and not useful for those who liked running WoW on their Minis.

Given the mini's intended use for most buyers, I think GMA 950 is a step up (overall) from the Radeon 9200. Sure, for gamers that like current generation 3D graphics-heavy games, GMA is a step down. Also, GMA 950 steals some of the system memory.

However, I think most Mac mini buyers will appreciate the advanced video capability of GMA 950 (let's see those Intel/Apple video drivers!) and its support for Core Image and OpenGL 1.4. Radeon 9200 didn't support Core Image and was an OpenGL 1.3 GPU.

Re:Two new Intel Mac Minis were announced today.

[Anonymous Coward]

It is:

http://www.nordichardware.com/Reviews/?page=15&skr ivelse=326

http://www.telefragged.com/reviews/quake3/

Re:Two new Intel Mac Minis were announced today.

[David Rolfe]

To chime in with Geekoid and Jcr:

I have a G4 Mini, and use it to play WoW. It's not fill-rate or CPU limited. I get the same performance at 800x600 as 1024x768 (or >=1024 in a window). What hurts WoW performance on the Mini is the hard-drive. The drive is just too slow for Orgrimmar (so I get lag in Org and in large PVPs) :)

If I wasn't lazy, I would reinstall WoW (6 discs! takes forever, and then the downloading and patching, ug) on a faster external firewire and upgrade to 2GB of ram, but the performance is "good enough" as it is now.

I imagine performance on a new Mini would be essentially the same regardless of the video, unless the new machines came with 7200 rpm drives and >1GB of ram.

It's all moot though, because I'm thinking of replacing my Windows box with a new iMac, the better video and drives memory (and dual-heading with my existing display), it's all gonna improve my WoW experience drastically.

Re:Two new Intel Mac Minis were announced today.

[Anonymous Coward]

Boxy, shared memory slowing performance, no good for games...

The Mac mini is really the IIsi reinvented.

http://www.lowendmac.com/ii/iisi.shtml

Re:Two new Intel Mac Minis were announced today.

[hackstraw]

I double checked the appearance tab, no scrolling speeds there.

I created a new account and DNDed a link in safari to a new tab, and it scrolled 1/4 of the way up the page before landing on the tab.

I guess my system is screwy, its too fast or something.

Re:Two new Intel Mac Minis were announced today.

[SkywalkerOS8]

Yes, I assume your referring to the setting labeled 'Widescreen'. Its not what you think it is. Its not a '16:9' vs '4:3' setting. Its a 'Pan&Scan' vs 'Letterbox'. If the video is wider than the standard TV 4:3 aspect ratio and 'Widescreen' is set to 'On' then the iPod will add black bars to the top and bottom of the screen and resize the video so it is entirely visible on the screen, otherwise the video will be zoomed so that the entire screen is filled, cutting off the left and right sides of the video. It does not, however, change the aspect ratio of the output, it is always in a 4:3 format. The setting is poorly named and either 'Letterbox' or 'Zoom' would have been better names.

Cool Fast Mini's

[olddotter]

Freinds have been asking me about a intel based mac mini for months, every time they see me. I'm glad I don't have to keep saying I don't know.

The Apple store seems over loaded I'm getting 500 errors trying to get specs for the new mini. Does anyone have a full feature list?

more frontrow info

[Zed2K]

Why don't they have more info about frontrow? Can it play ripped dvd's? Does it play iso files? Does it support multichannel sound out of the digital out?

Is this finally what a lot of folks have been waiting for for a dvd jukebox server front end?

Re:more frontrow info

[drhamad]

Yes, it'll play ripped DVD's. To play video through Front Row, you need to either have it mountable, or loaded into iTunes. So MPG, MP4, QT, etc, or DVD's.

Not sure about multichannel sound offhand, but I'm pretty sure.

It'll also play trailers from the Apple Trailers site ;)

Re:more frontrow info

[Zed2K]

So in order to stream ANYTHING across the network it has to be cataloged within iTunes? Ugh...forget that.

More direct question. Rip a dvd into an ISO image, store all the ISO images on a linux box that has a samba share. Can the mini with front row (1) access this filesystem across the network and (2) play the iso image as if the dvd were in the drive with full menu and functionality through front row?

In other words can the mini EASILY act as a stand alone media device?

Re:more frontrow info

[SlamMan]

Not from that workflow. FrontRow (mind you, I can only speak from experience with the version that was out this morning) sees QuickTime compatible video in your local user's Movies folder, as well as any video files in iTunes. A shared mount to the ~/Movies directory works fine, but thats of MP4 files and such. You're out of luck with your iso files.

Re:more frontrow info

[Graff]

Last time I tried this it worked. I was able to use iDVD to browse any mountable file system and play a ripped DVD movie from wherever it was located, on a network share, local drive, or on DVD.

I'm not 100% sure about Front Row but I'm willing to bet that it works also.

Re:more frontrow info

[corbettw]

More direct question. Rip a dvd into an ISO image, store all the ISO images on a linux box that has a samba share. Can the mini with front row (1) access this filesystem across the network and (2) play the iso image as if the dvd were in the drive with full menu and functionality through front row?

Why wouldn't you add an external disk to the mini? The Apple store shows some that are 1.2TB for only a grand. Wouldn't that be even easier?

In other words can the mini EASILY act as a stand alone media device?

Not doing it your way. It would be easier to remove the additional computer from the equation in the first place.

Re:more frontrow info

[jcr]

I'm not 100% sure about Front Row but I'm willing to bet that it works also.

Yeah, it works. FrontRow just drives the DVDPlayer app through the scripting interface. It doesn't actually play the DVDs itself.

-jcr

Re:more frontrow info

[TheRaven64]

Can the mini with front row (1) access this filesystem across the network and (2) play the iso image as if the dvd were in the drive with full menu and functionality through front row? OS X can mount SMB shares (as well as NFS, WebDAV and a few other network filesystems). OS X can mount DVD images (not ISOs - DVDs are UDF, CDs are ISO9660) and DVD Player treats them as other disks. DVD Player also has an option to play VIDEO_TS folders (I prefer to use VLC, however, since the de-interlacing is nicer).

I'm not sure about Front Row. It controls the DVD Player via the scripting interface, but I doubt it will do the selecting and mounting of remote images for you.

Re:more frontrow info

[Zed2K]

"Why wouldn't you add an external disk to the mini?"

Because I don't want to have a collection of external hard drives sitting down next to my tv generating more noise and heat and looking down right ugly. So, no. That wouldn't be easier.

Re:more frontrow info

[Zed2K]

Thats a bummer. There are media devices out now (and more coming really soon) that allow streaming of iso images of dvd's across a network. But their interfaces are nothing but file based. Rippping to TS folders is an option but I want to avoid that option. Apple has the interface but the other companies have the better functionality.

Re:more frontrow info

[corbettw]

Because I don't want to have a collection of external hard drives sitting down next to my tv generating more noise and heat and looking down right ugly. So, no. That wouldn't be easier.

It most definitely would be easier! All you'd have to do is plug in the hard drive and you're done. With the original method, you'd have to set up two separate servers, connect them over a network, and configure them to share access to a hard disk. How is that easier than plugging an external disk into a USB slot?

Whether it would be better, that's another matter. I submit that it would be, because the hard drive in question is 5.25 inches deep and 2U wide. It would generate far less heat than a complete server, use far less power, and could be safely stored on the same shelf as the Mac Mini media server. Given the combined size of the two devices, you'd still use less space than with separate DVD and VCR players.

Re:more frontrow info

[Zed2K]

Then when one external drive is filled you need another case and more cable for a 2nd. Then a 3rd, then a 4th, etc. Until you have a stack of drives, cables up the wazoo and more noise and heat than anything else in the room drowning out the tv. Or, you put it all up in a central location in a completely different room in the house. Want to add more drives? Just put them in the case already there and you are ready to go. No extra cases, minimal wiring and everything is ready to use. My house already has cat5e wiring throughout. It is a trivial matter (in fact its already done) to have a linux server sitting up in the computer room to serve all the data to whatever device I want to put on the network. This is the ideal configuration.

Re:more frontrow info

[Graff]

Upon re-reading this I realize I meant the DVD Player application not the iDVD application.

Mea culpa...

But but but!!

[pubjames]

You Apple fanboy!

Don't you know you can get a machine from Dell with similar specs for about $100 less! A machine exactly the same in all respects! Well, I guess except a bit bigger. Well, quite a lot bigger actually. And heavier. But otherwise the same! Oh except it will be grey and kind of crappy looking. But the specs will be the same! Oh apart from running Windows XP rather than OSX. And without the iLife software. But otherwise exactly the same. You Apple fanboys are nuts!

Re:But but but!!

[timeOday]

Don't you know you can get a machine from Dell with similar specs for about $100 less!

Well, it's a fair question. The Duo machine is $800, not $600. $800 is getting up there for a box with no peripherals in today's ultra-cheap market. Still it's the cheapest Duo machine I've noticed, however I haven't looked very hard.

Are there any real competitors in the same niche?

Re:But but but!!

[Nadsat]

Any real competitors in the same niche?

The Austrian Olympic team can take on anyone, without or without drugs.

Re:But but but!!

[ivan256]

The Dell machine is clearly superior, because it doubles as a 'white noise' generator.

Re:But but but!!

[Anonymous Coward]

All they have are World Class Skiers. Every medal save (2) were from either Alpine Skiing, Cross-country Skiing, of Ski Jumping.

Re:But but but!!

[dan828]

You forgot that Dell also provides a keyboard, mouse, and a flat panel monitor for that $100 less price. Not to mention that all those great iLife programs have free PC equivalents (and you won't have to shell out $79 to upgrade them next year).

Re:But but but!!

[Golias]

Not to mention that all those great iLife programs have free PC equivalents

Pffft!

Show me ANYTHING in the PC world which compares to GarageBand at five times the retail cost of the entire iLife suite!

Repeat the same process, but for iDVD.

Prepare to be mocked mercilessly for whatever pathetic answer you come up with.

Re:But but but!!

[krakelohm]

Free is true, feature free... quality free... usablity free...

Re:But but but!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention that all those great iLife programs have free PC equivalents

Oh? Name them.

And I assume they're just as good?

Re:But but but!!

[fermion]

Yes, but when I upgrade the OS I can legally all my macs for $200. Also on my mac I won't be accused of piracy for if I change out a hard disk or optical drive, which, by the way, i have done. Also, on a mac when I download music I can burn it to CD and not worry that there might be additional stuff from MS to bork the process, as has been thier wont.

And I don't have those issues that I always had with MS about the HD crashing, and then having to beg to be allowed to install the upgrade, or figure out the workaround that would allow me to pirate the software I was contractually allowed to in the first place as I paid for a license, and merely wanted to reinstall it on the single machine I had.

As is clear to many people, $100 is a small price to pay to not have MS and the BSA houding you. Of course, some people need any kind of attention they can get.

Re:But but but!!

[Moofie]

"programs have free PC equivalents "

You get what you pay for.

Re:But but but!!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not a pro, and I dn't have pro needs, so for me, my own suite (not all free, but on the cheap)

audio editor - audacity (free)
dvd authoring - TMPGEnc DVD Author & TMPGEnc encoded (while they cost
                                about $79 combined, they are generally regarded as being
                                on par with the cinecraft encoder for quality, and that's no toy)
photo org. - picassa (free)

Re:But but but!!

[radish]

Depends what you need. iLife is a good deal, no doubt about it, but I don't think it's as many lightyears ahead as you suggest. Picassa is an excellent (free) photo manager. I haven't used iDVD so I can't directly compare, but Nero does a perfectly good job for CD/DVD burning and authoring, and can be found online for a few dollars.

As for music software, there's plenty of good DAW software for around the $100 mark (Cubase SE, Traktor, etc) and some hardware (which you'll need anyway) comes with lite versions of pro level packages like Reason or Ableton. Any of these will give GarageBand a very good run for it's money.

Re:But but but!!

[ChrisA90278]

"you can get a machine from Dell with similar specs for about $100 less!" Yes but try as you might and Dells cheap box will not run Mac OSX.

The only reason people buy Apple computers is because of the software.

Oh yes, now back to hardware. Is that cheap Dell box two and one half inches tall and six inches square and compleatly silent

And guess what? A small BMW and a Ford Escort have the same specs too. 4 wheels, 4 seats and a steering weel. People don't buy BMWs to save a buck, they buy then because they like BMWs Same with Apple - Both are a high end luxery brand targeted at a small segment of the market who is wiling to pay for quality. But the bottom line is you have to buy Apple hardware to run Apple software

Re:But but but!!

[Golias]

As for music software, there's plenty of good DAW software for around the $100 mark (Cubase SE, Traktor, etc) and some hardware (which you'll need anyway) comes with lite versions of pro level packages like Reason or Ableton. Any of these will give GarageBand a very good run for it's money.

Speaking as somebody who has used every last audio program you list there (as well as the full "pro" version of some of them), I can only say that I completely disagree. GarageBand is leaps and bounds ahead of any of them, and I would never even consider switching back to any of them.

IMHO, YMMV, yadda yadda yadda.

Re:But but but!!

[Golias]

audio editor - audacity (free)

If you feel Audacity is worth comparing to GarageBand, we don't even have a foundation to begin a discussion.

Re:But but but!!

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't want garageband, I'm no musician. Why should I be forced to buy that POS. Give me a nice game like vice city instead.

Re:But but but!!

[AnotherDaveB]

The only reason people buy Apple computers is because of the software. Oh yes, now back to hardware. Is that cheap Dell box two and one half inches tall and six inches square and compleatly silent

The mini is Apple's entry level machine. Price is its single most important feature.

The PPC mini was priced to compete with Celeron wintels and by all accounts it sold well. I find it odd that Apple decided to abandon this price bracket to go with the new Intel Solo chip rather than keep the price that was selling for them, and use a Celeron.

Re:But but but!!

[planetmn]

http://www.pcg.fic.com.tw/marketing/Products/main3 .asp

Size: Mac: 6.5x6.5x2 FIC: ~9x~7x~1.5

CPU: Mac: DuoCore 1.66 FIC: DuoCore 1.66-2.33

More information here: http://www.mobilewhack.com/computers/review/fic_ge 2_intel_core_duo_desktop.html

FIC claims giga-lan, bluetooth, wifi, digital audio out, seems pretty close to the mac as a comparison, price of $500 to $1000 according to Mobile Whack.

Assuming the $500 price is the 1.66GHz version, it doesn't look like PC versions are much if any cheaper.

-dave

Re:But but but!!

[NeoBeans]

The mini is Apple's entry level machine. Price is its single most important feature.

True. But that's in comparison to other Apple computers -- running Mac OS X. I don't think the low-end Mini will ever go as cheap as a "comparable" Dell.

Re:But but but!!

[planetmn]

Researching a little further, that $499 price may include a TV tuner with PVR functionality.

A few more links:
http://www.cesweb.org/attendees/show_floor/product _locator/product_details.asp?prodid=7004
http://wifi.consumerelectronicsnet.com/articles/vi ewarticle.jsp?id=36714

Now I'm kind of excited to see how this FIC comes out on the market. $499 for out of the box PC and DVR functionality in a nice package, I may just have to buy one.

-dave

Re:But but but!!

[Shivetya]

Dell just released a new laptop featuring a 15" screen with similar graphics you can buy for nearly the same price as the mini

http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx ?c=us&cs=19&l=en&oc=E1505S2&s=dhs

Re:But but but!!

[dave1212]

Not to mention that all those great iLife programs have free PC equivalents

Have you lost it? Please, mention anything free that comes close to GarageBand. Not a chance. Same with the other apps. Don't bother mentioning Picasa, it can't do a quarter of what iPhoto can.

It's a fact. The software you get with a Mac is a hundred times better than what comes with Windows. Movie Maker? Don't make me puke.

Re:But but but!!

[Larry Lightbulb]

Acid?

Re:But but but!!

[Frumious Wombat]

List price is important, because it gets people's initial attention, but the killer about the mini is "Tiny!". A complete computer, the size of a large sandwich. Utterly unobtrusive. Comes in a lunchbox with a handle. This is what entranced my class last year when I brought in a Mini to drive a projector.

Pity that they had to copy a Sun IPC/IPX, http://www.black-cube.net:8000/Sun/ without including the cool little purple feet.

Re:But but but!!

[toddestan]

Oh yes, now back to hardware. Is that cheap Dell box two and one half inches tall and six inches square and compleatly silent

Yeah, but is the Intel Mac Mini silent? The Core Solo and Core Duo are going to run quite a bit warmer than the G4.

Re:But but but!!

[AnotherDaveB]

True. But that's in comparison to other Apple computers -- running Mac OS X. I don't think the low-end Mini will ever go as cheap as a "comparable" Dell.

I'm going to use UK prices because I'm more familiar with them.

The cheapest CRT iMac / eMac was GBP550 ish. This, I always considered, to be priced as a mid-range Dell/HP system. Keyboard, screen and popular software were included.

The PPC-Mini entered a new market. @ GBP 350 it competed with low-end Dell/HP systems. It was a little more expensive, but not a lot, and of course it was prettier.

The Intel-Minis are priced at GBP 450. At that price they are no longer competitive with name brand Celeron machines and if they are intended to replace the eMac then the absence of screen and keyboard means that Apple's entry level system is now more expensive than it was before they introduced their bargin basement Bring Your Own Keyboard And Monitor offering.

Odd.

Given that you can now buy brand name laptops for GBP 500 ish, the intel Mini looks, to me, to be mis-priced. But then I don't sell computers :-)

Re:But but but!!

[HTTP Error 403 403.9]

Show me ANYTHING in the PC world which compares to GarageBand at five times the retail cost of the entire iLife suite!

Try this! Only $29.95!

Equivalent GarageBand for PCs

-- CAVEAT EMPTOR!

Re:But but but!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Since you are so knowledgeable, could you please elaborate on the features that make GarageBand so great?

Re:But but but!!

[rinoid]

which of course brings the price of the less expensive dell up a few hundred dollars by the time you replace GarageBand and iDVD.

I bet eventually we might see a close equivalent but... in the mean time this Mini is actually a great deal.

I'll say it like it really is -- all you anti-apple fanboys need to cool your jets and relax on the fact that these are actually decent machines.

Re:But but but!!

[osviews.com]

It already does. As a matter of fact, its less expensive.

Re:But but but!!

[alphakappa]

I use both Macs and PCs regularly and I agree that Garageband is a great app, along with iMovie and iDVD. However iPhoto doesn't even come close to what Picasa can do. Even though Picasa started out as a iPhoto clone, it is a far superior application today. Let me explain why

1. It lets you specify folders to 'monitor' instead of the 'import' feature that iPhoto limits itself to. For photographers like me who have thousands of photographs in external drives, it makes no sense to import all of those to one central location (the iPhoto library)

The beauty of 'monitoring' is that you can retain your own organization on the disk as well as within the application. If you decide to dump Picasa tomorrow, you can still see your original organization in another viewer. iPhoto on the other hand creates a bunch of folders named 01, 02 03 etc which have no relation to the way you organized your collection.

2. Picasa does not alter the original images when you decide to 'edit' the image. Even if you crop the image, Picasa leaves the original image alone and only displays the photo as cropped or edited when you view it from within Picasa. If you wish to generate a photo that matches the Picasa display you an easily 'export' it. Also you can come back days later and undo any edit you did to a photo. iPhoto on the other hand changes the source image and once you finalize an edit, you cannot come back later to undo them.

3. Picasa is much faster when you want to browse through thousands of pictures, especially since the picture loaded initially is of a much smaller resolution than the one loaded by iPhoto.

--

Having said that, iPhoto is a great application and the picture viewing and editing features are pretty much equivalent in both. One great feature of Picasa that iPhoto lacks is the 'I'm feeling lucky' which does an auto level and color correction a-la Photoshop.

Re:But but but!!

[dangitman]

No way, the Mac generates much better quality white noise thanks to CoreAudio and Vector processing!

Re:But but but!!

[dangitman]

The other poster said free, not for $29.95.

Re:But but but!!

[Ohreally_factor]

Take two, just to be safe.

Re:But but but!!

[Toraz Chryx]

"2. Picasa does not alter the original images when you decide to 'edit' the image. Even if you crop the image, Picasa leaves the original image alone and only displays the photo as cropped or edited when you view it from within Picasa. If you wish to generate a photo that matches the Picasa display you an easily 'export' it. Also you can come back days later and undo any edit you did to a photo. iPhoto on the other hand changes the source image and once you finalize an edit, you cannot come back later to undo them."

Is plainly and completely wrong, plz see 'revert to original' menu item in iphoto.

Re:But but but!!

[alphakappa]

"Is plainly and completely wrong, plz see 'revert to original' menu item in iphoto"
Revert to original doesn't let you step back through your actions. It's one giant leap to your starting point.

Re:But but but!!

[dangitman]

Acid costs money, doesn't it?

Re:But but but!!

[dal20402]

some hardware (which you'll need anyway) comes with lite versions of pro level packages like Reason or Ableton.

funny you should mention that... I have hardware which came with each of these packages.

They all have similar limitations, which they share with GarageBand: a lack of flexibility with respect to control changes, a very limited selection of software instruments, a lack of decent effects. In other words, they are packages for the hobbyist, not the even semi-serious music maker.

For that market, GarageBand is unique because of its user-friendliness. Drop someone who's never made music into Ableton Live Lite and they'll look around, mess around with menus, and eventually go "Huh?" and lose interest. Drop them into GarageBand and they'll have some sort of cacophony going within fifteen minutes. (Whether this is humane to the user's cat is left as an exercise to the reader. Cats for Dell.)

Any serious musician is going to need the real thing anyway (although GarageBand is surprisingly good for quickly sketching rough ideas). And, what do you know, in that market Logic Pro stomps the competition (IMHO YMMV etc).

With its optical in/out, silence, profusion of ports and powerful processor the Core Duo Mini strikes me as a surprisingly good studio machine if you max out the RAM and add a 7200rpm HD. Musicians don't need mega-graphics (although dual-monitor support would be nice) and the silence and small size are golden.

Re:But but but!!

[HTTP Error 403 403.9]

The other poster said free, not for $29.95.

In the future, you will have to be more clear on which posts I am allowed to comment on.

In your humble service.

Love,

Lackeyboy

Re:But but but!!

[Saint Fnordius]

Just to be clear here:

$199 gets a 5-user license, which covers most households. Apple trusts you to not go over the limit, and thus doesn't try to place all sorts of locks in the way. Just thought I'd mention this since you could be misinterpreted as meaning some $200 price difference between the Mac mini and whatever box is being touted as cheaper.

That's the biggest issue here: Apple trusts its customers more than Microsoft does. Part of Apple's allure has been this trust, this treating its customers as honest.

Granted, since Apple gets the bulk of its money from hardware sales, they can be generous and leave out copy restrictions that might slow down performance. Customers appreciate this and are more willing to be honest. Accuse them of being potential thieves and they're more likely to resent it and resent paying you.

Re:But but but!!

[tabby]

If I'm going to using it as a media center then I'll take the Dell with MediaCenterXP. It can sit under the stairs out of sight, record TV and wirelessly stream video & music to my XBox360. Ipod & itunes & front row is nice but as far as all-round living room entertainment MS has a very good setup.

Re:But but but!!

[Steve Cowan]

Besides, Audacity is a free download for the Mac, too.

Agreed, however: for somebody who wants to mess around with creating music, you can't beat GarageBand.

Re:But but but!!

[SynKKnyS]

GarageBand - FruityLoops Express at $50.
iPhoto - Google's Picassa @ $FREE.
iDVD and iMovie HD - Nero Ultra Edition @ $70 (bundled for free with a lot of DVD burners and with other components).
iWeb - Various free HTML editors.

I own and love my Powerbook. But, one cannot discount software available for the Windows world.

oxymoron...

[kilgore2]

"hi fidelity boom box"???...wtf???

Compression, crappy plastic speaker enclosures and cheapo components...

Sorry, I'll go back to cleaning my vinyl now...

Re:oxymoron...

[supremebob]

Yeah, those speakers are a total rip off. At $349, they cost even MORE than the Bose Sounddock, and they don't even bother to include the batteries for it.

Re:oxymoron...

[ShaneThePain]

ok audiophile man. FYI, you cant HEAR compression. It takes out sound under 20hz and above 20khz. Are you so arrogant that your going to claim you can hear a difference between some rediculous lossless format and a 256kb Mp3? You cant, throw out the vinyl and load up bearshare.

Re:oxymoron...

[Anonymous Coward]

Newsflash - audio compression isn't so simple as removing stuff below 20Hz, above 20kHz. There's a lot in between that gets thrown out, based on some algorithm that figures what most people won't miss. Just because you can't hear a difference on your mom's car stereo doesn't mean someone else can't on their system of choice.

Re:oxymoron...

[djpenguin808]

Incorrect. MP3 compression affects all parts of the audible frequency spectrum. If you are careful when you encode them, and you set the quality settings to high enough values, you will get compressed audio that sounds good on consumer-level equipment, but I gaurantee you that if you put that MP3 on a pair of $50K-a-pop Meyer studio mains, you [b]will[/b] hear the difference between the compressed MP3 and the uncompressed PCM audio (.wav) I know this for a fact, because I have performed this comparison more than once.

Just because your MP3s sound good to you with your settings on your audio equipment do not mean that they have not lost any audio quality, it merely means that you cannot hear the lost quality. If you want to reduce file size and retain full quality, you either need to use lossless compression, or a packing scheme such as shorten (.shn)

Re:oxymoron...

[mrjatsun]

I bet you a pair of $50K-a-pop Meyer studio mains that I can't :-)

Re:oxymoron...

[tbone1]

Heck, it looks a lot bulkier, and less good, than my Klipsch iGroove.

And the iGroove is about $40 cheaper, too. I can't imagine this thing sounding better than a Klipsch, unless they got Klipsch to build it.

Re:oxymoron...

[Slashcrap]

ok audiophile man. FYI, you cant HEAR compression. It takes out sound under 20hz and above 20khz.

I'm going to take a wild stab in the dark and suggest that you may not be an expert on audio compression. But it's good that you don't let your total lack of knowledge about a subject prevent you from making such emphatic statements. After all, just because your opinions are so laughably ill informed doesn't mean that they're any less valid. In future, try and mock the original poster a little more. Slashdotters are very forgiving about that kind of thing.

Re:oxymoron...

[klez23]

you either need to use lossless compression, or a packing scheme such as shorten (.shn)

Just a nitpick: shorten is a lossless compression scheme. The tech behind it & FLAC are quite similar.

Re:oxymoron...

[HuguesT]

Have you done this comparison double-blind fashion ? With 320kbps MP3s ?

I believe you with 128kbps MP3s, but for anything above 256 VBR encoded by Lame, you should try to find a job at Deutsche Gramophon.

The result of that famous test is that even for trained listeners using top of the line audiophile equipment, there isn't any significant difference between 256kbps MP3 and WAV.

No iTablet?

[MECC]

That would have been really cool...

Re:No iTablet?

[Gilmoure]

Or an iNewton. Want new Newton!

I too...

[Anonymous Coward]

...say WTF after this much-anticipated non-event.

Yeah, OK, FrontRow on the Mini is a natural.

The only surprises for me were dual-core as an option for Mini and that there was nothing else to report.

L.A.M.E.

Where is the MacBook, friends?

No need to budget for a new Apple for a while. I'll make do with my G4 PB and AMD64s.

iPod leather cases @ $99.00

[trailerparkcassanova]

Now that's exciting....

Dumb and expensive

[dancpsu]

While the original mac mini was a good idea, the new intel versions raise the price, abandoning the $500 price point. Also while they have FrontRow, there is still no tuner, no DVR software to support a tuner in FrontRow, and no component HDTV out. Showing a slideshow on a regular television could have been done by expanding their airport extreme base, and most DVD players can do slideshows already, some straight from a camera's memory card. And who wants to have their TV on to listen to music?

To really make the thing a media center, you need things like games, multiple tuners, integrated internet apps to get updates on weather, traffic, news, etc. Pretty much everything that's in MythTV. Apple has dvd playing that can be done with a $30 DVD player, music, and slideshows. Any other apps need more than a television so you can read the text in the OS anyway.

Re:Dumb and expensive

[guet]

there is still no tuner, no DVR software to support a tuner

There will never be a tuner in the mini; broadcast television is dying and Apple wants it dead (for selfish reasons).

The other things you mentioned are included in OS X - (games, integrated internet apps etc). This product obviously isn't for you though, so why not use any other SFF PC and run MythTV on it if you want to?

Re:Dumb and expensive

[voidstin]

No component out? It does have DVI (and you can get a DVI->HDMI cable), so I don't see that as a big loss. How about the ability for the average person to hook it up to a plasma, buy shows (movies) from the itunes store and stream them to the mini over wireless? with minimal setup? (If you know what MythTV is, you aren't their target market) That seems pretty damn amazing to me. And this box looks more than capable of 1080i, so that seems to future proof it at least a bit. (though that drive is damn small)

As for your TV/Text complaint - if you hooked it up to a SD set for anything other than front row, (which has giant type) you'd be right. But if you hooked it up to a HD set 1280x720 should work for most apps.

This seems like a great computer for small apts where TV/computer share a screen, or a computer to get and use normally, and then move into the living room after you upgrade in a couple years.

Re:Dumb and expensive

[danielk1982]

There will never be a tuner in the mini; broadcast television is dying and Apple wants it dead (for selfish reasons).

Say again.....

Re:Dumb and expensive

[Winckle]

Well, to play devil's advocate, Mac OS X has support for inegrated internet apps, but they call them widgets, and the features yo suggested are available from the widgets section of the OS X website free of charge.

Re:Dumb and expensive

[dancpsu]

This product obviously isn't for you though, so why not use any other SFF PC and run MythTV on it if you want to?

Form-factor and noise level. I'm holding off until I can get a system that's as small as a slim DVD player, have DVR functionality (2 ATSC/cablecard capable tuners), will play almost any video format in HD of media and over 802.11g, burn DVD's with both native HD and DVD spec video, have updated news/weather/traffic from over the internet, will play minor games (it doesn't need to be an XBox, but a few simple games would be nice, and most of all have a pleasant, integrated experience.

I think that even if Apple didn't want to develop those things into FrontRow, they could at least provide the means for other developers to create their own FrontRow applets that would provide the necessary functionality.

Re:Dumb and expensive

[Damvan]

Looks to me that you will be holding out for a long long time...

Re:Dumb and expensive

[4doorGL]

Also while they have FrontRow, there is still no tuner, no DVR software to support a tuner in FrontRow, and no component HDTV out. Call me crazy but I'd much rather have the DVI out the MacMini has (which all HDTVs support) than component out.

Re:Dumb and expensive

[rjstanford]

Actually, the majority of HDTVs already sold in the US do not support DVI. Most of them only have component inputs. Granted, newer models have the pure digital inputs... But there are people (myself included) with very nice TVs that have really sweet pictures that only accept analog video in. Personally, I'd like not to have to pay $hundreds to get a converter.

Re:Dumb and expensive

[dancpsu]

How about the ability for the average person to hook it up to a plasma, buy shows (movies) from the itunes store and stream them to the mini over wireless? with minimal setup?

You're kidding right? First you pay $2 per show to watch TV, which is more than buying the DVD and certainly more than renting. Second, you get a 320x200 VCR-resolution video, but only after downloading for quite a while to watch on your 27-42" screen? You may as well ask a friend to tape the show for you on an old VCR in SLP mode for extra fuzziness and give him the $2.

Re:Dumb and expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

> DVI...which all HDTVs support

No. I worked for three years in a nice high-end AV store, and I have never seen an HDTV that had a DVI input. None at all. All of them had component, S-Video, and composite. Of course if we sold those crap LCD TV's rather than real CRT's and CRT projectors, I might have but those are low-end junk we would never consider selling.

Mac Mini now a real computer

[timeOday]

Which independent benchmarks confirming that the Intel Core Duo really is about 4x the speed of the G4, I'd say the Mini just got a whole lot more viable. At $800 the price is a significant step up, but I guess you gotta pay to play, and it's still the cheapest Duo system I've noticed.

Re:Mac Mini now a real computer

[truthsearch]

So the computer I've been working with for 8 months isn't viable? Every desktop in my software development company is a mini and we'll tell you it's definitely a viable option. With extra RAM it's also viable for some lower-end multi-media work.

Re:Mac Mini now a real computer

[timeOday]

I'm sure you know your own needs, but yes I'm surprised you would choose Mac Minis for software development. What's the appeal for that application? Wouldn't almost anything else be faster?

Re:Mac Mini now a real computer

[truthsearch]

The appeal is low cost Linux/Unix development with no software management hassles. We no longer waste time tweaking our linux desktops. The minis give us exactly what we need. And they're plenty fast enough for client and server development, even flash.

Re:Mac Mini now a real computer

[ChunderDownunder]

To naysayers who would envy core duo iMacs, the win for users is that your developers are using hardware that meets 'real-world' specs. So, client-side performance issues are discernable before they reach the wild. Though, as often happens, testers are stuck with more obsolete hardware than coders. :(

Re:Mac Mini now a real computer

[thogard]

Big deal. If I could get a modern G5 in the same box it would more than 4x faster than 3 year old G4 stuff as well and based on rumors, run with less power so the battery would last longer. One benchmark I saw the Intel Imac did 55 frames per second while an AMD at the same speed running a hacked OSX did 75 and the quad core G5 only did 155.

Re:Mac Mini now a real computer

[argent]

The slowest part of software development is the developer.

Compiles can be distributed over multiple computers, including servers, when you're using command-line tools (including XCode, which is a wrapper around GCC) so as long as the actual desktop's fast enough to run the editors and test the application local horsepower is less critical.

Well

[rworne]

It should be pointed out that the new iMacs are using the Intel graphics that share system memory:

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

Add to that Steve Jobs stating that "Yes you can hook it up to your TV" - well sorta. You can use the Apple DVI-Composite/SVideo adpater cable, but that doesn't necessarily look so hot.

What this thing has going for it is the integrated FrontRow, remote and it's super small form factor. I was interested in this as an XBMC Media Center replacement. Unfortunately it seems that Frontrow will only play videos that are compatible with Quicktime. This rules out most of what I have on XBMC. When you boil it all down, it's the old Mac mini + Frontrow w/intel inside.

Re:Well

[nelsonal]

Or you could enter the modern era and get a TV with a DVI/HDMI input.

Re:Well

[b0bby]

So, can frontrow not be configured to play divx/xvid movies? I'd like to replace my TY PC with a mini, but only if it can easily play all I want it to.

Re:Well

[Anonymous Coward]

Add to that Steve Jobs stating that "Yes you can hook it up to your TV" - well sorta. You can use the Apple DVI-Composite/SVideo adpater cable, but that doesn't necessarily look so hot.

How else would you? Either you've got a TV or monitor with a DVI input or you don't. You act as though there is another way.

Note: there is no difference between using the DVI to S-Video adapter vs. having an S-Video port on the case itself. THere is no "magic" that happens inside that doesn't happen with an adapter cable.

Unfortunately it seems that Frontrow will only play videos that are compatible with Quicktime. This rules out most of what I have on XBMC.

FrontRow will play anything that QuickTime will play, and QuickTime will play anything for which it has a codec. This includes DivX/Xvid, WMV, and pretty much everything else.

Re:Well

[Balthisar]

Subitles are very important to my application. I've never gotten it to work with as diverse a format of subtitles as does mplayer or VNC. What's really cool about either of those is they'll work with ISO DVD images. Hence my XBMC/MythTV combination will continue to rule the roost. Yeah, it means that I have to use an icky Microsoft Xbox, but (1) they were bought used so I only miniscually affect their resale value; (2) the integration is supurb -- XBMC is almost commercial quality; (3) It works decently enough with MythTV backend, and I keep meaning to get involved with that project to make it even better; (4) Emulation is actually pretty cool as far as playing old video game systems (and yes, I'm aware of the legal implications of doing so).

I'd love a Mac solution, but the cost is still prohibitive and I don't think the integration is there yet. I'd love to see a dedicated, OPEN, EXTENSIBLE DVR from Apple, though.

All the same, this may be the machine I get to replace my Quicksilver. It'll kind of suck using an external hard drive, but the price is right.

Re:Well

[Eccles]

There is another way: component video. However, it sounds like the original poster was concerned that the cable was doing conversion, and thus the output might be less than impressive.

Quicktime needs an add-on component for certain types of MPEG-2 video, including stuff grabbed off my ReplayTV. There's no free alternative codec for this, is there?

Having just gotten an iMac Core Duo, I'm rather glad the Mac Mini has poor 3-D graphics; it quells any buyer's remorse.

Re:Well

[ceoyoyo]

Quicktime has a divx codec. I play DivX all the time through Quicktime and FrontRow.

Re:Well

[Anonymous Coward]

well, "Quicktime Compatible" gives you a couple of options- namely, installing a codec like the quicktime component that wraps ffmpeg codecs (called FFusion), but it still doesn't deal well with AVI files which have interleaved VBR MP3 audio. So, depending on how exactly your files were encoded, that'd either work.. or not.

That, in theory would work for some cases, but I haven't tried it yet..

Re:Well

[hackstraw]

Does anybody know if Apple has fixed the overscan issues when hooking a device to an HDTV?

It sucks to not be able to see the application bar at the top of the screen.

Re:Well

[Lord_Dweomer]

The video format this is a big concern to me. I was wondering if any Mac geeks here could suggest a solution for my current situation...

I have a PC which I currently use for most of my video watching. I would LOVE to be able to hook something with the form factor of the Mini with the useability of the remote and Frontrow to my TV, and have it connect wirelessly to my PC which runs XP.

So, there's the OS issue...then on top of that, my entire video collection is either DivX or Xvid with a variety of codecs used. From the parents comment it would appear I am out of luck here.

Can anybody suggest a setup/solution that would allow me to wirelessly (or wired if neccessary) connect my PC to the Mini so I can transfer files between the two boxes...and also a solution for watching DivX/Xvid files with Frontrow on the Mini?

Re:Well

[TheRaven64]

Quicktime needs an add-on component for certain types of MPEG-2 video, including stuff grabbed off my ReplayTV. There's no free alternative codec for this, is there?

If you are just playing it back, then VLC will probably work. I generally find it to be a better video player than QT Pro. If you are importing it into Final Cut (or whatever) then you will need the MPEG-2 component.

Re:Well

[rworne]

Why would I do that?

I have a perfectly serviceable 36" Sony XBR digital "HD Ready" set. It has component, S-video, composite and RF inputs. Just because the industry wants to play musical chairs with HD inputs and DRM does not mean I trash a very good set or go out and buy another one. XBMC pretty much plays nicely with component video. I want the mac mini to do the same.

Re:Well

[foniksonik]

Newer LCD TVs come standard with VGA, DVI, S-Video and Ypb...

I'll be getting one of these for exactly this reason....

BTW are you looking for a WMV player? Flip4Mac is a Quicktime component that provides WMV playback inside QT... in fact MS stopped distributing Media Player for Mac in lieu of this...

Re:Well

[dancpsu]

Whoever wants to have a true media center HD computer has to be able to handle all inputs including component, overscan, and picture balance right from the remote. It took computer makers 15 years with regular television sets, and I'm beginning to think it will take another 15 years for HD (if ever).

Actually I'm beginning to think that the current round of HD is going to be junked entirely before we have wide adoption of HDTV in the US. It's either going to be SED or OLED displays with 4 HDMI inputs and built in cablecard3/ATSC tuners, and cheap enough to think that everyone has one. The content industry is trying to kill off component and DVI entirely, and I'm beginning to think they will succeed.

Re:Well

[hackstraw]

It took computer makers 15 years with regular television sets, and I'm beginning to think it will take another 15 years for HD (if ever).

Maybe it did take 15 years, but it seemed like the entire home PC business started with TV monitors. The home PC came out in what, 1978? TV based models, Atari and commodore used TV monitors in the early 80s or earlier. Console games used TVs from day one.

Whoever wants to have a true media center HD computer has to be able to handle all inputs including component, overscan, and picture balance right from the remote.

My DVR does this.

It's either going to be SED or OLED displays with 4 HDMI inputs and built in cablecard3/ATSC tuners, and cheap enough to think that everyone has one. The content industry is trying to kill off component and DVI entirely, and I'm beginning to think they will succeed.

The display technology is a mute issue. As long as the crap gets on the screen and looks good or "good enough for the cost" who cares if its SED, OLED, LCOS (which I believe is best), CRT, or crayons. The FCC has embraced the "analog hole" in the US, and requires DVRs to have some kind of archival output. The content morons kill me. I pay over $150/month for cable/DVR/internet and telephone to the same company for content that is mostly advertiser supported. Is that not enough? They can raise the price, but I will not pay any more, its hard to justify what I spend today, but I believe that the content and time convenience to watch it is currently worth it. I could always cut cable and read a book, I've done it before and gone without TV/cable for years at a time. Its not that big deal, but I enjoy spending time with friends watching cool stuff in HDTV. Its very difficult to hang out, drink beer, and read books together.

Re:Well

[Eccles]

VideoLan plays it fine. I just wanted to make a DVD from it, but iDVD won't permit it as a video clip.

Re:Well

[dancpsu]

Well, for a long time, tv-out simply didn't exist for PCs, whereas it always existed for consoles and set-top boxes, but usually it was either a TV or a computer monitor, not both. DVRs are essentially set-top boxes themselves.

The content industry is so money hungry that I simply opted out of cable, but I am close enough to a big city to get all the OTA content out there (23 channels), and a lot in HD. I can't imagine paying more than $40/mo for content whether it be internet a DVR or cable. I didn't know about the FCC rule. My DVR doesn't have an HD archival output of any kind, just SD. The one problem is since my DVR doesn't have a DVD burner (I have yet to purchase one), if I record something, I can't bring it over to a friend's place to see it with them. And if I want to watch it on their HDTV? There really isn't an option besides taking the whole DVR over.

Re:Well

[rworne]

Most of the previous posters addressed my concerns. I want:

1. Component output. S-Video will do if there's no "tearing" during horizontal pans.
2. XBMC work-alike. I don't care about the scripting, MameoX, or XBOX games. I want to access any file MPlayerOSX/VLAN can handle over my home network.
3. The iTunes/MP3, photo stuff is already addressed.

Overscan isn't an issue - I want this to replace my aging XBMC center. MythTV is another option in a ShuttlePC case - but the form factor of the Mac Mini is unbeatable.

Re:Well

[MojoStan]

I want:

1. Component output. S-Video will do if there's no "tearing" during horizontal pans.
2. XBMC work-alike. I don't care about the scripting, MameoX, or XBOX games. I want to access any file MPlayerOSX/VLAN can handle over my home network.

...I want this to replace my aging XBMC center. MythTV is another option in a ShuttlePC case - but the form factor of the Mac Mini is unbeatable.

Why doesn't the Pentium M-based, previous-generation AOpen MiniPC fit your needs? It has component video out (no digital audio out, though) and is the same size as the Mac mini. Also, Intel supplies decent Linux drivers for this platform if you want to run MythTV. Barebones start at around $280-$300 with combo drive and without CPU, hard drive, memory, and wireless module.

If you want Core Duo/Solo support, Aopen announced an updated version last week.

Re:Well

[rworne]

Quite nice! Thank you!

The new version says nothing about component video, but I will check this out.

Re:Well

[Anonymous Coward]

here, you lazy fucker.

http://www.divx.com/divx/mac/playback/
http://n.ethz.ch/student/naegelic/
http://www.3ivx.com/download/index.html

all available as quicktime plugins.

Re:Well

[dave1212]

try ffmpegx, it might convert it to something useable for you.

http://homepage.mac.com/major4/

Re:Well

[dave1212]

I'm considering it to replace my G4 as well, a dual 450. However, it's very difficult for me to consider having multiple external firewire drives hooked up all the time. (80 GB music/movie drive, 120 GB audio recording drive which are currently internal) I'm also sort of holding out to see what the new Power Mac/Mac Pro will have, in terms of drive space.
If the new machine can still only hold 2 drives, I think I'm going to pick up a dual 1.25 or dual 1.42 and stick with that for a while. Four drive bays, and 2 optical. I also use a couple of expansion cards, and a PCI Radeon for a second monitor. No way to use a second monitor with the Mini.
Can't believe a few-year old MDD G4 would be more attractive than a G5 or Mini. Ugh.

Fairly disappointing...

[John.P.Jones]

First, the iMac mini... I would like to put this on my HDTV but hey the wireless Mac keyboard has no mouse support, how am I supposed to use a mouse on the couch. The mac remote doesn't provide these features. That is just poor thinking. Other than that I would like to see someone make their DVD library on a fileserver available via Frontrow.

Second, the iPod case, why doesn't apple leave this market to 3rd parties, they do just fine thanks.

Third, the boombox. The iMac mini can get music from your home iTunes install, that is how a home stereo should work, leverage iTunes and a home network not plug in an iPod. Besides this is another market best left to 3rd parties. Let Bose, JBL, HK, etc. build stereos and consumers will demand iTunes / iPod interaction, Apple should help them not compete with them. What's next an Apple car with iPod connectivity? It is backwards

Re:Fairly disappointing...

[Anonymous Coward]

the wireless Mac keyboard has no mouse support, how am I supposed to use a mouse on the couch

We have these lovely new things called optical mice, that work on nearly any surface. There are even wireless ones. I have never had any trouble using my leg as a mousing surface with an optical, and neither will you unless you have a lot of pleather in your wardrobe.

Furthermore, the Apple keyboard and mouse are not included with the Mac mini. You are free to use any old wireless input device you choose, even non-Apple ones-- as long as it's USB you should be able to get it to work with the Mac, via Mac drivers from the maker or by using something like USB Overdrive.

Re:Fairly disappointing...

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you mean, the wireless keyboard has no mouse support? What do you think the bluetooth Mac mouse is for?

Re:Fairly disappointing...

[greed]

Don't forget the built-in Bluetooth, for even more keyboards and mice to choose from. Add a program like Salling Clicker, and you can use your Bluetooth PDA or cellphone as a remote.

Info on the Mini that's not immediately obvious

[CausticPuppy]

From the apple store... which is very slow right now, it took me about 15 minutes to find out this info:

The new mini uses DDR2 SO-DIMM's. Must be installed in pairs, comes with 2x256 by default but is upgradeable to 2x1024. $188 to upgrade from 512MB to 2GB, which is slightly more than Newegg pricing when you consider you don't get any credit for the original 512-- but still, nowhere near as bad as the old ripoff memory pricing.

5400rpm SATA drives-- but you can upgrade to a 120GB drive for another $118 vs. the standard 80GB

64MB **Shared video memory.** Nuts. Intel GMA950 graphics chipset. This chipset is better suited for home A/V use though.

Re:Info on the Mini that's not immediately obvious

[Tumbleweed]

SO-DIMMs, okay then, despite searching, I didn't notice that detail, thanks. That actually makes their $300 memory upgrade from 512 Meg to 2 Gig fairly reasonable, considering the prices I see on Newegg.

If it weren't for the lackluster video on this thing, I'd like to get one, rip the guts out and place them in a real computer case, and upgrade some of the bits and pieces. Raptor 150 for the HD, lowest-latency memory I could find (not sure what's available in SO-DIMM form factor yet; probably not great), my nice NEC fast optical drive.

That damned shared video, though - bleh.

I guess I'll have time to save up for a 'real' Intel Mac, whenever they come out. *sigh*

Re:Info on the Mini that's not immediately obvious

[bunco]

All of these "lackluster" features are likely the result of cooling concerns.

10K RPM drives produce a fair amount of heat compared to 7200 RPM.

Pretty much all "performance" GPU now have fairly high wattage requirements.

Re:Info on the Mini that's not immediately obvious

[Tumbleweed]

All of these "lackluster" features are likely the result of cooling concerns.

10K RPM drives produce a fair amount of heat compared to 7200 RPM.

That's true, but we're not even talking about 10k rpm drives - they're using 5400 rpm drives. There are 7200rpm laptop drives (built to order option for the MacBook Pro) that aren't even offered as an option here. There are 3.5" 7200 rpm drives that produce very little heat (assuming they went with a slightly larger box).

There is much better video circuitry in the MacBook Pro, which shouldn't have any worse heat restrictions than the Mac Mini, I'd think.

Re:Info on the Mini that's not immediately obvious

[ChunderDownunder]

they're using 5400 rpm drives. There are 7200rpm laptop drives (built to order option for the MacBook Pro) that aren't even offered as an option here.

It depends on what part of the website you read. One link on the Apple Store claims that all mac minis use 7200 drives. To see this, go to the ordering page and under Hard Drive, click Learn more.

Hopefully they'll clear up that inconsistency (with faster specs, of course!)

Re:Info on the Mini that's not immediately obvious

[Tumbleweed]

Wow, that's freaking obscure. Nice catch!

If true, that'll provide a big performance boost just by itself over the G4 Mac Minis; it also makes the $100 price increase over the older base unit a great deal. 7200rpm 2.5" HDs are _pricey_.

Umm... Touch Screen Video Ipod?

[SeraphimXI]

What happened to the Touch Screen Video IPod they were suppossed to announce? 2 mac mini's with a 6 button remote and yet another dock for the IPod was worth a huge presser why? Oh I forgot never mind they are releasing leather cases for the Ipod to, for 99 dollars! Finally I have to get rid of my 50 dollar leather IPOD case and get the new 99 dollar official one! Thank you apple!

Re:Umm... Touch Screen Video Ipod?

[djdavetrouble]

What happened to the Touch Screen Video IPod they were suppossed to announce?

same thing that happens every keynote, rumored != supposed to

especially in the case of apple announcements.

Re:Umm... Touch Screen Video Ipod?

[geoffspear]

Umm, the same thing that happened to the PDA they were "supposed to announce" and "definitely going to announce this time" for the past 5 years?

Every Apple rumor you read anywhere is completely made up by the author with no real information whatsoever. You may think the ones that turn out to be true are proof that the writers had actual inside information, but they're just a statistical certainty given the number of rumors. If someone predicts literally every product Apple could possibly release, a few of them are going to be true.

PXE boot?

[chill]

Can the Mac Mini boot via PXE? I'd love to be able to rip out the hard drive and just have a couple of these boot and run via GigE...

Re:PXE boot?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called NetBoot, and it needs a Mac OS X server (doesn't have to be an Xserve, you can buy the server software and put it on any Mac, but it isn't cheap). See http://www.apple.com/server/macosx/features/netboo tnetworkinstall.html . Apple has had NetBoot of some form since before OS X, since the early teardrop iMacs (or maybe earlier) and it's popular in school lab environments etc. HD's are so cheap that it isn't worth their bother to sell you a computer without one, plus it will use it as swap space, so you may not want to rip out the HD should you do a NetBoot like setup.

Re:PXE boot?

[commonchaos]

No PXE boot, but you can do a "diskless NetBoot". The official way to do NetBoot is to use a Mac OS X Server machine with Apple's imaging tools. The basics are:

• The client uses an extended version of bootp to get a kernel.
  
• Kernel uses HTTP or NFS to mount a read-only DMG on a remote host.
  
• Writes back to the DMG are "redirected" to a "shadow file". This shadow file can lives on a local hard drive, or (as of OS X 10.4) on AFP mounted share.
  

I've heard rumor that people have been able to get this to work using Open Source. But I've never seen any evidence of anybody actually doing Mac OS X NetBoot using Open Source.

I would guess that without modifying the Mac mini's firmware, you could NetBoot Linux on a Mac mini by using the extended version of bootp that Apple uses.

Re:PXE boot?

[dschuetz]

That all sounds a lot like the way NeXTSTEP network booted -- all over bootp and such.

Anyway, the MythTV wiki has an entry on this: Diskless Mac Mini Howto that looks, at least at first glance, to be what the OP was asking for... (though interestingly, it looks like they're not booting OSX over the net, but Linux. Hm.)

Re:PXE boot?

[anagama]

I've netbooted linux on macs equiped w/ openfirmware (I know the g3 and g4 laptops use this). cmd-opt-o-f on power up to do installs. As you surmised, bootp is necessary as well as nfs and tftp -- just make yaboot available on the linux side, and on the mac at the openfirmware prompt:

boot enet:XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX,yaboot

assuming yaboot (or whatever image) is the document root -- use back slashes between directories if it isn't. The XXXs denote the ip of the server.

Anyway, googling for "open firmware" is pretty informative, although open firmware isn't a well advertised feature and thus an unlikely to be used search term.

All I ever loaded was a linux installer. It would be interesting to put other images in the document root and see how things went.

Re:PXE boot?

[commonchaos]

That link is great. Thanks!

I have yet to learn what the EFI equivalent is for

sudo nvram boot-device='enet:192.168.1.1,yaboot'

...I'd still like to see an Open Source bootpd that supports Apple's extensions, Then you could just hold down the "N" key on a PPC/x86 Mac and It Would Just Work [tm].

The iPod stuff is disappointing.

[foo fighter]

The "hi-fi" is a bit late to the show. It doesn't add anything the exisiting iPod hi-fi's already have except a bigger price tag and the Apple logo.

The cases are also pretty but lame. No way to access the controls, no way to view the screen, and a $100 price tag add up to DOA.

I'm really confused why they would release these. I would think the market for these two categories of iPod add-ons is pretty saturated.

Re:The iPod stuff is disappointing.

[PFI_Optix]

Apple made it, therefore they will buy it.

Re:The iPod stuff is disappointing.

[plj]

Indeed. This “Hi-fi” thing does not have much new comparing to Bose's Sound Dock (IIRC, Bose does not run on batteries, but that's it). And it is about as “hi-fi” as the crappy 128 bps songs available on iTMS.

Re:The iPod stuff is disappointing.

[INeededALogin]

"hi-fi" as the crappy 128 bps

That line right there rendered your entire post as useless and uniformed. kbps per second... Not bits per second. Also, not all formats are created the same. A 128 kbps mp3 does not equal a 128 kbps AAC or a 128 kbps WMA file.

Re:The iPod stuff is disappointing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not when you control the purchase point (Apple Stores) for most iPods. Oh, and I hadn't seen an iPod speaker that could use batteries. (I'm not saying there isn't one, but I just haven't seen one, and I would imagine most consumers wouldn't have either.)

Re:The iPod stuff is disappointing.

[jcr]

It doesn't add anything the exisiting iPod hi-fi's already have except a bigger price tag and the Apple logo.

How can you decide that before you've heard it?

-jcr

Re:The iPod stuff is disappointing.

[Doctor Memory]

That line right there rendered your entire post as useless and uniformed.

Actually, it was his mention of a Bose product.

Re:The iPod stuff is disappointing.

[plj]

That line right there rendered your entire post as useless and uniformed.

So a one-letter typo makes that now.

Also, not all formats are created the same.

Like I wouldn't know. Most of my iTunes library is ripped as 224 kbps AAC. 128 is crappy. Got it?

Re:The iPod stuff is disappointing.

[plj]

Actually, it was his mention of a Bose product.

Oh. Care to explain why this iPod “hi-fi” is so much better, then? Because it has an Apple logo on it?

Re:The iPod stuff is disappointing.

[INeededALogin]

128 is crappy

I don't get it... You have an opinion, mine is that 128 kbps is not crappy. At least 1 billion songs have been bought at 128 kbps AAC. It might not be adequate for your musical tastes, but it certainly is adequate for everyone else. Saying that something is crappy just because 224 > 128 is just asinine. My collection is encoded in a loseless format, so by your black and white view of technology, your music is all crappy and needs to be deleted.

128 kbps AAC is perfectly fine and will be for awhile. Is it going to be perfect? No. Is it going to be close? Yes. Which are the same answers I can give for your 224 kbps AAC files.

Re:The iPod stuff is disappointing.

[Doctor Memory]

Well, let's look at the specs!

Apple iPod Hi-Fi (from Apple):
* Class D amp
* Two 180mm midrange drivers (acoustically suspended)
* One 130mm woofer (ported)
* Frequency response: 53Hz to 16kHz ± 3 dB
* Maximum peak sound pressure level: 108 dB at 1 m (AC); 102 dB at 1 m (DC)

Bose SoundDock (from Bose):
* 6.65" H x 11.91" W x 6.48" D 16.89 x 30.26 x 16.47 cm 4.56 lb (2.1 kg)

Can you show specs that demonstrate the Bose product to be superior? To anything? Can you even find specs for the SoundDock on Bose's site (beyond those shown here)? If so, trot 'em out, Bose-tool.

Re:The iPod stuff is disappointing.

[radish]

I think the point here is they both suck. Equally.

Re:The iPod stuff is disappointing.

[plj]

Yes, 128 kpbs is probably adequate for most people. But does that make it good, or hi-fi? In my opinion, no. Not even close of it. In fact, that is so low, that I think it is actually quite crappy. That was my point. Perhaps “everyone else” just have their eardrums made of steel!

224 kbps is much, much better. Yet I wouldn't claim that that goes as hi-fi either. I just pointed out that it is high enough that I can mostly stand it by myself: It is quite adequate for casual listening, for iPods, etc. It is just where I've personally stroke a compromise between audio compression and quality. When I want to listen to some real hi-fi, I'll pick up a CD from my shelf and use a separate CD player.

224 kbps may be not high enough for you, and I understand that there are people, who are going to accept nothing but lossless. Hell, there are people who think that CD audio is crappy! But if you really think that 128 kbps is even close to perfect, I can't see why you are using lossless – unless you're making lots of conversions to other formats, in which case lossless source naturally makes sense. But that would also mean that you definitely wouldn't want anything as low as 128 kbps as source.

Re:The iPod stuff is disappointing.

[thogard]

Far more than a billion songs have been listened to on AM radio and people went out and bought them but that doesn't prove AM radio is reasonable. 128 ACC is fine for background entertainment but if a quiet room and I only want to focus on the music, its just nasty.

Re:The iPod stuff is disappointing.

[typical]

So, can you convert these specs into practically-useful information?

I can't take much of any data about audio devices and walk away with very useful information. Too many audio vendors have managed to distort what useful information is present, design products around inflating a couple looked-at statistics, and fluffed up their product with totally or largely useless content.

If you're seriously worried about the suitability of an audio product, there isn't really much alternative to listening to it and deciding whether or not you like it. The only data that you can pretty much indisputably use is size and weight numbers (which Apple does include, though you didn't mention it above).

give the content away to sell hardware bicches!

[Thud457]

What? No announcement that they've bought Disney? Freakin' slackers...

BYODKM

[chill]

Bring Your Own Damn Keyboard & Mouse was how I first read this. Considering KVM has been in use for DECADES, why the hell did Apple change a well known acronym? I should probably expect as much from a company that once tried to convice people to pronounce "SCSI" as "Sexy" instead of "Scuzzy".

Re:BYODKM

[B3ryllium]

"Sexy" instead of "Scuzzy".

Oh ... you mean there's a difference?

Re:BYODKM

[Anonymous Coward]

Two reasons. First, because "KVM" is an incredibly obscure acronym. ("But I know it" is not a rebuttal, just FYI.) Second, the "V" in "KVM" stands for "video," which has _never_ been correct. Computer graphics displays and video are two distinctly different things. (Although the line is beginning to be blurred with HDTV, where the video standards and the computer graphics standards have started to overlap.)

Re:BYODKM

[Anonymous Coward]

Right on. The Mac mini comes with video, i.e. video output. So you don't bring it. But it does need a display, keyboard, and mouse.

Re:New Mac mini video chipset! Made for Home theat

[Erwos]

So, basically, all the features the nForce2-integrated Geforce4 MX had when it debuted back in mid-2002? THAT'S AMAZING!

The choice of the GMA 950 is hardly something to get worked up about. In fact, it's a downright bad choice, seeing as ATI's X1300 series has MUCH, MUCH better video support.

-Erwos

Hit the store an hour ago

[digitaldc]

Other new products are an iPod Leather Case and three new media-center-style Intel Mac minis which will hit the Apple Store within the hour.

Sorry, we're all sold out...you'll have to come back in about a month when the new shipment arrives.
In the meantime, can I interest you in a new PowerMac G5 Quad with an NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500?

Re:New Mac mini video chipset! Made for Home theat

[Jonboy X]

Sweet! Looks like a fantastic-if-somewhat-overpriced MythTV frontend box for the living room. Anybody got any info on how much of the hardware is Linux-friendly?

All well and good, but one question

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but do these "toys" run linux?

<duck/>

yeah, whats new?

[pcxmac]

not much, // usesless commentary // APple sucks. They haved sucked ever since Jobs came in to power, down with Jobs, down with apple and all its toys, ....

      -- Former Mac addict, the PowerMac 9600, the last-best mac & an end of an era.

Re:yeah, whats new?

[DurendalMac]

Okay, you can keep the PM 9600. It was a kickass machine back in the day, to be sure, but it's going to be limping by now, even with all the best upgrades. I'll stick with my Digital Audio G4 until I get the cash for an upgrade. OS X annihilates OS 9. You can whine about Jobs, but ever since he took over, Apple has actually been MAKING money! Imagine that!

Re:yeah, whats new?

[Anonymous Coward]

The 1984 BMW 318i, the last-best BMW & an end of an era. The 1978 Zenith color television, the last-best television & an end of an era. The 1983 Sony Walkman, the last-best portable music player & an end of an era.

Reminds me of my brother saying over and over that, to this day, no car audio can compare to the 1978 Ford Thunderbird with its Quadraphonic sound system.

He has an Apple Cube, by the way...and intends to keep it forever because it's the best computer ever made.

Re:yeah, whats new?

[wvitXpert]

As someone who grew up on pre-PPC Macs, let me tell you that they sucked. Apple didn't have a decent OS until OSX. From a technical standpoint, a usability standpoint, or from a reliability standpoint.

What a breakthrough!

[Anonymous Coward]

In fact, several! All in one of the offerings, the "hi fi boombox."

First, "hi fi" is short for "high fidelity" (as opposed to "wi fi" which is short for absolutely nothing at all.)

High Fidelity means the played back recording sounds as much like the original performance as possible. Before now, no boom box in the world could be considered high fidelity, as you need huge, multi-driver speakers for recorded sound to sound anything like a real, live performance.

Secondly, no CD I've ever heard has ever been anywhere close to convincing me it could be a live performance, even played through Mike's big speakers with the fifteen inch woofers and super-tweeters.

Thirdly, the real breakthrough is making the lossy MP3 sound more real than CD. These aren't engineers, they're magicians! God, but I'm impressed!

</sarcasm>

("Secretly? how is that an MRC?)

Intel mac Mini initial reaction

[Tumbleweed]

I'm disappointed in the graphics - I was hoping for something along the lines of an X1300 or X1600 (the MacBook Pro has an X1600, I think).

I like that it has optical in and out, now, plus the remote control, wifi, and bluetooth are all now included. The superdrive is a dual layer drive (though certainly not as fast as the one in my current machine (NEC-3550A).

Here's what's really "interesting": memory. It's using DDR2-667. The price to upgrade from the default 512 Meg to 2 Gig is $300. So, search Newegg, and you'll find only ONE 2 Gig DDR2 stick at that speed (by Corsair), and it costs $999! All the other 2 Gig DDR2 sticks are at slower speeds.

So, how much you wanna bet if you buy Apple's 2 Gig DDR2 stick, it won't be running at 667? Tricky, tricky.

The video output should support my 1600x1200 resolution (it goes up to 1920x1080, which is the same # of pixels as 1600x1200), but I'm wondering at what refresh rate.

I dunno about this; this isn't a slam-dunk, "Yeah, it's time to get an Apple" product. Hmmm.

I think I want a Mac Mini Pro:

a) slightly larger to accomodate the use of a normal 3.5" harddrive, not the slow-as-hell 2.5" laptop class drive used here

b) big enough to fit a real graphics card in it

c) eSATA connector for fast external storage. FW400 won't cut it - even FW800 isn't as fast as an internal drive

d) full-speed tray-loading optical drive (16x, plus 8x burning for DL media, like my lovely NEC drive)

e) they could even ditch the FireWire entirely if I get my eSATA; this isn't a video production machine, ya know?

f) just large enough for 2 memory slots; fast 2 Gig DDR2 sticks are effin pricey, as mentioned above

I think something about 2x the size of the current Mac Mini would probably be able to fit all that in it; maybe 2.5x, though I'm not sure about the depth necessary for the decent optical drive.

I'm on the fence on this one until I see some independent tests and more technical details (does this one support all of the CoreImage functionality? VGA refresh rate at 1600x1200?). I may have to wait for the PowerMac replacement, unfortunately. Grr.

Re:Intel mac Mini initial reaction

[XMilkProject]

It's designed to hook to your widescreen HDTV to do 1080i, hence the max supported resolution. Will it do 1080p? I'm not sure how that works over DVI.

Mine will hopefully arrive tomorrow evening or thursday, and I'll hook it via HDMI/DVI cable to my HDMI HD Television. It looks like this graphics setup was designed especially for media center, with all the acceleration in the right spots.

Re:Intel mac Mini initial reaction

[Anonymous Coward]

I did just what you ask six months ago.

get a Shuttle XPC case. Throw in a fast AMD cpu, good disk, 1-2GB of DDR in dual-channel, NVidia 6800 AGP, TV in and out with a Hauppauge card, wireless keyboard and mouse.

Everything you need for less than the cost of the base Mini. Sure, it is about 4x the size, but still small form factor, way cheap and far mroe extensible.

Re:Intel mac Mini initial reaction

[franktinsley]

I think that's called iMac.

Re:Intel mac Mini initial reaction

[Tumbleweed]

Yeah - how well does that run OS X?

Re:Intel mac Mini initial reaction

[pyros]

u buy Apple's 2 Gig DDR2 stick, it won't be running at 667? Tricky, tricky.

It's paired, two 1 GB sticks for $270.

Re:Intel mac Mini initial reaction

[djpenguin808]

You should have cheked the specs before you ranted. The Intel mac minis both have two DIMM slots already, and the DDR2 memory must be installed in pairs, so the price on a 2GB DDR2 module is irrelevant, as the 2GB configuration is using a pair of 1GB modules.

Also, I think if you make the machine large enoguh to accomodate a 3.5" HDD and a full-sized video card, you'll end up with a toaster-sized machine similar to the SFF PCs currently on the market. Part of the appeal of the mini is the fact that it's roughly the size of five CD jewel cases stacked up...anyone can free up that much desk space.

Re:Intel mac Mini initial reaction

[jcr]

So, how much you wanna bet if you buy Apple's 2 Gig DDR2 stick, it won't be running at 667?

Apple's not offering a 2gig DDR2 stick. Their 2-gig memory configuration is a pair of one-gig sticks.

Tricky, tricky.

Yeah, damn them for your misunderstanding!

-jcr

Re:Intel mac Mini initial reaction

[jcr]

does this one support all of the CoreImage functionality?

This was just asked and answered on the Quartz Composer Developers mailing list:

Yes & Yes

Although the graphics chip is an embedded Intel i950, and the performance won't be stellar - say compared to the new iMacs or MacBook Pros, but definitely better than the previous Mac Mini

-jcr

Re:Intel mac Mini initial reaction

[NetJunkie]

It doesn't. There is no way to get 1080p in to a TV right now. No current interface has the bandwidth. All the TVs that currently say they do 1080p just convert a 1080i signal internally.

Re:Intel mac Mini initial reaction

[Tumbleweed]

Good news. Multa danko.

Full spec list

[swid27]

Ask, and you shall receive

Re:Full spec list

[AddressException]

I'm getting 500 errors trying to get specs for the new mini. Does anyone have a full feature list?

The original poster wanted specs, not a link to the same server that's giving hime HTTP 500 errors!

Processor and memory

* 1.5GHz Intel Core Solo or 1.66GHz Intel Core Duo processor
* 2MB on-chip L2 cache
* 667MHz frontside bus
* 512MB of 667MHz DDR2 SDRAM (PC2-5300) on two DIMMs; supports up to 2GB

Size and weight

* Height: 2 inches (5.08 cm)
* Width: 6.5 inches (16.51 cm)
* Depth: 6.5 inches (16.51 cm)
* Weight: 2.9 pounds (1.31 kg)

Peripheral connections

* One FireWire 400 port (8 watts)
* Four USB 2.0 ports (up to 480 Mbps)

Back upper angled shot
Apple Remote
Graphics and Video Support

* Intel GMA950 graphics processor with 64MB of DDR2 SDRAM shared with main memory1
* DVI video output to support digital resolutions up to 1920 by 1200 pixels; supports 20-inch Apple Cinema Display and 23-inch Apple Cinema HD Display; supports coherent digital displays up to 154MHz; supports noncoherent digital displays up to 135MHz
* VGA video output (using included adapter) to support analog resolutions up to 1920 by 1080 pixels
* S-video and composite video output to connect directly to a TV or projector (using Apple DVI to Video Adapter, sold separately)

USB Modem
Communications

* Built-in 10/100/1000BASE-T Gigabit Ethernet (RJ-45 connector)
* Built-in 54-Mbps AirPort Extreme wireless networking (based on 802.11g standard)
* Built-in Bluetooth 2.0 + Enhanced Data Rate (EDR) up to 3 Mbps
* Optional external Apple USB Modem

Audio

* Built-in speaker
* Combined optical digital audio input/audio line in (minijack)
* Combined optical digital audio output/headphone out (minijack)

Storage

* 60GB or 80GB 5400-rpm Serial ATA hard disk drive; optional 100GB or 120GB drive2
* Slot-load optical drive One of the following optical drives:
o Slot-loading Combo drive (DVD-ROM/CD-RW): reads DVDs at up to 8x speed, writes CD-R discs at up to 24x speed, writes CD-RW discs at up to 16x speed, reads CDs at up to 24x speed
o Slot-loading SuperDrive with double-layer support (DVD+R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW): writes DVD+R DL discs at up to 2.4x speed, writes DVD-R and DVD+R discs at up to 8x speed, writes DVD-RW and DVD+RW discs at up to 4x speed, reads DVDs at up to 8x speed, writes CD-R discs at up to 24x speed, writes CD-RW discs at up to 16x speed, reads CDs at up to 24x speed

Electrical and environmental requirements

* Meets ENERGY STAR requirements
* Line voltage: 100-240V AC
* Frequency: 50Hz to 60Hz, single phase
* Maximum continuous power: 110W
* Operating temperature: 50 to 95 F (10 to 35 C)
* Storage temperature: -40 to 116 F (-40 to 47 C)
* Relative humidity: 5% to 95% noncondensing
* Maximum altitude: 10,000 feet

Universal
Software

* Mac OS X v10.4 Tiger (includes Spotlight, Das

My Thoughts

[MBCook]

First off is the boombox. I'm not too surprised they did this (it is a huge market afterall). That said, I'm... unimpressed. It's just a big speaker with a iPod dock on top. That's what it looks like at least. I am thoroughly unimpressed with it. (Note: I'm not in the market for anything like this).

I find the Minis more interesting. I like the decision to offer two speeds: one a core solo and one a core duo. I think it is sad that they only come with 512MB of RAM still (especially since they now use Intel graphics that use the system memory for video RAM). I'm a bit dissapointed at the price jump (from $500 and $600 to $600 and $800). I wouldn't mind it as much if they included that RAM (they want $90 to do that).

For the record, I checked out what my student discount would get me. $20 off the Minis. What a savings ;)

Still, my sister is all hot under the collar to get one so I might get to play with one. They are cute.

Re:My Thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

DUDE! No matter how cute they are, it is STILL you SISTER!

Re:My Thoughts

[jcr]

It's just a big speaker with a iPod dock on top. That's what it looks like at least. I am thoroughly unimpressed with it.

Do you always judge audio components by the way they look? Not too clear on the concept of audio, are we?

-jcr

Re:My Thoughts

[radish]

This product is not for people who care about sound quality. This is for people who download 128kbps itunes files and play them back on stock $2 earbuds. For that audience, as I keep being told, visual appeal is very important. And, FWIW I agree, this thing is utterly fugly. There are plenty of ipod speaker docks out there which are better looking, and I'd be surprised if this one is significantly better sounding. But maybe I'm wrong, I haven't heard one.

Re:My Thoughts

[jcr]

But maybe I'm wrong, I haven't heard one.

Exactly.

-jcr

As a media geek, this is exactly what I wanted

[SilentChris]

Ever since the Mac Mini came out, I considered using it as a media PC in my living room. I currently have a stylish Shuttle box I built myself for $800 that, while not the quietest thing in the world, looks good amongst the receiver and other electronics equipment. I use it to dish out ripped DVDs to a 40" HDTV with Windows Media Center 2005 (not a bad OS, although lately I've had a few issues with crashing).

Once I saw Front Row, I always said, if Apple were to release a version for Mac Mini, I'd buy the little box immediately. Just did.

To me, this fits perfectly with what I want: quiet, small, cheap, able to play a large DVD collection. I'll have to save them as MPEG4s, but that's no big deal. The fact that it can play videos across the network from both Mac and PCs pretty much seals the deal.

With a wireless keyboard and 1 GB of RAM my box came out to $750 (employee discount). The video card is pretty crappy, but otherwise it fits perfectly with what I want. I'm not a Apple fanboy by any stretch of the imagination (I like all machines, and run a ton of different boxes/OSes in my home), but this is a very nice product for what I need to do.

Re:As a media geek, this is exactly what I wanted

[MacGod]

Unless you ripped you DVDs to WMV with DRM, you should be able to play them just fine. My Mac plays Div-X and XVid AVIs through QuickTime just fine (using a free plugin, natch). If they're in Ogg Video, download the free VLC, and they'll play fine as well, though not through QT PLayer, which rules out using Front Row to select them.

Re:As a media geek, this is exactly what I wanted

[SilentChris]

Well I have enough room on my NAS box that I can store them uncompressed. I basically ripped them and left the VIDEO_TSes in a central locations. Windows Media Center didn't really care and played the VIDEO_TS right off the NAS. Apparently Front Row requires videos to be actual files, hence needing to go to MPEG4.

Weak.

[otis wildflower]

The core solo is at least $100 overpriced, and Apple's back to their traditional crap video chipset form.

Better find a discounted G4 mini whilst you can!

Re:New Mac mini video chipset! Made for Home theat

[Average_Joe_Sixpack]

Looks good, but will the 2.5" HDD be fast enough to handle the load? Me thinks an external firewire drive will do the trick.

Where'd the design go?

[SilentJ_PDX]

The Hi-Fi is a bit of a stretch. It's basically a big box with little iPod jutting out of the top. It would look much better if the iPod sat between the speakers. Even the product page, doesn't do it any favors.

If you ask me, that's not the kind of innovation or design that we're used to from Apple.

Re:Where'd the design go?

[Anonymous Coward]

especially the horrible 53Hz - 16kHz frequency response...

Re:Where'd the design go?

[no_opinion]

No kidding. I feel motivated to perform the obligatory chant:

U!
  G!
    L!
      Y!
You ain't got no alibi,
You UGLY!

Yah, yah,
You UGLY!

Re:Where'd the design go?

[Sponge Bath]

...the kind of innovation or design that we're used to from Apple

Perhaps you would prefer a white apple shaped unit with a black turtle neck and Mr. Potato Head ears as speakers?

Re:Where'd the design go?

[ZzzzSleep]

Quoth SilentJ_PDX:

The Hi-Fi is a bit of a stretch. It's basically a big box with little iPod jutting out of the top. It would look much better if the iPod sat between the speakers.

Do you mean something like this or this?

Re:Where'd the design go?

[Anonymous Coward]

The eighties' called and want that design back!

Re:Where'd the design go?

[StikyPad]

But you can get realistic bass response from tiny speakers powered by D batteries with no clipping. It's easy, just ask Bose! Makes you wonder why they even bother making 12" woofers anymore.

Re:Where'd the design go?

[AaronLawrence]

Yes, that's pretty crap. Obviously because they have no tweeters in it! Hard to believe anyone has the nerve to advertise speakers as "hifi" without tweeters ...

The woofer is also kind of small, only 5".

So all in all this "hifi" speaker is about the same quality as a cheap and cheerful set of PC speakers with a small sub. Groovy...

Re:Where'd the design go?

[Anonymous Coward]

-claps-

It's nice to see a Violent Femmes reference in this day and age.

Leather Case Will Not Be Successful

[JDSalinger]

The new leather case has the same problem as the original Apple-branded leather case. The iPod cannot be used while in the case. People will not want to take the iPod in and out of the case each time they want to use the device. -C

Data Center

[MBCook]

What I want to know is what Apple's going to do with its new 107,000 square foot Tier IV data center... iTunes Movie/Media Store, anyone?

I have been thinking. Wouldn't it be interesting if they used this to offer paid hosting of websites and businesses (ala Rackspace/Dreamhost/CIHost/Whatever)? Now I realized that this is quite a bit out of their core market, but it would get Apple servers out there. And who better to know how to run a datacenter of Macs than Apple themselves. Rent your own partial XServer to even a full XServer!

Just an interesting thought. I doubt it, but it was the first thing that popped into my head when you mentioned that.

I never even thought of them using it for iTMS and .Mac. That would make more sense.

Re:Data Center

[MicrowavedH2O]

It may be needed for the newly debuted iWeb, and definitely .Mac accounts with the upgraded storage capacity.

Re:Data Center

[PHPfanboy]

I don't think this is a good idea at all, the hosting market has seen loads of companies merge or go out of business in the past couple of years and it's a total commodity business, unlike any other market Apple is in (OK, apart from the iPod Shuffle).

And didn't we read a few months ago about Sun's grid for rent not having even 1 customer?

I'm sure they have plenty experience with large Mac cluster administration due to iTMS, but still opening a hosting proposition (that is not related to .Mac) would make a really weird choice.

Re:Data Center

[corbettw]

I have been thinking. Wouldn't it be interesting if they used this to offer paid hosting of websites and businesses (ala Rackspace/Dreamhost/CIHost/Whatever)? Now I realized that this is quite a bit out of their core market, but it would get Apple servers out there. And who better to know how to run a datacenter of Macs than Apple themselves. Rent your own partial XServer to even a full XServer!

Well, if there's one company that knows how to use a service to push hardware, it's Apple. I'm not sure how they'd replicate the success of iTunes+iPod to a hosting service (iRack? naaah). But if there's a way to make it work, I'm sure Jobs and Company can find it.

Re:Data Center

[Saint Fnordius]

Apple already has .mac for home users, so it would make sense for them to expand in a pro direction. Or they could use the expertise to make .mac free again as it was in the beginning. Or they could use it to lower the cost of running the iTMS. It's hard to say at this point.

Whatever Apple does, it's about integration with Apple hardware or to fill gaps others leave open.

Note to VIA...

[chill]

I've been waiting over a year for your damn Nano-ITX motherboard to ship, or a decent "legacy-free" Mini-ITX. It looks like Apple has beaten you to it and will be getting my hard-earned cash. The only benefit I can see to the VIA is the built-in crypto accelerator, but that can easily be remedied by replacing the 802.11g mini-PCI card in the Mac Mini with a Soekris VPN1411 crypto accelerator, if needed.

Re:Note to VIA...

[XMilkProject]

I second that. I own several Via mini-itx boards, but with lackluster CPU support that requires me to manually recompile all my kernels, and obscure chipsets that require custom drivers or simply don't work at all, I'm not so hyped on them anymore.

This mythical nano-itx was exciting at first... And I actually saw one in person at a trade-show, but it seems that perhaps that was the only one they actually built, becuase this item has never surfaced for purchase.

Get on the ball Via. You got a huge following with your Mini-ITX boards, and you've fucked it off with shitty driver support, and not delivering on promises.

I bought my new mac mini already, and I'm sure that nano-sized-core-duo board will work better than any Epia's.

Re:Note to VIA...

[soleblaze]

the nano-itx boards have just started coming out for purchase this last month. Of course, they're still single processor and max of 1ghz w/ fan or 800mhz w/o fan. Kinda a bust considering how long they took to come out.

Finally A Solution To My MP3 Problem

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been looking for a MP3 player that is similar to the iPod in features but with a larger hard drive, menu output to a TV instead of the small screen, a large hard drive, and a remote. My iPod is currently connected directly to the stereo and is used in place of my CD jukebox, which ran out of slots many years ago.

And now the hard drive space on that iPod is getting low, so I'm off to find another solution. I hit google and had very luck finding what I wanted. The best solution that I have found so far are the DLink media centers that communicate to a PC via wireless. That's not the approach that I wanted to take, as I prefer the unit to be stand alone and didn't want to have a dedicated PC running all the time in addition to the dLink center.

So I was considering building my own system solve the problem, but I kept coming up with too expensive a price tag for something that I cobble together and would have to support (my free time does have value to me too). Also, I didn't like having a PC case sitting alongside the stereo equipment and the possibility of having a wireless mouse/keyboard on the coffee table.

Although the new Mac Mini's are more expensive than I was hoping to spend for such an appliance to solve the problem, they are still cheaper than the route of building it myself and seem to solve some of the other hangups that I was having with the PC route.

Now does anyone know if the mini can be operated only by its remote. I want to basically just power it up and bring up the mp3 player/iTunes and operate it via the remote. No keyboard, no mouse.

If not, maybe Apple should consider building a home theatre device thats like an iPod on steriods.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:New Mac mini video chipset! Made for Home theat

[mhocker]

HDTV is certainly possible with the older Minis as well. I have used with great success DisplayConfigX to "add in" 1280x720 resolutions to my PPC Mini. I have it hooked up to a Panasonic PT-AE700U and it's great.

But this is clearly the Mini that Apple should have released in the first place. The remote and digital audio out were the two most annoying problems with creating my home theatre Mac Mini. The remote was relatively easy, just use a keyspan remote. But the digital audio is an unsolvable problem due to the lack of Mac-compatible 5.1 solutions.

Bottom line; even for this PPC user this is a great upgrade. Good news is that PPC minis are still great Internet surfing devices with a cheap monitor and keyboard/mouse attached so my old one won't go 'spare'.

Apple Ad?

[Lawrence_Bird]

One wonders how much Apple pays /. to run this ad.  Truly earth
shattering announcements.  Perhaps next month will be a Sable iPod
case.

No highs, no lows, must be Bose?

[Dracoirs]

Meh, Bose....

*sigh*

[enrico_suave]

that was a lotta hype for not much "fun" imho.

*shrug* maybe I'm just spoiled/jaded at this point.

e.

That's what I was wondering, too. I need Quartz Ex

[melted]

That's what I was wondering, too. I need Quartz Extreme on this thing. If it doesn't support it, I'm not going to buy.

USB/Firewire TV Tuners for Mac

[snuf23]

Elgato makes a number of different models of TV tuner for Macs. They are USB or Firewire and depending on the model support analog, digital cable, HDTV over the air and HDTV cable signals.
I've never used them, so I can't comment on how well they work - but there is an option out there for Mac Minis.

Damn stock price...

[vertinox]

When apple did the conference in January I bought the stock at 76 and then it jumped to 86 with my hopes it would keep on going, but then when Intel reported badly it dropped down into the upper 60's. Right now it is hovering in the upper 68's and I wondering why the stock price is down with the impending announcement.

Re:Damn stock price...

[tktk]

I wondering why the stock price is down with the impending announcement.

That's the general rule for Apple stock.

Right before any announcements Apple stock will go down.

If the announcement isn't impressive, the stock will go down.

If the announcement is impressive, the stock will go down even more.

Re:Damn stock price...

[jcr]

That's pretty much it. The dramatic gains tend to happen around the earnings reports.

-jcr

Re:New Mac mini video chipset! Made for Home theat

[Danathar]

It's amazing when you consider the previous model did'nt have those features. Not that they are'nt available in another chipset.

yea...I agree the Nforce 2 would of been better, but it really depends on the PRICE that intel said they'd give apple

eww...

[Captain Rotundo]

I just got an ipod for the first time (so I was worried they were gonna release a new one) and it is much nicer than a lot of other mp3 players I've tried, but that hifi thing is taking this design concept just a tad too far.... it really looks ugly.

Stick a better GPU in it, and you have an XBox

[mozumder]

I wonder if Apple is going to go this route next. It would be certainly far more usable than a dedicated gaming console.

Re:Stick a better GPU in it, and you have an XBox

[vertinox]

I wonder if Apple is going to go this route next. It would be certainly far more usable than a dedicated gaming console.

Thats my biggest gripe about this new version:

Graphics and Video Support

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

Shared memory? Yuck! If you could only get a 128mb or a 256mb I'd get one. However, I bet it would be more than $1,000, but I'd still be interested.

Re:Stick a better GPU in it, and you have an XBox

[MojoStan]

Thats my biggest gripe about this new version:

Graphics and Video Support

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

Shared memory? Yuck! If you could only get a 128mb or a 256mb I'd get one.

Intel's last two integrated graphics solutions (GMA 900 and GMA 950) are a heck of a lot better than their previous versions (Extreme and Extreme 2). They even assist HD video acceleration (MPEG-2, not H.264). In fact, GMA 900 (slower version of GMA 950) seemed to work great in the Intel developer Macs. Source:

Intel Developer Macs Outperform G5s

For a budget/mainstream computer, shared memory is not so horrid anymore since PCI Express (8 GB/s bandwidth) replaced AGP. Even NVIDIA and ATI have adopted shared memory for their low-end non-integrated PCI Express cards (TurboCache and HyperMemory).

Sure, GMA 950 is not a good solution for playing DOOM 3 or Halo 2, but Quake 3 and UT 2003 will fly. Sharky Extreme got over 100 fps in Q3/UT 2003 using GMA 950. But who the heck is going to buy the Mac mini for playing the latest 3D graphics-heavy games?

Re:Stick a better GPU in it, and you have an XBox

[Mr. Cancelled]

I wonder if Apple is going to go this route next. It would be certainly far more usable than a dedicated gaming console. Thats my biggest gripe about this new version:

Everyone's bitching about how this isn't the game machine they were hoping for, which just blows me away. This is obviously not Apples market historically speaking, and I doubt they'd jump into suck a market at all, much less in the middle of the way-overblown "PS3 vs. XBox360 vs. Nintendo Revolution" fight we keep reading about.

If you guys were saving up for some mythical, never before heard of Mac game box, it's no wonder you're disapointed. But why you'd be expecting such a beast is beyond me

But while I was wondering about the whole gaming thing, I was wondering if the new Mini (specifically the dual core) would be able to play recorded HD content recorded with Apple's H.264 codec. I love H.264's quality/size capabilities, but am unable to play them on my current PVR outfit (an aging, but still more than capable AMD1600 mated with a 8500DV vid' card).

I've been considering a Mini for a HD-capable PVR, but while I can purchase & record HD content using a Elgato's EyeTV-500 capture setup, I don't want to put my Mac, which is my main machine, in the living room, and the 1st generation Mini's are incapable of playing back high resolution video consistently. This new Mini sounds like it might do the trick.

And as for the games, I'm sure that the Mini will be more than capable of running Mame, ZSNES, and a variety of other gaming platforms that while not cutting edge 3-D FPS's, will entertain me and my friends for hours and hours.

Re:Stick a better GPU in it, and you have an XBox

[kabz]

Just as some anecdotal evidence, OpenGL runs pretty decent on the Intel Extreme Graphics on my girlfriend's Dell, and relatively like crap on my Compaq Presario Desktop with VIA Unichrome Graphics. This result is just eyeballing whether the OpenGL screensavers run smoothly, from a default Ubuntu LiveCD.

They are smooth on the DELL, and crap on the Presario. And these are reasonably comparable $600-class machines. I'd say the 945 graphics should be just fine.

Re:Stick a better GPU in it, and you have an XBox

[adpowers]

But while I was wondering about the whole gaming thing, I was wondering if the new Mini (specifically the dual core) would be able to play recorded HD content recorded with Apple's H.264 codec. I love H.264's quality/size capabilities, but am unable to play them on my current PVR outfit (an aging, but still more than capable AMD1600 mated with a 8500DV vid' card).

Unfortuntaely, it doesn't look good.

Re:Stick a better GPU in it, and you have an XBox

[Enrique1218]

I am not very fond the Intel graphics either, but I anticipated this when Apple said it was going Intel. From my research on building a gaming computer, you can find a Gpu with dedicated graphics for about $60 retail. I sure Apple could put it in without adding to much to the retail price or at least offer it as an add on. It looks promising that they can release a core solo iBook at about the $799 price point.

Re:Stick a better GPU in it, and you have an XBox

[inio]

Sure, GMA 950 is not a good solution for playing [...] Halo 2

Um... last time I checked the only card that Halo 2 runs on is, effectively, a GeForce 3 with shared memory which, I'm pretty sure the, GMA 950 could wipe the floor with.

Re:Stick a better GPU in it, and you have an XBox

[nigham]

Shared memory? Yuck! If you could only get a 128mb or a 256mb I'd get one. However, I bet it would be more than $1,000, but I'd still be interested.

It's called the iMac.

Now Apple needs to release the 800 lb. gorilla.

[Anonymous Coward]

The invitation mentioned some "fun new products," so I wasn't expecting much, and that's about what showed up. Sure, the Intel Mac Mini was a nice addition, but Apple has yet to do the obvious:

1. A Home Media Center Mac. Something that would either replace a TiVo, or actually complement one, or both. It would need to get stuff from your video source (cable/satellite/antenna/whatever) a la TiVo, and allow you to either view it on your Mac monitor or output it to your TV. iTunes-esque organization, FrontRow-esque viewing interface, and capability to output to the video iPod and burn to DVD would all be an obvious benefit.

2. The capability to download movies and everything else video from iTMS. Sell every TV series, movie, direct-to-video, made-for-TV special and music video ever made. Figure out a way to encode some semblence of 5.1 surround into a compressed file that looks nice on a TV screen and halfway decent on a computer monitor.

The stumbling blocks to this are not technological, but political. But Apple did it with iTMS and they have the mark of cool.

This wouldn't be a "fun new product," this would be an "fundamental shift of paradigm." It's so obviously the next step, though, and surely Apple knows it. Everything else they do until then is merely a sideshow.

Re:Now Apple needs to release the 800 lb. gorilla.

[generic-man]

Apple wants to sell you Leno's monologue or last week's "The Office" for $2. What makes you think they would let you record them yourself for free*?

* Well, you might have to pay the cable company or buy an off-air antenna, but Apple wouldn't make money from either of those

Re:Now Apple needs to release the 800 lb. gorilla.

[bigpat]

What would be needed to make this happen? Maybe an external USB CableCard 2.0 slot? Or a USB HD tuner? Seems the Mac Mini could already be a very nice media center and could support downloadable content with a broadband connection. Just need something along these lines as an add-ons.

But a CableCard 2.0 slot would be key to any media center, or else having the option of connecting a cablecard 2.0 device to the mini via firewire or USB.

Re:Now Apple needs to release the 800 lb. gorilla.

[Anonymous Coward]

So do what TiVo does... charge a monthly fee for television listings. They seem ot be doing well with the .Mac model (even though that's yearly, not monthly, IIRC)... it could even be rolled into that.

5.1 sound output?

[olddotter]

Can anyone confirm if the new Mini's have a way to output 5.1 surround sound? If its made for HT, then it needs surround sound output.

Re:5.1 sound output?

[abscissa]

How many MP3s did you download from Limewire (or the Apple Store, for that matter)... or even ripped from your own CD collection with losseless quality... have 5.1 channels of sound?

Re:5.1 sound output?

[glennrrr]

I suspect the original poster just wanted to watch DVDs with DTS or Dolby Digital surround tracks using his surround speakers. Since it has an optical S/PDIF output, yes you will be able to get 5.1 sound out using the Apple DVD Player. Just go to the preferences dialog for DVD Player and choose Digital Output in the audio section of the Disk Setup pane.

Re:5.1 sound output?

[s.o.terica]

All prior Macs with optical digital output were able to pass Dolby Digital through the digital out, so I see no reason why the new mini would be any different.

Re:5.1 sound output?

[ceoyoyo]

Yes, it has optical out and I just found this: http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/audio/Intel_CPU_iMac_Au dio.html confirming that you can use it for 5.1 and 6.1.

I feel a great disturbance in the Force.

[ettlz]

As if millions of Apple fanatics suddenly cried out in ecstacy, and suddenly quiesced as they creamed themselves.

bose wave vs. ipod hi-fi ...

[mbaudis]

i have a bose wave radio. basically, good sound - for the kitchen. and it is small, but not really portable (no batteries, no handles...).

the speakers in the ipod hi-fi look way more substatial, and with a woofer. probably the thing sounds rather good, and looks like a nice basic music system.

however, only one audio in - either CD (yes, I still have some) or vinyl, or video ... and it is difficult to hide, in contrast to a standard iPod dock with hidden ammp and speakers. but for some, this may be enough (rip all your music, use the in for your projector).

Re:New Mac mini video chipset! Made for Home theat

[JazzCrazed]

HDD bandwidth was a significant bane of my PPC Mini's existence. Doing 720 was OK, but I can't imagine playing back full 1080 on it. At the same time, for a while I hooked my Mini into a Linux file server that stored DVD-resolution MPEG-4 movies (between 1 and 2 mbps), and I got the occasional framerate hiccup over 100mbps LAN. They were nothing to write home about, but comparing it to cheapo Linux and PC boxes on the same network, the difference was disappointing. You can't blame the hard drive for that so much as the poor processor. And I'm just talking about playback/decoding - not time-shifting/encoding/recording. The G4 was really holding this power-starved computer back, and I'd be tempted to try out the Intel-based one if I wasn't already hooked on MythTV.

You geeks are so hard to please

[Anonymous Coward]

Have any of you ever opened a mac mini? Do you have any idea how freaking small the thing is? There was hardly any room in the thing for a stick of ram. This thing is a vast improvement in features from the previous Mac mini, which was and is an incredible feat of engineering.

Why don't you guys talk about what it does have instead of what it doesn't. Front Row over Bonjour, Upgradable to 2GB DDR2 RAM, an IR remote, Optical Digital Audio In/Out, a SATA HDD, a Dual Layer Slot-loading Superdrive, Gigabit Ethernet, and a processor 4-5 times faster than the last model. All of them in a small, easy-to-setup package, but you guys keep insisting it sucks because it has to use integrated graphics.

ITS THE SAME SIZE AS THE LAST MINI! GIVE THE ENGINEERS AT APPLE SOME FUCKING CREDIT!!

Re:You geeks are so hard to please

[Overzeetop]

Well, it would be far more impressive it if happened before laptops came out, but, well, it's a laptop that isn't constrained by needing a keyboard and monitor attached, or a battery in the case. There wasn't space to slip in 128MB of dedicated RAM? More likely there wasn't enough cooling capacity to handle a serious graphics processor.

This is not to say that it isn't cool - I'd love to get one for HT, if I thought I could hook it up an go (I'm time constrained right now...don't have time to fool around much). And don't worry, even if you put a great video processor in it and cut the price in half, the gaming crowd would still turn their noses up at it. They're always comparing whats on the market to what will be on the market in 6 months - which is normally considered a "baseline" for their comparisons.

Re:New Mac mini video chipset! Made for Home theat

[Tumbleweed]

I think I'd prefer to use some NAS over the Gigabit Ethernet, rather than a FW400 connection, though I wonder what the CPU utilization would be like between those two options.

IF they had added AirTunes

[jdbartlett]

That boom box would have been a bit more attractive if they'd added integrated AirTunes built in out the box. Man, that would have been sweet. As it is, it's like, "Oh, another iPod boom box, just what the world needs." Only Apple's is an iPod boom box you can't even carry around without your iPod falling out... I agree, a TiVo killer feature would've been sweet in the Mini.

Re:IF they had added AirTunes

[Anonymous Coward]

Just don't post any more, 'kay? Thanks. You're contributing nothing.

Re:New Mac mini video chipset! Made for Home theat

[DebianDog]

LOL Yes!!!! Like buying a new Corvette and ripping out that "stupid" motor because you don't know how to work on the one that came with it!!! PERFECT!

http://developer.apple.com/tools/

Over-priced? If your time is worthless I suppose ;)

Take it easy grandpa

[Anonymous Coward]

...time for your nap.

Re:New Mac mini video chipset! Made for Home theat

[JazzCrazed]

Hate to stuff a handkerchief into your gushing, but many of those capabilities are standard now on almost all video adapters. It doesn't take much to be good for playback.

What is more impressive is how the operating system and software will make it work in a pleasing and streamlined way. Sure, it's all eye candy, but that's all they've really got going now in this much crowded arena of media savvy computers.

So what is the real reason....

[lelitsch]

I know Steve Jobs has said that their customers do not want to watch TV on their Macs, but wouldn't be an Mac mini Tivo be a killer application? Much smaller than a media center PC, much more programmable than a Tivo, build in DVD player, iTunes, streaming audio via Airport Express....

I'd buy one, but that might not be enough of a market.

Re:So what is the real reason....

[bnenning]

I know Steve Jobs has said that their customers do not want to watch TV on their Macs, but wouldn't be an Mac mini Tivo be a killer application?

I have my PPC mini hooked up to my TV and acting as a DVR with an EyeTV 200. Works great, and using VNC I can also play AVIs and such through VLC. (Ack, TLA overload). It's a rather geeky setup, but Apple certainly has the capability to wrap this functionality in a friendly interface. I suspect a major reason why they haven't is to avoid angering the Hollywood lobby, who wants all DVRs dead or crippled to the point of uselessness, and whom Apple depends on for iTMS content.

Re:So what is the real reason....

[rjstanford]

I was really hoping that, along with everything else, iTunes would gain the ability to "easily" rip DVDs. Or iDVD would integate better with iTunes - either way. But basically I'd like the ability to just stick a DVD in the drive, wait a while, and have it spit back out at me (just as iTunes does with CDs), and have that DVD forever accessible through FrontRow. All of the pieces are there, but they're just not integrated quite yet - although integration is arguably what Apple does best. What gives?

Re:So what is the real reason....

[nsayer]

The DMCA, that's what. Even if Apple were to DRM the ripped DVD, it would be a violation of the DMCA, since they would have to decrypt it (that is, to circumvent an access control mechanism). They can't get permission, because the DVD CCA would never allow it.

See how the DMCA stifles innovation? Not that anyone here is surprised...

Re:So what is the real reason....

[gozar]

The DMCA, that's what. Even if Apple were to DRM the ripped DVD, it would be a violation of the DMCA, since they would have to decrypt it (that is, to circumvent an access control mechanism). They can't get permission, because the DVD CCA would never allow it.

But they already are able to decrypt the DVD, or the DVD player wouldn't work. So there is probably more to the story...

Re:So what is the real reason....

[nsayer]

Anyone can decrypt the DVD. The trick is in getting the authorization of the copyright owner, in this case represented by the DVD CCA. If you distribute software that decrypts a DVD without their authorization, then you got some 'splaining to do.

Re:So what is the real reason....

[gozar]

Anyone can decrypt the DVD. The trick is in getting the authorization of the copyright owner, in this case represented by the DVD CCA. If you distribute software that decrypts a DVD without their authorization, then you got some 'splaining to do.

Apple already distributes software that decrypts a DVD, the DVD player. So Apple could just add a decrypt/compress into iPod format option to the DVD player and still be ok.

Re:So what is the real reason....

[nsayer]

Apple already distributes software that decrypts a DVD, the DVD player. So Apple could just add a decrypt/compress into iPod format option to the DVD player and still be ok.

SIGH

No, they can't. Because if they did, they would lose their authorization from the DVD CCA and would then be in violation of the DMCA.

Let's try and make the leap from A to B without the teacher's help, folks.

Nothing to see here.. move on

[ShaunC1000]

$600 for a 1.5ghz machine? I don't think so. Oh wait.. I forgot.. it has the Apple logo on it.. that makes it worth the extra money. Release a version of OSX that works on openfirmware and I'll buy a copy of OSX, otherwise screw Apple and their overpriced hardware.

Re:Nothing to see here.. move on

[antifoidulus]

Um, just tell me where you can get a PC with the same form factor as the mini for $600. The only thing I have seen that comes close is the AOpen MZ855-II XC Cube, and for the case, power supply, and a few extras it will set you back $299, and that doesn't include the CPU. Since it uses a mobile CPU, you are going to pay at least $200 for it OEM. Then you have to add a hard drive, optical drive etc.
So yeah, it may not matter to you, but it does to a lot of people. Apple is still making a profit, so I don't see why they should destroy that just to make you happy.

Re:Nothing to see here.. move on

[Anonymous Coward]

The only versions of OS X currently on sale as boxed copies require OpenFirmware. And a PowerPC of course. And to be Macs. But, essentially, yes they require OpenFirmware.

Did you mean one that requires a BIOS, maybe? Or are you planning to run it on your Sun workstation?

And the most important graphics question is...

[nule.org]

will it play WoW?

Re:And the most important graphics question is...

[flimflammer]

I kind of doubt it.

Re:And the most important graphics question is...

[falcon5768]

bullshit my 2 year old iBook with ATI Mobility Radeon 9200 runs WoW just fine... this chip is actually more powerful than what was in the older Macmini which ALSO ran WoW fine.

next time troll if you know something.

Re:And the most important graphics question is...

[Anonymous Coward]

I call bullshit on you. I have an iBook 1.2GHz (Oct 2004) with 768MB ram and the same Radeon Mobility 9200 with 32MB. While, yes, WoW is "playable", you are talking about 10-12 FPS @ 800x600 with all settings turned down, as well as *massive* lag in the major cities. Lava pit, anyone?

Re:And the most important graphics question is...

[Val314]

>bullshit my 2 year old iBook with ATI Mobility Radeon 9200 runs WoW just fine... this chip is actually more powerful than what was in the older Macmini which ALSO ran WoW fine.

if that is is the same iBook as i have (800 MHz G4, 640 MB RAM and a 9200) than yes its playable, but not enjoyable... 5-10fps with everything turned off and standing in an empty place is not really "just fine"

Re:And the most important graphics question is...

[aristotle-dude]

The lag most people complain about has more to do with your CPU than your GPU although the speed of the GPU does affect how high you can set your detail and resolution level to.

Re:And the most important graphics question is...

[Damvan]

I have an original Mac Mini (1.42 ghz, 512mb RAM), and as far as I am concerned, WoW is unplayable on it. Sure it runs, but the frame rate is so slow (all graphic options on low or off, 800x600) that it is unacceptable, at least to me. I could run around, though it was like a slide show, but combat was impossible.

Re:And the most important graphics question is...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the problem with some Mac zealots; they've conditioned themselves to accept low performance. If you can run Doom 3 at 320x200 with everything turned down and get 5fps it runs just fine! In every integrated graphics benchmark I've seen, the G950 is at the ass-end of the spectrum. The 9200 descends from ATi's line of "2D value" cards from many years back. It was a POS then and it's a POS now. Its usage in the Mini was to 1) keep the Mini from cannibalizing the iMac 2) Fit the thermal envelop of the Mini

Re:And the most important graphics question is...

[megan_of_wutai]

Er... the 9200 is an almost direct descendent of the former top of the line 8500 part.

What about WOW

[aka_big_wurm]

I was thinking about a PC to replace my XBMC and play WOW on my TV. How will the new mini do with that?

iPod hi-fi?

[NerveGas]

    Huh. High fidelity hardware for playing audio that's been compressed in a lossy format. Go figure.

Re:iPod hi-fi?

[aconkling]

This was my thought exactly. Of course, I thought of posting here and imagined a possible response: "Well, you could have a higher-encoded MP3." But most people don't, and I'm still of a mind that the iPod should support FLAC audio.

This is why I can't support the Apple hegemony... though I am jealous that my IAUDIO doesn't have a slim and sleek hi-fi system to plug into... oh wait, I can just use a standard audio out. Fine by me!

Re:iPod hi-fi?

[Dr. Sp0ng]

I'm still of a mind that the iPod should support FLAC audio.

They support their own lossless format. Not ideal, but it does the job.

Re:iPod hi-fi?

[TheRaven64]

The iPod supports AIFF (uncompressed) and Apple Lossless audio, so it's possible to listen to CD-quality (which may or may not be high fidelity, depending on your viewpoint) audio on the iPod. Actually, the hardware supports 24-bit 96KHz audio (not sure if the software does, but Linux on the iPod does), so if you have a source for high quality digital audio then you might be in luck.

With 60GB of space, I could fit my entire music collection in lossless format.

Re:iPod hi-fi?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have my doubts that the ipod hifi can replace a home stereo. I'm not a snob but I have got used to my Logitech Z2300s with a big subwoofer playing my ipod directly. I built a little cabinet on wheels for it with sliding arms to hold the satellites out. It sounds far better than the stereo I bought in 1995 and the reason is probably the subwoofer. I ripped to mp3 but with variable bit rate ranging to the full 320kbps or whatever it is.

I got the Z2300s really cheap which means I have a set upstairs and downstairs and just move the ipod.

Re:iPod hi-fi?

[pknoll]

With 60GB of space, I could fit my entire music collection in lossless format.

You probably already know this, however: I have Miles Davis' albums Kind of Blue and Sketches of Spain, as well as a few classical CDs, on my iPod in Apple Lossless format. Each consumes about 350MB of space. That figure seems to be typical for your average CD, so a 60GB iPod can only hold about 170 CDs or so in that format. We've got nearly 500 CDs in our collection, so I'm waiting for the ~200GB iPod before I start re-encoding to lossless. =)

You are probably also already aware that playing lossless tracks can reduce the total playtime on battery, since the iPod has to go to the disk more often to re-fill the cache. May or may not be an issue for you.

Happy listening ~ p

Music throughout the house

[brjndr]

What's also interesting is the iPod HiFi having opticial inputs compatible with the airport express. You could stick the boombox in another room, and add an airport express, and be able to stream music to it from your pc/mac from anywhere else, as long as it was on the same network. For around $500 for the whole station, people can add streaming music to any room in their house.

I have my airport express hooked up to my stereo, and stream music to it all the time. The iPod Hifi/airport express setup seems like something i'd enjoy in my office more, but for $349 i can probably get a pretty nice bookshelf system that and add an airport extreme to that.

Re:Music throughout the house

[bloosqr]

Yea but the #1 complaint about the express is the fact there is no "remote control" I use the airport express myself and have always had a laptop around to act as a remote control but i could imagine extending this to the kitchen or some area where laptops are not usually. It would have been nice if the boombox had a ethernet/wireless connection so one didn't need the airport wireless more importantly have some way to act like a remote control and/or show title/artist/artwork for streamed music on the ipod screen. The way to do this right now is to use the mac mini instead hooked up to a proper stereo and a small screen but thats still a bit of a hack..

Re:Music throughout the house

[TheRaven64]

I seem to recall seeing a third-party remote for the Airport Express (when is it going to get video?) on the Apple Store that plugged into the USB port. Personally, I drop my iPod in a dock connected to my amplifier, and use a NaviPod as a remote. Batteries seem to last about 18 months.

Apple missed the boat.

[FunctionalMethod]

...Apple made a huge mistage from a marketing point of view.

  First they hype the Intel Dual Core saying it is 4 times faster. OK.

  Then they release the top of the line MacBooks that cost 2000$. Ok.

But here is there the trouble starts. You got people all hyped about Dual Core technology yet you only offer 2000$ machines, while in the PC market Dual Cores are starting to pop up everywhere for ALLOT less money. Example: The new Sony VAIO SZ line will launch in 10 days. A 13.3" WXGA, Dual Core , 80GB HD , 1GB RAM , "sub" notebook for 1600$ . And if you go to a normal sized notebook you can get Dual Cores at 1400$.

  All the consumer is seeing now is 2 notebooks made from 2 well known companies ( Sony/ASUS/DELL , Apple) both with Intel Dual Cores but the one costs 600$ more and is lacking in some departments. So what does Apple now offer? Basicly a more expensive notebook ( because they haven't released the Intel iBook) with a different OS.

  So to sum up Apple created this huge hype around Dual Core , but somehow managed to get nothing out of it. Unless they release an Intel iBook really soon , they will miss the boat completely.

wtf?

[khazad]

"Apple Announces Wonderful Toys"

Are you serious? What a ridiculous title. Is Steve Jobs becoming a crazed Willy Wonka, inviting people to his magical company in Cupertino where they are tested to see who can be the next CEO of Apple?

Actually, that'd probably be better than getting another Scully...

Re:wtf?

[CottonEyedJoe]

While I agree that the headline might have been a bit over the top. It does derive from the "Toys" invitation that went out a week or so ago. To get the real significance of "inviting people to his magical company in Cupertino" you have to understand how things USED to be done and how this is far better.

Back in the day, there used to be 2 times Apple would release products, MWNY/Boston and MWSF. Other than those two times, it was rare to see Apple even release minor updates to existing hardware. Dell would update their boxes whenever a new CPU was available while Apple was updating twice a year at best. Sometime in the late 90's Apple started doing minor updates and speed bumps outside of MW, then they started doing more significant updates and new releases. Nowadays, the release schedule is far less tied to MW and thats far better than the way it used to be. So, yeah. Even if its not spectacular, I'd rather see em throw a party or two at the ranch.

Linux+MythTV

[XMilkProject]

Who will be the first to get some pics of this thing dissassembled, then install Linux and MythTV on it?

Apple says mine will be here thursday, maybe it'll arrive tomorrow if they ship tonight.

I'll have the results on my blog ASAP after it arrives.... I'm sure I won't be the only one trying to use those 4 usb ports to run 4 usb TV Tuners in mythTV.

Re:Linux+MythTV

[Anonymous Coward]

Just curious, do you run your setup with something like a terrabyte file server? How else can you store everything?

Re:Linux+MythTV

[Anonymous Coward]

Mythfrontend will run natively in OS X. It runs using native Qt widgets too. My plan is to have an uber mythbackend box running linux and a Mini running Tiger with the front end.

Re:New Mac mini video chipset! Made for Home theat

[Midnight Thunder]

Sweet! Looks like a fantastic-if-somewhat-overpriced MythTV frontend box for the living room. Anybody got any info on how much of the hardware is Linux-friendly?

But it looks nice ;)

Linux friendly a relative term, since it depends on your distro and how much time you spend recompiling the Kernal. They already have Linux running on a iMac Duo, so there should not be much more left to getting it running on this machine.

e:New Mac mini video chipset! Made for Home theer!

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

"In case anybody cares...the video chipset on this thing was MADE for home theater! It has hardware motion compensation, MPEG-2 hardware decoding, support for native HDTV resolutions and 16x9 aspect displays..among other nice stuff. It's NOT a big 3d gaming platform but definitely has the stuff for decoding video."

If I bought one of these for the purpose of attaching it to my TV (i.e. through the DVI cable, for example...), and I wanted to play DVDs and movies I've ripped on my Windows machine, would I find myself getting really pissed off at it? I.e. Is the networking semi-compatible? Codecs? Unforseen gotchas?

Disney Purchase Confirmed!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you notice his closing statement? "...we'll see you all real soon..." Sounds like the 'ol Mickey Mouse Club ditty, doesn't it?

Well, that's just his way of saying that Apple is going to purchase Disney!!!

What happened to the eMac?

[tverbeek]

I was curious how the new Mac Minis compared to ye olde eMac in price these days (by far the cheapest complete Mac available), and noticed that they're no longer listed in the main Apple store. I know they've been back-of-the-store items for a while now, and you can still find them in the refurb section, but... when did Apple take the eMac display model off the shelf?

Re:What happened to the eMac?

[cwgmpls]

The new imacs now start at $1,199.00, which, if I recall, is as cheap as emacs ever were. And for $800 a school could set up a mini with an LCD display. So there doesn't seem to be much need for emacs any more.

Re:What happened to the eMac?

[tverbeek]

The new imacs now start at $1,199.00, which, if I recall, is as cheap as emacs ever were. And for $800 a school could set up a mini with an LCD display. So there doesn't seem to be much need for emacs any more.

You recall incorrectly. The eMac has been in sub-$1000 territory for the last few years, as low as $799 for the base model. I've often recommended it to our students as the best bang-for-your-buck Mac available, faster than the older PowerMac G4s we're still using in some of our labs. In an environment with kids, a self-contained unit with minimal cables is really nice. And in an environment with potential thieves, a single lockdown point and even the durn weight of the eMac CRT is advantageous compared to a Mini.

Re:What happened to the eMac?

[cwgmpls]

I will agree that the weight of an emac makes it a low theft risk. But I don't know any personal computer product that survives by using extreme weight as an asset. And remember, the teachers in the classroom need to move the computer around for overhead presentations. Can't do that with an emac. Other than weight, I don't see much difference between an emac and a mini.

I think the ideal student lab would be a bunch of minis locked down to the desktop. Or better yet, mounted under the desktop out of sight.

Interestingly, Apple is now featuring the iMac on its education site. But I can't imagine selling $1200 Macs to the administration when $500 windows boxes are easy to come by.

I don't think apple will be bringing the emac back, and schools are going to have to learn to deal with the theft issue -- just like they already do with that laptops that all the administrators carry around.

Re:What happened to the eMac?

[Jules Mercuri]

I just did a proposal for a client on the US Education Apple Store (on store.apple.com, there's a dropdown box near the bottom to choose the store) and eMacs were there in full force. This was three days ago. Not sure if they pulled one of those media-event-specials and killed them off today, but AFAIK they were there not too long ago. As far as performance goes... well, the eMac was running 1.42Ghz G4 at the highest end, with 512MB max (from Apple) and a maximum 120GB HD (again from Apple). The mini has had the 100GB/1.0 (maybe 1.5) GB RAM config available for awhile now, and I don't imagine that's changed. All told, I'm pretty sure that if you took the high-end models from each line without aftermarket upgrades the mini would spank the eMac.

Re:New Mac mini video chipset! Made for Home theat

[Anonymous Coward]

But it's Firewire 400, not 800, so wouldn't a USB2 external drive be better?

Not quite....

[everphilski]

XBOX has three cores ... and Apple has no game experiance. It would truly suck.

(Besides the fact that XBOX is running on PowerPC chips, and Apple just left PowerPC for Intel...)

Re:Not quite....

[Sancho]

You seem to be confusing the XBox with the XBox 360.

Re:Not quite....

[mbadolato]

and Apple has no game experiance. It would truly suck

Out of curiosity, exactly how much MP3 Player experience did they have when they released the first iPod? I seem to recall hearing something or other about iPods doing ok for themselves.... :)

Re:Not quite....

[Fulg]

Apple has no game experiance. It would truly suck

Well, there was this one time, at band camp...

Re:Not quite....

[c_forq]

Apple has no game experiance

What about that Pippen at-mark fiasco?

Re:Not quite....

[everphilski]

it took a few iterations to get a good one :P

Re:Not quite....

[everphilski]

mmmk, so you are going to compete with a three year old console? that's great...

Re:Not quite....

[Anonymous Coward]

XBox 360 uses IBM's PowerPC for its CPU, ATI's chip for its GPU.

Re:New Mac mini video chipset! Made for Home theat

[ceoyoyo]

FW400 is often faster than GigE and CPU utilization is usually lower.

Apparently Firewire drives hooked up to minis fly. WAY faster than the internal drive.

Do you know what you're talking about?

[truthsearch]

I was reading your post and trusting your input until I got to this part:

FW400 won't cut it - even FW800 isn't as fast as an internal drive

A standard hard drive can't provide as much throughput as firewire 800 supports. FW800 is overkill for an external hard drive. Therefore an internal disk won't give you any better I/O rates. AFAIK the FW800 was created for the demands of video I/O.

Re:Do you know what you're talking about?

[Tumbleweed]

A standard hard drive can't provide as much throughput as firewire 800 supports. FW800 is overkill for an external hard drive. Therefore an internal disk won't give you any better I/O rates. AFAIK the FW800 was created for the demands of video I/O.

It's not all about the throughput, otherwise USB 2.0 at 480 would be faster than FW400, which it isn't. eSATA-connected hd connectors allow faster HD connections than FW800 which can be measured in actual throughput, not just theoretical bandwidth numbers. I've no idea on the CPU utilization numbers, though, as that depends on the hardware & driver implementations of each.

It'll be interesting seeing some independent benchmarks of the new Mac Minis...who knows, maybe it'll be good enough for me to switch, after all, but I don't have high hopes for the playability of BZFlag on these new machines...

Re:Do you know what you're talking about?

[dfghjk]

FW800 was created becaue they could, not because there was a specific application that required it.

There are no hard drives that are firewire native. Internal drives or SATA attached drives will always outperform firewire ones, 400 or 800 doesn't matter. If you take a SATA or ATA drive and put a firewire translator board on it, you think it will yield I/O rates better than native attachment? It doesn't.

5 cables.

[Anonymous Coward]

That settles it. I'm building a home theater, and it's only going to have five cables.

One Mac mini, with bluetooth mouse and keyboard and apple remote.
One 23" Apple Cinema Display, 1920x1200 resolution for HD.
One iPod Hi-Fi speaker.

One power plug for each. One DVI display cable. One optical digital audio cable.

Re:New Mac mini video chipset! Made for Home theat

[Lumpy]

You mean like my Hollywood plus mpeg card from 1998? That card has all those features and can playback broadcast quality with 2% processor load. The newest chipsets support the HDTV standard and MPEG4HD.

Nothing really new here. Mac and PC have been able to enjoy this for years now. it's just thet they included it in the new low-end MAC by default.

Re:New Mac mini video chipset! Made for Home theat

[adam1101]

> It's amazing when you consider the previous model did'nt have those features.

From ATIs 9200 specs: VIDEO FEATURES

• FullStream Hardware accelerated de-blocking of Internet video streams
• Video Immersion II delivers industry-leading DVD playback
• Integrated MPEG-2 decode including iDCT and motion compensation for top quality DVD with lowest CPU usage
• Unique Adaptive per-pixel de-interlacing feature combines the best elements of the "bob" and "add-field" (weave) techniques
• YUV to RGB color space conversion
• Back-end scaler delivers top quality playback
• 4-tap horizontal and vertical filtering
• Upscaling and downscaling
• Filtered display of images up to 1920 pixels wide
• Hardware mirroring for flipping video images in video conferencing systems
• Supports 8-bit alpha blending and video keying for effective overlay of video and graphics

If you read the manufacturers specs every graphics card is the best out there. Heck, even the crappy VIA Unichrome has hardware MPEG2 acceleration and motion compensation. The problem is not the hardware support in the 9200, the problem is that Apple's DVD Player didn't use the hardware features (nor does any other Mac DVD app AFAIK). I don't see why that would change with the Intel GMA. They even have less incentive, now that the CPU is much more powerful.

mod parent up

[Anonymous Coward]

He's right, you know. It's just a low-end attachment for an iPod, not a high fidelity system.

Re:New Mac mini video chipset! Made for Home theat

[delire]

LOL Yes!!!! Like buying a new Corvette and ripping out that "stupid" motor because you don't know how to work on the one that came with it!!!

Tedious automobile analogies aside, it would seem that you are having trouble working your own brain. What is actually wrong with someone preferring to use another operating system over OSX. Is the thought that abominable? Many many people have tried OSX and find it doesn't suit them for whatever reason, sometimes the list is long, sometimes it is short. Why on earth would you spare the energy to celebrate that you're disturbed by this fact?

OSX and Linux have around the same market share of the desktop computer market - a combined 8% at best. Shouldn't you be directing your disappointment at another operating system?

Re:New Mac mini video chipset! Made for Home theat

[tji]

Actually, the previous model had superior MPEG2 capabilities.

'Hardware Motion Compensation' is one part of the MPEG2 acceleration capabilities available in GPU hardware (same as used with DxVA in Windows and XvMC in Linux). But, MC actually provides relatively little CPU offload.

The other portion, iDCT (inverse Discrete Cosine Transform) offloads a LOT more CPU.

The Radeon in the old Mini could do both iDCT and MC (as can all Radeons, dating way back to when, the early 90's?).

But, neither matter anyway.. Apple does not expose an open API to use the video acceleration capabilities in GPU hardware. Only their DVD player can use it. So, all video decoding is done on the CPU -- which makes the new Mini a big improvement with a faster CPU & optional dual core.

Re:New Mac mini video chipset! Made for Home theat

[davez0r]

i have a gen 1 mac mini doing 1920 x 1080 on an HDTV. of course i have no actual HD video at that res to test it with, but i feel cool doing it. regular HDTV scaled up looks fabu.

there are some jumps in the video at the higher resolutions, but i'd be willing to bet they're due to the HDD not being able to keep up.

iLife not actually included?

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems from looking at the Apple Store that iLife is not actually included in the $599 (or $799 for the Duo-based model). It's a $79 add-on that you have to select. Am I missing something? Or did they promise "included" when it really isn't at all?

Re:iLife not actually included?

[hlimethe3rd]

It is iWork that's another $79; iLife is included by default.

Brand Extension Alert

[Karelian]

The US consumer electronics market is notoriously tough on price premiums; mobile phones have higher ASP's in China than they do in USA. For years, the handset market has been forced to deal with the fact that American consumers refuse to pay as much for phones as their European or Chinese peers. That Apple was able to go against grain and demand a hefty premium for iPods was a miracle of product design and marketing. But now the iPod sales volumes in North America have reached a level that is so high that maintaining volume growth will be a big challenge.

So Apple is trying to morph into Gucci/Bose. I don't think this is going to be smooth sailing. Fendi may be able to ask $99 for a slip of leather. Bang % Olufsen may be able to ask for $350 for some meagerly specced gadget. The halo effect that enables Fendi or B&O to ask high prices for some tertiary products is dependent on their super-premium products. It's the $10'000 mojo trickling down to trinkets. The Apple brand is not associated with super premium stuff. The halo around iPod is not strong enough to support a hundred buck chunk of dead cow.

What about .264

[glennrrr]

It seems to me that if Apple has future plans for distributing movies using their preferred .264 codec then it would be nice if their "Home Theatre" Mac had hardware decoding of .264, not just regular MPEG-2 video. Obviously, they might have trouble convincing Intel to add that to their integrated video chipsets, but it would be nice.

Re:What about .264

[jcr]

The core duo is plenty fast enough for real-time h.264 decoding. In fact, it should be fast enough for real time encoding.

-jcr

Re:What about .264

[David Rolfe]

> The core duo is plenty fast enough for real-time h.264 decoding. In fact, it should be fast enough for real time encoding.

The iMac core duo is --just a tiny bit faster than real-time when ripping from DVD with Handbrake. Since the new Minis are nearly as fast as the new iMacs, I expect your supposition is true.

Re:What about .264

[jcr]

The iMac core duo is --just a tiny bit faster than real-time when ripping from DVD with Handbrake.

Ripping a DVD is a rather different problem than H.264 encoding. When Handbrake rips a DVD to another format, it's doing an MPEG decode, resizing the image, and doing another encode.

-jcr

Re:What about .264

[David Rolfe]

> Ripping a DVD is a rather different problem than H.264 encoding.

No kidding? Maybe I wasn't clear:

This image http://download.m0k.org/handbrake/images/HandBrake -2006011800.jpg clearly depicts a 2 hour, 25 minute piece of video being ripped from a CD and transcoded into H.264 and that the time it will take to rip, decode and re-encode this piece of video is 2 hours, 13 minutes.

Re:What about .264

[jilbert]

The new Mac mini core duo does not appear to meet Apple's recommended spec for decoding H.264 720p at 24 to 30 frames per second. 1.66 GHz is too slow - 1.83 Core Due is recommended. But maybe it can just?

they still forgot digital audio - spdif

[GodWasAnAlien]

please correct me...
They let you use DVI to hook up digital video, but to hook up the audio, you use the analog headphone plug?
No spdif?

Re:they still forgot digital audio - spdif

[Blackforge]

http://www.apple.com/macmini/

Says optical in and out, but they share the analog line in and out. Probably something like the Soundblaster miniplug to SPDIF connector.

Re:they still forgot digital audio - spdif

[(H)olyGeekboy]

From What's Inside?: Combined optical digital audio input/audio line in (minijack)

Re:they still forgot digital audio - spdif

[nocutename]

OK, I'll correct you.

The 1/8" audio output jack can do either analog or SPDIF. (Airport Express is the same way - it's plugged into an optical input on my stereo and works just fine)

Re:they still forgot digital audio - spdif

[GodWasAnAlien]

Ok, the picture that they show perhaps is the ppc mini.

I wonder if they fixed another couple anoyancesL:

- power switch in back - should be in front
- no USB plug in front - a big anoyance if you use usb-keys or simlar short-term plug-in devices.

Re:they still forgot digital audio - spdif

[MarkCollette]

It has SPDIF in and out. Apple uses combination analog/digital audio jacks, so you can plug in either an analog or a digital input into the one input jack. And the same for the output jack.

Re:they still forgot digital audio - spdif

[Shadow Knight]

That is incorrect. The new Mini has SPDIF digital audio both input and output.

Later,
Robert

Re:they still forgot digital audio - spdif

[Kadin2048]

The connector, as others have pointed out, is digital as well as analog.

Specifically it's called a "Mini Toslink" [1]. Basically it's the same form factor as a 1/8" stereo miniplug, but it's hollow and transmits the optical digital information out the very end. Or, a standard electrical analog stereo cable can be used. I think it's a Sony invention, the first place I ever saw it was on MiniDisc players.

It's actually a neat little connector, because you can squeeze it into devices without cluttering them up with separate digital and analog ones. It's not very widely used on higher-end equipment, though. They're usually either regular Toslink or (electrical) digital on coaxial cable, the latter of which means a $15 converter box from Radio Shack. For this reason I think, the big Power Mac G5s use the regular Toslink optical connectors instead of the minis on their DA ins and outs.

I'm actually quite disappointed that they didn't integrate the AirTunes functions into the iPod Hi-Fi. If they had, I'd probably be first in line to buy one at the Apple store tonight after work. Now that would be slick, just a sleek white box, controllable by either the iPod if it was attached, or an IR remote, or from the computer. As it is, it's just a very expensive boombox; they had the opportunity to create a "smart" product and decided not to. Too bad.

[1] http://www.ramelectronics.net/html/audio_toslink_c ables.html#mini

Re:they still forgot digital audio - spdif

[koweja]

Probably not. It would seem that they want to keep the front and sides as smooth as possible, though I agree both things would be nice. But you can just get a USB extension cable for a few bucks and leave it in.

Re:they still forgot digital audio - spdif

[Overly Critical Guy]

Last I checked, the iPod Hifi does support AirTunes.

Re:they still forgot digital audio - spdif

[henryhbk]

According to the apple page:
AirTunes Ready iPod Hi-Fi is the ideal speaker system for AirTunes. To ensure optimum sound quality, simply connect it to an AirPort Express with a digital optical audio cable(1). The music is then sent from iTunes on your computer over the network to the iPod Hi-Fi using only digital signals. Control your music from the computer in your den, but enjoy the sounds anywhere else in the house.

yeah, no kidding, using this logic it's anything with an audio out compatible. I totally agree, that integrating a airtunes (wired & wireless) into the box would have been sweet.

Re:they still forgot digital audio - spdif

[Genom]

I think he meant essentially integrating an Airport Express into the unit itself, not just providing an aux-in so it could be used with one.

Re:New Mac mini video chipset! Made for Home theat

[DebianDog]

I think you missed the point. Why rip out something that already works? Because you do not understand it or do not prefer it?

I would guess a version of Linux will be out for the Intel based Mac shortly but it does not seem worth the effort unless MythTV does something "super special" that you absolutely MUST HAVE.

http://www.maconlinux.org/

Also.. I have a Linux firewall & DB server because I am cheap like that ;)

How are any of these "new products"

[Anonymous Coward]

Its like saying that IBM has released a hot new never before seen product called the T44 laptop.

Re:That's what I was wondering, too. I need Quartz

[jcr]

It runs Quartz Extreme. I don't think Apple will ever introduce another machine that doesn't.

-jcr

Why not a notebook?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or for $779 you can get a computer which also includes a keyboard, a trackpad, and even a widescreen LCD display

In facts, it's even a notebook at the same time, and it comes with Windows XP Media Center.

You get the same Core Duo CPU, 512 MB RAM, the same video card, but an upgradable 40GB SATA hard drive.

I think it worth its extra $180 over the Core Duo Mac Mini

Re:Why not a notebook?

[FaasNat]

Watch out, you're going to get all those responses of why would I want to tarnish OS X by putting it in a Dell computer? It's like [insert car analogy of your choice here]!!

For me I'd be fine running it on a Dell system (or any generic x86 system for that matter). I like OS X for OS X, not for the hardware that it runs on.

Re:Why not a notebook?

[Golias]

I did my best to match up the specs on Dell's page.

Add: "Dell Reccomended" XP Pro
Add: remote control
Upgrade: HD to 80 GB
Upgrade: Media drive to dual-layer DVD burner
Add: Dell On-Call to match the free year of AppleCare

Total cost: $1141

Still missing: Bluetooth, SPDIF audio, and DVI out.

But hey, we can add bluetooth with a $40 USB dongle. Oh, and we can do the same with audio for about $50. Of course, now we are way behind the 4 USB ports on the mini, but we can expand that with a $30 USB 2.0 hub.

Total cost: $1261

So now the Dell you linked is the same system, only without the iLife software, and missing a couple peripherals, for $462 more.

Must be a damn nice 15.4 inch monitor on that laptop for $462.

Re:Why not a notebook?

[Anonymous Coward]

I went of Apple store now to try to match the updated Dell sytem

You need to take the $799 Mac Mini Core Duo 1.66GHz and add $78 keyboard and mouse combo and a $49 USB modem (who could live without a modem).
Now the total is $926

But we still need a display. The cheapest display on Apple's web site is at $729.

For a total of $1655, still more than Dell's and it's not even a notebook. It doesn't even come with [insert your useless Dell app here].

You probably need an other $5 of duck tape to fix the display and the keyboard on the Mac mini.

It's easy to do stupid comparisons like that.

Re:Why not a notebook?

[MCSEBear]

Since it has the same chipset and video, it should run cracked copies of OSX nicely without having to worry about driver availibility.

Re:Why not a notebook?

[Anonymous Coward]

be carefull
If you are against Apple, you are against Slashdot.
You will see that I am right by this post being modded down.

Re:Why not a notebook?

[Golias]

Your comparison only "works" because the cheapest Apple display is vastly superior to anything you would ever see attached to a notebook computer.

I'm positive I could buy a very nice LCD for about a hundred bucks. Most of the mods I made to the Dell would be a royal pain in the ass to do via after-market upgrades, so my comparison is considerably more valid.

Re:Why not a notebook?

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple's panels are the same panels Dell sells.

Re:Why not a notebook?

[Golias]

Learn to read, ass. I said Apple's stand-alone screens (which the GP post priced out) are vastly superior the screen on the Dell laptop we were comparing to.

The 5 new apple products?

[mcguyver]

5 new products?

1: iPod Hi-Fi - http://www.apple.com/ipodhifi/

2: Pod Leather Case - http://www.apple.com/ipod/accessories.html

3: Mac mini - http://www.apple.com/macmini/

4 & 5: Front Row with Bonjour - ?

Re:New Mac mini video chipset! Made for Home theat

[shaka999]

I haven't done the reasearch on the Mac yet but I find it hard to imagine it won't be full of DRM crap. The great thing about Myth is that you can do whatever you want with your content.

Mac mini

[jmorris42]

The new Mac Mini is ok. At least they finally fixed the fatal flaw of the original and got optical audio on the rear panel like they should have done first time. Whoever thought selling a 'media center' machine without digital audio should have been sacked.

Still way overpriced though. Yes it is tiny, but laptops face the same issues and you can buy a laptop with similar specs just about anywhere for the same prices Apple is getting for a mini. Seriously, go price a laptop with 1.5Ghz Mobile Pentium (about the same as the 'Core Solo') a puny (for a media center) 60G laptop hard drive, 512MB memory shared with a crap Intel integrated video and a DVD/CD-RW drive. Bet you don't have much trouble finding some for $599 and that gets you a head, while the mini is sold headless.

Still, once Linux gets up and running stable on em they would make really sweet MythTV frontends. And with the new Plextor USB capture having supported drivers you could even use it for a backend/frontend setup.

Re:Mac mini

[bloodstains]

Whoever thought selling a 'media center' machine without digital audio should have been sacked.

I don't remember it ever being marketed or sold as a 'media center' system.

a puny (for a media center) 60G laptop hard drive
 
Two things here. As I mentioned before. Its not being sold as a media center system. Its sold as a low end Mac, for which 60G is plenty. Secondly, the idea is if it is used as a media center system it would just be a front end. Hence the added audio and video streaming from networked computers in frontrow.

Re:Mac mini

[jmorris42]

> I don't remember it ever being marketed or sold as a 'media center' system.

What other job would you propose for the thing? It is a low spec machine sold at a very premium pricepoint. It's one redeeming feature is that is small, quiet and almost looks like a piece of mainstream consumer electronics. Media center PC. Except the original lacked digital audio output making it all but useless for that role, a defect they have fixed for this new version.

Now we just need a Linux distro to run on it that has support for all of the hardware, video, audio, firewire, usb and the remote. Get that in place and it can become the preferred MythTV platform.

> Hence the added audio and video streaming from networked computers in frontrow.

Frontrow is a quicktime only joke. Where do I get content for that? And don't say iTunes store. Ditch the bundleware and the hardware is nice though, too bad they won't sell em naked. Paying the Apple tax is worse than paying the M$ tax in that it is a bigger percentage of the sticker price.

Re:Mac mini

[advocate_one]

It's a very nice and "sexy" little package... I nearly put out for one on Sunday... glad I didn't now... I'm also looking forward to dual-booting Linux on it...

and for the fools that complain about the puny hard disk... pah, that's what USB2 is for... there's a little Apply extermal USB disk that fits nicely underneath them... plus I picked up a nice Lacie 250GB disk the other day for only £65

Re:Mac mini

[MojoStan]

Still way overpriced though. Yes it is tiny, but laptops face the same issues and you can buy a laptop with similar specs just about anywhere for the same prices Apple is getting for a mini. Seriously, go price a laptop with 1.5Ghz Mobile Pentium (about the same as the 'Core Solo') a puny (for a media center) 60G laptop hard drive, 512MB memory shared with a crap Intel integrated video and a DVD/CD-RW drive. Bet you don't have much trouble finding some for $599 and that gets you a head, while the mini is sold headless.

I don't think it's as overpriced as you say. You're comparing a previous-generation CPU and chipset (Pentium M and 915G) to the Mac mini's current-gen (Core Solo/Duo and 945G). The mini also includes features that are rarely (never?) seen in $600 notebooks like DVI connector, gigabit ethernet, digital audio out, and FireWire.

I'm not saying the mini's cheap (given the specs), but the design deserves a premium. I would also expect the mini to outlast some integrated notebook components like the LCD and keyboard.

Re:Mac mini

[zaren]

"Whoever thought selling a 'media center' machine without digital audio should have been sacked."

Well, that would be... nobody, since nobody at Apple that i know of has advertised this as a media center machines.

"Still way overpriced though. Yes it is tiny, but laptops face the same issues and you can buy a laptop with similar specs just about anywhere for the same prices Apple is getting for a mini. Seriously, go price a laptop with 1.5Ghz Mobile Pentium (about the same as the 'Core Solo') a puny (for a media center) 60G laptop hard drive..."

"Storage:
60GB or 80GB 5400-rpm Serial ATA hard disk drive; optional 100GB or 120GB drive" --http://www.apple.com/macmini/whatsinside.html

So your $600 laptop comes with a SATA hard drive, gigabit Ethernet, DVD-ROM/CD-RW drive, built-in 802.11g, and built-in firewire?

(Well, and crappy video, and no mouse or keyboard...)

Re:Mac mini

[R3d M3rcury]

"What other job would you propose for the thing? It is a low spec machine sold at a very premium pricepoint."

Uh...let's see. Before the $100 price bump, you got a very nice machine in a small package suitable for Mom to see pictures of the grandkids, play solitaire, and not have to call up her son every weekend saying that the computer is "acting funny." All that for $499.

You also have a nice machine for schools and such which might already have keyboards and mice and monitors and just need a cut-rate box. Figure schools probably got them for around $450 (and maybe less in bulk) and that's a pretty good deal.

You're right--the form factor and such made it a great media center machine, too. But it was the pundits who said that--not Apple.

Re:Mac mini

[SlamMan]

There's an OS X version of the MythTV front end, FYI. No backend, for no apparent reason.

Re:Mac mini

[IntlHarvester]

You're comparing a previous-generation CPU and chipset (Pentium M and 915G) to the Mac mini's current-gen (Core Solo/Duo and 945G)

Maybe that means a couple percents in benchmarks, but they're basically identical.

I have a 3 year old laptop with a Pentium-M 1.5Ghz CPU, and that was a lower-end model at the time. In otherwords, pretending that the bottom Mini model is bleeding edge in anyway is false. (Although kudos for them for FW and digital audio.)

Re:Mac mini

[bloodstains]

What other job would you propose for the thing?

Oddly most MS media center PC's are relativly high end systems. I think it would be excelent for most people who are only doing web surfing email chatting etc...

Frontrow is a quicktime only joke. Where do I get content for that? And don't say iTunes store. Ditch the bundleware and the hardware is nice though, too bad they won't sell em naked.

My Front Row installation gets contenet from all over the place. Handbrake, CD's, archive.org, apple trailer downloads, and yes, I am going to defy you and say iTunes. If all your interested in is the form factor, why not just go for something like this

Re:Mac mini

[ndpatel]

Frontrow is a quicktime only joke. Where do I get content for that? And don't say iTunes store. Ditch the bundleware and the hardware is nice though, too bad they won't sell em naked. Paying the Apple tax is worse than paying the M$ tax in that it is a bigger percentage of the sticker price.
the latest version of the divx codec for macs plugs into quicktime, so pretty much any content from anywhere is available to frontrow.

Re:Mac mini

[jmorris42]

> So your $600 laptop comes with a SATA hard drive, gigabit Ethernet, DVD-ROM/CD-RW drive,
> built-in 802.11g, and built-in firewire?

Can't really see what the advantage to the user is what connect the HDD has, no laptop drive can come close to soaking even ATA100 and that is going on five year old tech. But off the rack Dell will sell you a laptop with a P3M at 1.4, 512M shared memory and admittedly a smaller 40GB hdd for that same $599. You get a TFT display on a laptop. Oh, and act now and the will knock $100 off. The Dell doesn't appear to have Bluetooth either. They pitch it but the dropdown box doesn't actually have an option, typical broken webpage/database. With the extra hundred you can add it if you really need it.

Yes, Apple is getting pretty competitive, but they aren't ever going to be competing heavilly on price/performance ratio. The sell a premium brand experience and their most loyal customers would abandon them if they didn't charge more.

Re:Mac mini

[MojoStan]

Maybe that means a couple percents in benchmarks, but they're basically identical.

I have a 3 year old laptop with a Pentium-M 1.5Ghz CPU, and that was a lower-end model at the time. In otherwords, pretending that the bottom Mini model is bleeding edge in anyway is false.

Yeah, I mostly agree when it comes to most benchmarks and OS X (GMA 950 is needed for Vista Aero Glass support, but that's another thread). However, Core Solo does have some non-trivial architectural improvements over Pentium M including SSE3 and other floating point improvements (see "Digital Media Boost"). And if your laptop is 3 years old and has integrated graphics, then it must be using the older Intel "Extreme" AGP graphics. For things like Core Image, Photoshop, and Final Cut, I think Core Solo and GMA 950 probably is a large improvement over 1.5GHz Pentium M and Intel Extreme graphics.

I meant to emphasize the component price differences between a (1.5GHz Pentium M + 915GM + wireless b/g) bundle and a (Core Solo + 945GM + wireless a/b/g) bundle. However, I'm probably wrong on that point. According to Intel's Jan 2 pricelist, the former costs $272 (1.6GHz Pentium M) and the latter costs $278. Still, Dell's just-announced "cheap" Core Solo Inspiron starts at $929 ($729 for a limited time).

Re:Mac mini

[Jeff DeMaagd]

Whoever thought selling a 'media center' machine without digital audio should have been sacked.

The problem with that statement was that they weren't trying to sell the mini as a 'media center' machine by any stretch. Apple certainly never marketed it as such. Until today. Now has digital audio the same day they start promoting that feature.

Frankly, comparisons against laptops of the same price don't make sense. I wouldn't want a $600 laptop, laptops in that price range are pretty darn flimsy. On top of that, you claim that there are Pentium-M laptops at the $600 price range, but that is where the Celeron-M laptops currently are, Celeron-M is good but has only half cache and two thirds the bus speed. Dell's cheapest Pentium-M laptop appears to list at $1100, sell for $900.

Re:Mac mini

[Enrique1218]

Hey, what Dell laptop are you comparing. The bargain basement B130 costs $700 and uses a celeron and doesn't even offer bluetooth. You can't really compare them to desktops either because Dell doesn't offer a desktop built out of laptop components. The mini is unique amongst desktops and media centers sold today.

Re:Mac mini

[IntlHarvester]

For 2D work (Photoshop etc), the older Intel Extreme graphics is perfectly adequate -- unless you are running through Aero/Quartz/etc, but as of yet Photoshop uses the classic APIs on both Mac/Windows.

The Core Solo is of course a newer, improved P-M chip (also has a faster bus). But the difference in availability and pricing should be considered a temporary supply issue. In a matter of a couple months, the MIni's chip will have filtered into all the low-mid level Dell laptops.

(That process may seem rather quick if you are used to PowerPC vendors, but hey, welcome to Intel!)

Re:Mac mini

[Mark Hood]

You make a fair point, but I would like to see the $599 laptop that also has:

1. Optical in and out
2. DVI/HDMI out
3. Bluetooth built in
4. 802.11 G built in

and they're just the features I want - forget about 4 x USB 2.0, Firewire, up to 2GB RAM...

Personally I wish Apple had released a true 'appliance' - form factor of a DVD player with wireless, HD-out & DTS support which just ran Front Row to stream from other macs/PCs on the network and had a clever way of dealing with DVD & CD disks. For example, present the CD as a list of tracks retrieved from the net, and offer an option to rip to MP3 on the 'home' computer...

No need for a full OS X machine, make it a nice cheap DVD drive replacement with media streaming, for those of us who already have computers....

Mark

No, they didn't.

[jcr]

The audio jack is a combined digital optical and line-level analog jack.

-jcr

Re:New Mac mini video chipset! Made for Home theat

[Danathar]

Ok. I stand corrected.

Intel probably gave them a break on the chips (probably a deal when they went to the Intel CPU)

Re:New Mac mini video chipset! Made for Home theat

[Anonymous Coward]

What about Componant Video support for for slightly older HDTV's that don't have DVI or HDMI?

Jumping to conclusions, are we?

[jcr]

In short, it's a major step down from the old Mac Minis, and not useful for those who liked running WoW on their Minis.

I'd wait until I saw WoW running on it before making such a statement.

-jcr

Re:New Mac mini video chipset! Made for Home theat

[miller701]

There are 7200 RPM drives in the minis now. That should help some.

Re:New Mac mini video chipset! Made for Home theat

[Fahrvergnuugen]

I plugged a friend's creative USB audio card into my mac and "it just worked". It showed up under the sound control panel as an output source and it supports 5.1.

Boom Box

[Anonymous Coward]

"Audiophile quality" in a single box for $350?

Only a generation of tin ears could fall for this.

Airport Express S/PDIF out, iPod HiFi S/PDIF in

[mjm75]

Looks to me like the iPod HiFi has an interesting iPod-less application. Connect an iPod HiFi to an Airport Express using a fiber optic cable, and you have digital remote speakers wherever you want.

All for only $480 per node...

Re:New Mac mini video chipset! Made for Home theat

[Hollinger]

Here's an important question:
I have a 1024 x 768 plasma display. The chipset supports this resolution, but does the driver in the mini support a widescreen 16:9 display with rectangular pixels and a 4:3 resolution, like many plasmas?

Re:e:New Mac mini video chipset! Made for Home the

[Fahrvergnuugen]

The codecs need to be available as quicktime plugins and they must be compiled as universal or intel binaries. The 3ivx and flip4mac wmv codecs are not yet available as universal binaries. There is a beta of the universal version of the official DivX quicktime plugin though.

Apple releases leather pouch..

[srcosmo]

..And socks.

Well, I think I'm about ready to uncheck the "Apple" category from Homepage now...

Re:New Mac mini video chipset! Made for Home theat

[n8_f]

No. FireWire pretty regularly trumps USB2 in speed tests. The 400 Mb/s and 480 Mb/s is raw throughput, but then you have to subtract the bus overhead and FireWire usually comes out ahead. But even more important is that there is a really bad bug in OS X that limits USB2 transfer speeds. My new Mac Book Pro has an Intel chipset and it still suffers from the problem, so it must be software. And it is even worse than the article mentions, because on both my 15" PB and my new MBP, I can never get over 11 MB/s (same device gets over 30 MB/s through FW400). What is really odd is that if I hook up a USB2 hub so that I have multiple devices running through the same port, each of them can get 11 MB/s. Further evidence that it is a software problem. I haven't seen any explanation from Apple, but given that FireWire works so well, I can't imagine they have any excuse. But it is the same on my 10.3 boxes, so this has been around for a long, long time. Complete crap.

Maybe now that they are starting to phase out the importance of FireWire, they'll spend some time on their USB 2 drivers.

Talk about spin

[bogie]

Funny how all I saw was posts from people lamenting how crappy that GPU is when everyone first learned of this, yet according to your post it's the be-all end-all HDTV GPU.

It's a medicore low end onboard GPU. End of story.

Re:New Mac mini video chipset! Made for Home theat

[DebianDog]

DRM is EVERYWHERE.

Having run a Mac for 5 years... I have not met an audio or video file -yet- I can't convert or duplicate one way or another. I doubt that this skill/ability is OS dependent. Heck with a plug-in and a few free tools it can be "drag and drop". Example: http://www.alfanet.it/squared5/mpegstreamclip.html
MPEG Streamclip lets you play and edit QuickTime, DV, AVI, MPEG-4, MPEG-1; MPEG-2 or VOB files or transport streams with MPEG, PCM, or AC3 audio (MPEG-2 playback component required); DivX (with DivX 5.1.1) and WMV (with Flip4Mac WMV Player). MPEG Streamclip can export all these formats to QuickTime, DV/DV50, AVI/DivX and MPEG-4 with high quality encoding and even uncompressed or HD video.

Re:New Mac mini video chipset! Made for Home theat

[hackstraw]

Being that price is no object, I'll take a NAS as well. Thanks for offering.

I mean, $350 for a 400 Gig external fw drive that is faster and easier to configure, and can be shared easily from the Mac as a "NAS".

I would recommend NetApp filers. They only cost about $50k plus thousands/year in maintenance. Or if your budget minded, an Xserve RAID for about $5 to $15k (prices are estimates from memory). AppleCare is in the hundreds or so.

Re:New Mac mini video chipset! Made for Home theat

[twitchingbug]

hrm... why don't you just drill a little hole in the case, and reroute the SATA connector to a nice 3.5" SATA drive? That'll probably be plenty fast enough, and hey! you get to keep your ports!

Apple doesn't *need* a 3d gaming chipset

[Anonymous Coward]

There are no games worth buying for the Mac.

Hey mod me down, but I'm not makin' this stuff up.

Stereo for idiots

[physman_wiu]

IT SLICES, IT DICES, IT TURNS YOU INTO A BORG-THE ALL NEW, EXCITING, ONE OF A KIND 1/8" to RCA CABLE! NOW PLATED ENTIRELY IN PLATINUM TO GIVE YOU THE BEST POSSIBLE SOUND FROM YOU iSUCK AND iSUCK Video. NEVER AGAIN WILL YOU HAVE TO LISTEN TO CD'S OR MP3'S OFF OF A DVD DISC, NOW YOU CAN JUST PLUG THIS AMAZING CABLE STRAIGHT INTO YOUR STEREO SYSTEM AND ENJOY THE iSUCK BLISS! ONLY $349.99 FOR A 6'.

GET A GRIP FFS...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not quit being such fanboys and instead put together a machine that enables you to do real work- at speed, exchange files happily with other people, oh and last but not least use the multitude of great software out there (including a growing and fast improving range of open-source stuff.)

A downright crappy company is what Apple are. E.G. ask any scientist whether they use a PC or a Mac and the answer will be the former almost all of the time. This didn't stop the disgracefull Apple marketing machine from putting up huge posters with Einstein on them. "Think different! buy an Apple Mac..." Apart from anyting else, Einstein has been dead for a few years- and isn't it a bit lame using him to sell your underpowered toys?

What really made me laugh was when Apple tried to use the name of a living scientist, namely the late-great Carl Sagan, and he sued them for it! Morons! And if you're wondering what the SETI program uses to crunch numbers- it won't be the kind of translucent plastic box that allows certain feeble-minded consumers to think they're part of the action and not the gullible clowns that they in fact are.

So a PC might not be a great lifestyle statement, but then again, if you express yourself with your consumer purchases then you maybe its time to get your prescription sorted out, lets face it.

And you might not get much a bag of eye candy with your PC, but anyone who knows what the hell they're doing will switch all that crap off anyway, almost as soon as they've powered a new machine up.

So SHOVE YOUR WIDGETS you infantile little idiots and get a real computer for once in your lives! You might learn something!

Re:GET A GRIP FFS...

[presearch]

Heh. This guy knows that a PC is a "real computer".

Maybe he's on to something.
Perhaps we just were not aware of this "Windows PC" and all of it's wonders.
Share your insight! Tell us more! They sound really good. Got any links?

iPod Hi-Fi audiophile quality?

[Eq 7-2521]

Not for the vast majority of users that fill their iPods with MP3 and AAC files. GIGO.

20, motherfucker, 20.

[DysenteryInTheRanks]

I love that the iPod HiFi takes six D-cell batteries weighing 2.3 pounds. No word on how much playing time you get out of those batteries.

Radio Raheem: Give me 20 D Energizers.
Sonny: 20 C Energizers?
Radio Raheem: Not C, D.
Sonny: C Energizers?
Radio Raheem: D motherfucker, D. Learn to speak English first, all right?
Kim: How many you say?
Radio Raheem: 20, motherfucker, 20.
Sonny: Motherfuck you!
Radio Raheem: Motherfuck you? You, you all right, man.

I can't wait to see Wow benchmarked on that.

[xutopia]

Cause a Mac Mini sure would look nice in my sitting room. :-D

Re:I can't wait to see Wow benchmarked on that.

[DeathFromSomewhere]

It's an Intel chip running at 1.6 GHz with integrated graphics, WoW probably won't run at all.

Re:I can't wait to see Wow benchmarked on that.

[Fishd]

I used to play WoW on my Pentium M 1.3Ghz laptop and it ran ok... nothing to write home about, but it was playable.

Later I upgraded it to a Pentium M 1.6Ghz and performance improved quite a bit.

Of course (there's always a 'but' isn't there?), my laptop had an ATi Radeon 9000 Mobility with 32Mb of RAM and while not exactly cutting edge, it seemed to get the job done for PvE at least. I have heard rumours on the WoW forums that the integrated Intel graphics will run WoW... but I've little to no idea on how well.

This is the absolute WORST 'announcement' ever.

[teamhasnoi]

A box of speakers for Three HUNDRED fifty dollars.
A leather ENVELOPE for ONE HUNDRED dollars.
Mac Minis for one hundred extra bucks, and a neutered video card.

This is just CRAP. Why was there even a show? This stuff should just appear on the Apple store, not have a friggin' party.

Ugh. Is this what the Intel Transition is bringing me? Is Apple delirious?

Apple needs to leave the accessories market to the little companies and crappy eBay sellers, and stick to what it was good at.

Why did Steve even show for this one? Has he lost immunity to his own Reality Distortion Field?

This is truly disappointing - I expect weak crap like this from someone who's copying Apple, not Apple themselves.

I hope anyone who buys the iMoBviouslyaNiDiot box starves, because I really don't want that in the gene pool.

Before an Apple Zealot mods this down, please note. I have more Macs than you.

Re:This is the absolute WORST 'announcement' ever.

[GaryPatterson]

Have you heard the speakers? Not that I have, but I'm waiting to do that before I actually go out and criticise them. Otherwise I'd look like some sort of ranting fool.

Re:This is the absolute WORST 'announcement' ever.

[spindizzy]

Well from the size of it it won't be stereo from a distance of more than about 2 feet. I tend to think stereo sound reproduction is a necessary element for an item described as hi-fi. And that includes Boses excerable wave radio.

Re:New Mac mini video chipset! Made for Home theat

[TheRaven64]

The Radeon in the old Mini could do both iDCT and MC (as can all Radeons, dating way back to when, the early 90's?).

My old Rage 128 also had iDCT. Unfortunately, this was not nicely exposed to other software developers, so you had to use the ATi DVD player (which was of a similar standard to other code written by ATi, namely buggy as hell). If you wanted surround sound, you needed to use a different player, and then you lost the hardware iDCT...

Re:e:New Mac mini video chipset! Made for Home the

[Drakino]

Front Row plays anything Quicktime can. And there are codec plugins for Quicktime on the PowerPC side to handle pretty much everything. Below is a list of codecs I used on my PowerPC Mac Mini to play back pretty much everything I had except an occasional Real Media file. Keep in mind these have to be coded specifically for Intel to work on the new Mini properly.

Divx 6: http://www.divx.com/divx/mac/download/
XVid delegate: http://people.ee.ethz.ch/~naegelic/download/
3vix: http://www.3ivx.com/download/macos.html
AC3/A52 decoder: http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group _id=83360
WMV Decoder for Quicktime: http://www.flip4mac.com/wmv.htm
Quicktime MPEG2 decoder, $20: http://www.apple.com/quicktime/mpeg2/

Re:New Mac mini video chipset! Made for Home theat

[mr i want to go home]

No!

Re:New Mac mini video chipset! Made for Home theat

[Blackforge]

Not really. I haven't looked at external USB/Firewire chipsets in awhile, but a lot of benchmarks showed Firewire 400 being faster in most cases. It has to do with the protocol overhead of USB 2.0 as compared to firewire. What makes USB 2.0 the most attractive is the availability of USB ports on almost all PCs these days.

Re:New Mac mini video chipset! Made for Home theat

[magnamous]

I've actually been researching this recently for my own Mac Mini DVR project. I found a cable made by Gefen which would seem to do the trick. I want to have mine hooked up to an LCD and a regular TV at the same time (even if it can't display both simultaneously, which I think it should be able to do through mirroring) so as to avoid lots of unplugging and re-plugging of cables. I haven't ordered the cable yet (I was hoping the new Mini might have VIIV in it - oh well), so I don't know if it works, but I don't see any reason why it shouldn't.

You'd be surprised how few cables like this there are out there. I've found a few others that supposedly work through RCA video (the yellow RCA connector) and through S-Video from VGA, but I like this solution better. If you'd prefer the VGA-to-RCA/S-Video option, Gefen also sells a DVI-to-DVI-and-VGA splitter cable. As with the DVI-to-DVI-and-Component cable, this doesn't seem to be a common splitter cable.

HiFi for LoFi

[Nom du Keyboard]

HiFi for LoFi (music).

and they get more than this for less from Vaja

[Anonymous Coward]

Those custom-made, you-pick-the-colors-and-embossing, leather cases from Vaja look far better and still cost less.

animal cruelty

[cycledance]

seriously...why is apple selling leather cases? i dont get it...its just NOT right.

Re:animal cruelty

[aristotle-dude]

The animal is already dead and was most likely used for meat. What is the problem here?

Re:animal cruelty

[cycledance]

ya...you are so right...what am i even talking about? thx for clearing that up with the dead meat. life is good.

Re:animal cruelty

[Anonymous Coward]

God forbid the idea of not killing the animal in the first place should even be considered.

Re:animal cruelty

[aristotle-dude]

God forbid the idea of not killing the animal in the first place should even be considered.

Heaven forbid that you would think of respecting the beliefs and values of others. You are free to be a vegetarian and not buy leather products but you do not have a right to shove your beliefs down other people's throats. What you are suggesting is called cultural imperialism which is a bad thing. Many indigenous cultures have been destroy by such arrogance.

Re:animal cruelty

[aristotle-dude]

ya...you are so right...what am i even talking about? thx for clearing that up with the dead meat. life is good.

You are free to think/believe whatever you wish but other people have the right to believe/think differently than you do. Stop trying to impose your values on others.

Re:animal cruelty

[cycledance]

there is a difference between thinking and acting.(murdering)

Correction

[kf6auf]

The drives are all 7200rpm. I don't remember if this was true with the old Mac Minis, can anybody comment?

Re:Correction

[hyperstation]

no, they were 4200 and some 5400, AFAIK. i had a slow one.

What happened to $499?

[smcallah]

I thought the big deal about the MacMini when it was released was the $499 price tag, along with it's smallness.

Now it's $599? That gets less appealing to the masses that they may have been marketing to at the $499 price point.

Disappearance of the "under $500 Macintosh"

[kriegsman]

It's astounding; time is fleeting. Marketing takes its toll.

Note the disappearance of the "under $500" Macintosh.

My read is that (1) Apple had shown the world that there were such things as "cheap Macs" and had gotten the word out 'enough', (2) Apple had already sold bare-bones-$499 systems to everyone who was lured in by the low box price but who was unwilling to pay a little more, (3) a majority of their 'Mac mini' customers were spending much more than $499 anyway, and I'm guessing that their research suggested that the customers were buying more on total-system-cost than on the just the cost of the bare box. But what do I know?

-Mark

Evesham - AOpen

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, Evesham offers the AOpen Mini. Very Similar!

Re:Evesham - AOpen

[Golias]

A useful comparison, thanks! Let's see.

Inferior CPU (Celeron vs. Core Solo)
Slower bus (400 vs. 667)
Slower HD (5400 vs SATA 7200)
Slower Ethernet connection (10/100 vs. Gig)
No Wi-Fi
No Bluetooth
No digital audio
WAY more expensive.

Huh. It's like I woke up in some kind of bizarro world, where Macs actually look better in terms of specs vs. cost than the PC knock-off versions of them.

It's looking like the Mac is even a better by than the "Eversham" if you actually want to run Windows Vista (when it arrives Real Soon Now) instead of OS X!

Re:Evesham - AOpen

[Golias]

Oh, I stand corrected. The Pound has risen against the dollar last time I looked. The PC is slightly cheaper, if you ignore the missing hardware and lower specs.

Then again, it comes out to slightly more when adding the shipping costs WITHIN THE UK. Shipping one to the US probably costs quite a bit more, so the Mac still wins.

Re:Evesham - AOpen

[samkass]

Compare the P4-based Dells and the Dells clearly come out dramatically ahead in price/performance. Of course, you're not paying for a lot of extra features you won't use anyway. And you get a few extra slots, and a word processor. (But who needs a word processor on a home computer anyway, right Apple?)

The bottom line is that Apple doesn't sell a basic home computer anymore.

I'm a huge Mac fan. I just wish Apple woke up and sold computers I could widely recommend.

Re:Evesham - AOpen

[Golias]

Which Dell would you reccomend for the living room media cabinet at that price point? Something that fits nicely on a 4" shelf.

Because I suspect that's where most of these minis are going to get used.

(My old G4 mini is getting built into a mobile rack for guitar and mic processing, but that's another story.)

Re:Evesham - AOpen

[Moofie]

Slots? How many computer users put things in slots?

Seriously. I use expansion slots, and you probably use expansion slots, but for the overwhelming majority of computer users out there, having expansion slots is a complete non-issue.

You seem to think people don't use the features that are included with the mini. The sales numbers of the computers that you design vs. the ones that Apple designs tells me that they might be on to something here.

Re:Evesham - AOpen

[jocknerd]

And you forgot one more thing about the P4 Dell. Its got a built-in heater than consumes way more electricity than the Intel Core Mac mini.

Re:Evesham - AOpen

[madgunde]

TextEdit is a fully functional word processor with spell check, support for images, WYSIWYG display/output, MS Word compatibility and can save as PDF. It's more word processor than 75% of home users need. If people need more, they also have the iWork '06 30-day trial which they can begin using immediately for 30 days. If they find they need the extra features, they can pay $79 for an unlock code and it will include Keynote for presentations. If THAT's not enough, there's the MS Office 2004 test drive which is also installed on the hard drive. So in effect, the Mac mini comes with 3 word processors to choose from out of the box.

Re:Evesham - AOpen

[timeOday]

The sales numbers of the computers that you design vs. the ones that Apple designs tells me that they might be on to something here. Is the mini a big seller? I'm under the impression Apple is making most of its money from iPods these days.

Re:Evesham - AOpen

[Basehart]

The last clean install I did on my G5 I decided not to install word and haven't missed it once. I used text edit about 90% of the time and iWork to open docs that folks sometime send me.

Re:Evesham - AOpen

[jcr]

Is the mini a big seller?

To date, it's probably the single most successful model of the Mac of all time, in terms of units sold.

-jcr

Re:Evesham - AOpen

[samkass]

Frankly, few care.

Re:Evesham - AOpen

[samkass]

Apple makes a little under half its revenue from iPods, and a little over half from the Mac. The mini probably doesn't contribute significantly to the revenue figure, since it's a low-price, low-margin machine. The iMac and the PowerBook are Apple's cash cow. Unlike Dell, they really haven't figured out how to sell a home computer to average folks.

I'm not a huge fan of a pile of slots, but I'd say take away most of the mini's ports and add a single slot. If someone needs gigabit ethernet, remote control, external storage, etc., let them fill that slot with whatever they need to specialize the machine for their needs.

Re:Evesham - AOpen

[samkass]

iWork doesn't include a word processor, just a PageMaker-style page layout app called Pages. I would never subject my kid to Pages for writing reports. And TextEdit is reasonably powerful, but still seems mostly targeted towards reading, not writing formatted text (no tool bars, etc.) I'm not really sure Apple's sat down with their average home user and asked them what they want for years.

Re:Evesham - AOpen

[madgunde]

Everyone's entitled to their opinions I suppose, but Pages is a full feature word processor that also does a great job of laying out more complex pages. If you start with a blank page, then you can just start typing.

As for TextEdit, have you ever run it? It has a toolbar with ruler, alignment, text styles menu, lists menu and tab controls. You use the Mac OS X standard system-wide Fonts palette to change fonts and other text attributes (underline, strikeout, colour, background colour and text shadow).

Just because it doesn't have these features in a toolbar, doesn't mean it's not a decent word processor. If you prefer MS Word, then buy MS Word, but don't expect every other word processor out there to conform to MS Word's paradigm on word processing. I actually find that Microsoft Word is a horrible word processor because it's styles feature isn't easy to use and is so broken that most people never use styles. So when they decide they want to change the look of their 30 page document, they spend an hour or two manually selecting each element and changing the formatting of it manually. I hate getting word documents from other people that I have to incorporate into a larger project. I almost always have to waste time manually reformatting because most MS Word users don't even know what styles are, yet it's right there in the toolbar!

Pages and Text Edit both put text styles front and center to encourage people to use it. Then when they decide they want to restyle their document, they spend 30 seconds adjusting the style and their document reformats itself. Using them requires you to unlearn the bad habits that MS Word taught you. Once you figure that out, you'll realize that Pages and Text Edit's paradigm is far more efficient.

Re:Evesham - AOpen

[fishboy]

"Unlike Dell, they really haven't figured out how to sell a home computer to average folks." har har, those teardrop imacs of old are only the best selling computer *of all time*, i guess those apple nerds need to take some lessons about marketing. hey, doesn't the mini already come with a remote? and firewire for external storage? duh buh

Re:Evesham - AOpen

[Anonymous Coward]

True that... I recommended abiword and joffice to most people when they needed a word processor. The interface isn't exactly sexy, but it'll do.

B

Large soundstage?

[wiredlogic]

They claim the following:

1. measures just 17.0" x 6.6" x 6.9."
2. large soundstage

You cannot achieve a "large soundstage" with less than 17" of separation. I guess they are only accounting for small values of large. Or maybe this is targeted to audiophile hamsters.

Re:New Mac mini video chipset! Made for Home theat

[magnamous]

Would that it were true. They're 5400 RPM. Look at the top of the 3rd column from the left.

mini

[chivo243]

I'll wait until gen 2. Thanks anyway, I've already eaten.

1080p over HDMI/DVI/Component

[Anonymous Coward]

All of these are currently possible. Where do people get this notion that this isn't possible?

$999 iMac

[Kadin2048]

IIRC, there was a time when the regular "Candy Colored" base-model iMac was below a grand. Granted, it was barely below (at $999 or something), but it was below the magic four-digit mark. Then of course the CRT iMac became the eMac, and the price for the new LCD iMac (the flexible one) was significantly higher.

It'll be interesting to see whether iMacs get back down below a grand at any point, or if they're going to keep them up around $1200-ish and use the Mini to capture the lower-end market.

Full quote please.

[Anonymous Coward]

You only gave the first half of the quote - taking Steve out of context and making it appear that the pouches are over priced.

"iPod leather cases. We've been working on these for a while. We're gonna sell these for $99, they go on sale in mid March."

Steve pauses. The crowd hushes, waiting expentantly.

The huge screen behind Steve is slowly brightening. Scenes from March of the Penguins are playing.

"Thats right, genuine penguin leather"

The crowd goes wild.

whatever

[Anonymous Coward]

If they saved, then why the fuck is it $100 more expensive? They rushed this to market. I was excited, but now it's No Fucking Way.

Re:whatever

[Anonymous Coward]

It has two more USB ports, audio in, 5.1 out, a more expensive CPU and integrated Bluetooth and WiFi. It has to be more expensive.

Re:whatever

[Anonymous Coward]

Those ports cost maybe $.05 per unit, with all of the functionality behind them being provided for free with the chipset. Most of the cost here is from the 2MB of cache on the Yonah processors in the Mini. That covers almost half of the cost of the unit in volume. The other large money sink is the 512MB DDR2-667 RAM.They're probably upping the margins on the Mini with the Intel unit, too, since they've already established brand interest with the previous Mini.

Re:New Mac mini video chipset! Made for Home theat

[tji]

I'm not sure if it's Linux friendly. But, MythTV is MacOS friendly.

I've been using the new 0.19 release of MythTV on my 1.42GHz G4 Mac Mini. It works great for SD video. But, obviously don't have the horsepower for HD video.

This new mini should handle HD video easily. I just ordered the dual core version, to use as my MythTV frontend (with my Athlon64 Linux box as the backend with two HD and two SD tuners).

Nice to see Blose get some competition

[Nybble's Byte]

I imagine the iPod Hifi will walk all over the Bose Wave radio. People have been completely brainwashed by Bose advertising and marketing to think it's the ultimate hifi gear. Nothing could be further from the truth.

MP3 hurts my ears

[PenGun]

How do you people listen to MP3s? You must have really shitty sound equipment, that's the only reason that makes sense to me.

  I have a nice stereo and that crap hurts my ears and I'm old, 60 this year.

    PenGun
  Do What Now ??? ... Standards and Practices !

Re:e:New Mac mini video chipset! Made for Home the

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Just wanted to say thank you for the informative links. *Bookmarked*

User-installable memory?

[pjcreath]

According to the Apple Store:

Mac mini contains 667MHz (PC2-5300) double data rate, synchronous dynamic random-access memory (DDR2-SDRAM), one of the fastest memory technologies available today. Your Mac mini comes standard with two 256MB SO-DIMM chips for a total of 512 megabytes (MB) of memory... You can upgrade your memory later by taking your system to an Apple Authorized Service Provider or doing it yourself.

This sounds like you no longer have to tear the thing apart simply to upgrade the RAM.

Re:User-installable memory?

[gmhowell]

Tear it apart? What kind of geek are you? Pop off the cover, remove one component, undo a couple of screws, plug in memory, reassemble. Took me about the same time to do this as the last memory upgrade on an X86 PC (which required withdrawing the mobo to fit memory between cages and a bazillion wires.

Component is dead for HD

[dancpsu]

It seems pretty much like component is dead in HD-land now. HDCP garbage made things much harder for the consumer and is slowing HD adoption in general. All the stuff I see only supports component for upconversion of EDTV-level video max. Which comes two mistakes for the media industry. First, many of the early adopters they depend on to fund R&D have only component HD in on their sets, that now no-one supports. Second, most HD sets have only one HDMI or DVI input. So you can hook up either your HD-DVD/Blu-ray player, or your HD cable box, or your game system, or your computer. To further exacerbate the problem, the new sets are mostly HD-"ready" with no ATSC/cablecard tuner so not only do you have external devices taking up ports, but something that used to be internal is now another external device. The alternative is to get a $300 switch box to switch between every input with a second clunky remote control.

My television is a 34" widescreen HD-ready box with 1 HDMI input, 2 component inputs and for some strange reason 4 SDTV inputs as well as NTSC antenna in. Connecting a computer through HDMI is not easy and requires unusual display modes that most cards have issues with. Since I got a DVR to free up space in my entertainment center, it is now taking up the HDMI. Unless HDMI splitter boxes come down drastically in price and have some better integration than a second remote control, I'm going to pass on anything I can't connect to component-in.

Re:Component is dead for HD

[rworne]

I can see why HDTV adoption has slowed. I am buying nothing until I need a new set. I'm perfectly happy with DVDs and my progressive-scan player. Because of the HDMI crap, I'm not buying into the new technology until it's been around and established. They will also have to kill off DVD to get me to move as well.

Re:New Mac mini video chipset! Made for Home theat

[Tumbleweed]

If "price is no object" for NAS? You don't seem to be up on the latest offerings, it seems. There are some seriously cheap NAS offerings out there these days, some for only use with 1 drive, some with 2 or 4, with or without drives.

Nevertheless, I was planning on turning my current machine into a NAS box, available for use by the new Mac Mini.

April 1

[commodoresloat]

Wait till Apirl 1st there will be all sorts of goodies released then!

Oh yes. Many computer companies will have interesting announcements on that day. And there will no doubt be many slashdot stories of important and unusual news. And of course everyone will be awaiting with baited breath the RFCs that will be released that day.

Re:April 1

[Anonymous Coward]

With the difference being that Apple actually celebrates its 30th birthday on April 1 and thus has may use the occassion.

Re:New Mac mini video chipset! Made for Home theat

[Midnight Thunder]

Something else worth noting is that USB 2 is controlled by the CPU, whereas Firewire has a controller chip to do the work. This means that USB 2 depends on CPU load, whereas Firewire does not.

don't forget HDCP support!

[hotani]

oh wait....

Re:New Mac mini video chipset! Made for Home theat

[Anonymous Coward]

You might have some trouble - I don't believe MythTV has been compiled as a Universal Binary quite yet, which would be required to run the frontend on this box.

Re:New Mac mini video chipset! Made for Home theat

[hackstraw]

My current "NAS" offerings consist of 2 400 Gig hds connected to my Mac and shared over wireless and wired network through my house. I have "big boy" NASs at work. 9 TB cache servers and robot tape silos and whatnot for just shy of infinite storage.

I don't see how a NAS-in-a-box could be more robust or cost effective, but what do I know?

Hi-Fi?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, that buzzword was old 30 years ago! Time to move into the current century.

Remote + FrontRow

[commodoresloat]

When will Apple offer the remote with FrontRow software for older macs? I don't have the money to upgrade my Mac Mini but I would pay to get just these items, to make the process of using the mini as a media center easier.

Vista?

[mnemonic_]

But will it run Vista?

Re:Vista?

[AHumbleOpinion]

But will it run Vista?

Actually, it probably will.

Re:New Mac mini video chipset! Made for Home theat

[Tumbleweed]

My current machine is housed in a nice full tower case with space for 10 HDs, should I choose to spend that kind of money. I'm hoping to replace this with an Intel-based Mac, then turn my current machine into a NAS box connected via GigE, and slowly add more HDs as time goes on. GigE on the new Mac Mini is awesome. Worse-than-laptop video circuity is, err, suboptimal, though it does seem to have hardware decoding for HD video up to 1080p, which is pretty nice. I'd just have to give up on whatever 3D gaming I do (very minimal), unless I was willing to shut down the NAS box and use it as a regular machine. I dunno yet; I'll have to cogitate upon this further.

Re:New Mac mini video chipset! Made for Home theat

[mister_tim]

Actually, I ran some benchmarks on this on my Powerbook G4 some time ago. The internal 7200rpm 2.5in drive performed faster in every way than an external 7200rpm 3.5in drive, connected via FW800.

So in the new Mac Mini, a 7200rpm 2.5in drive connected via SATA should absolutely outperform an external drive - it just can't have the same capacity.

That said, the idea of connectign some sort of NAS via gigabit ethernet sounds interesting.

Re:New Mac mini video chipset! Made for Home theat

[Tibor the Hun]

have you tried watching the 1080p trailers off Apple's website?

Alternative

[Rac3r5]

I'm not trying to be a troll here.

I was interested in a mac mini with an intel duo chip, I love the entire hardware setup. It has everything that I need for an in car computer. However, the price is something that is a bit too much for me. Frankly I don't need all those packages that apple is throwing with the mac mini for in car use, except maybe the DVD player and music player software. The rest will probarbly be my own.

Are there any similar alternatives that are similar in size and hardware, out there that I can buy for a cheaper price. I've come across a nano ITX board that is about 4.5 x 4.5 inches but not any complete systems.

Any ideas?

If I do decide to go with the macMini route, are there any OpenSource IDE's out there?

Re:Alternative

[bnenning]

How much CPU power do you really need? There should be discounted PPC minis hitting the market shortly.

If I do decide to go with the macMini route, are there any OpenSource IDE's out there?

Eclipse works for Java, but you might as well use Xcode for (Objective-)C(++). Sure it's not open source, but neither is OS X itself.

Re:Alternative

[Anonymous Coward]

Open source, probably; the key thing is that the developer tools, including the Apple IDE, XCode (the analog to VisualStudio) comes free with the machine, or is a free download. Or perhaps you don't mean integrated development environment?

Re:Alternative

[Rac3r5]

Actually I had no idea. I've never really done development on a Mac Platform except in HS for a couple of weeks, which was a long time ago.
Thanks for the tip.. :)

Re:Alternative

[Rac3r5]

Basically, most of the CPU power I need will be for watching a DVDs, listening to music, mapping GPS coordinates to a map and logging video data.
The most I'll probarbly be doing at one time would be: Listening to music and getting my GPS data, as well as logging video data while driving.
For the video data part, its just a small camera, so that if I ever get into an accident.. I have actual evidence of what went on.

Re:New Mac mini video chipset! Made for Home theat

[davez0r]

no, but i will now

thxu friendz0r

Re:New Mac mini video chipset! Made for Home theat

[Moofie]

"I find it hard to imagine it won't be full of DRM crap"

I'm sure there are a lot of things that are hard to imagine, but are very true.

All you have to do to not have any "drm crap" on your Mac would be to not buy anything from the iTunes music store. Done.

Encoder?

[antdude]

What about encoding?

Still no HDMI output

[gnatware]

When is Apple going to HDMI these boxes, and take us a step forward like they did with FireWire? Of course, by the time they go HDMI, hi-def screens will probably be onto the next video connector (UDI http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Display_Inter face or DisplayPorthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisplayPor t), and we can all rush out and replace our $5000 plasmas with the latest toys.

Re:Still no HDMI output

[Anonymous Coward]

It has DVI, which is better than HDMI(because HDMI is simply DVI without the signal corruption), and every single HDMI input is required to also accept DVI as an input. There's no reason to claim that's a problem, because in no way is it a problem.

Re:New Mac mini video chipset! Made for Home theat

[mduell]

His G4-based Mac mini is too slow to play them without dropping frames.

Zonk's rating

[Trogre]

+5 for the Batman reference in the title.
-1000000 for the product placement spamvert.

ipod-hifi butt ugly?

[tciny]

Am I the only one that thinks the hifi thingie is Apples first really bad looking product in a long time? I mean wheres the slick combination of metal and the translucent look their stuff usually has? This seems just like a standard plastic can with handles on each sides...

Intel Graphics?! Ack!!!

[Maury Markowitz]

I was really looking forward to the new mini. And when I saw the bullet point come up on Ars that they had a Duo version, my jaw dropped. A Duo powered box with X1600 graphics will make one hell of a mid-range gaming box, for $799, and one that doesn't sound like a vacume cleaner on your desk.

But of course it doesn't have the X1600. It has the "useless for anything but collecting dust" Intel 950 series el-cheapo UMA decellerator.

Thanks Apple, thanks for turning what could have been a killer platform into a ho-hum web page browser.

Re:Intel Graphics?! Ack!!!

[GaryPatterson]

You're right. I fully expected quad NV7800s, 16 10,000rpm SATA2 drives in RAID and 48GB of RAM.

And they failed me! It's like a slap in the face.

Apple won't get my money! Come on Apple - I've got the money! Why won't you fulfil my ridiculous expectations?

Bastards.

Disk Speed?

[ChunderDownunder]

Those specs say 5400-rpm drives.

The store mentions

All Mac mini models include standard Serial ATA hard drives featuring data transfers up to 1.5 Gigabits per second. All hard drives run at 7,200 revolutions per minute (rpm).

So, 5400 or 7200???

Re:New Mac mini video chipset! Made for Home theat

[StikyPad]

Right, but if he just blames the HDD, people will believe it, ignoring the fact that regardless of the reason, Apple didn't provide enough power to display HD.

Not to mention, won't TVs scale down the resolution of HD content unless it's provided through HDCP?

Still not a PVR?!

[Chriscypher]

I am amazed that Apple still has not released a PVR solution. I'd ditch my ReplayTV in a heartbeat for an Apple PVR with 30-sec skip button that can access my server-based iTunes collection. They are sidestepping the real living room market.

Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these...

[Anonymous Coward]

In Soviet Russia, Mac mini underwhelms you!! ;)

I think it's a pretty good improvement from what there was before, at a great price/performance ratio, considering its size and how well it fits beside my 42" plasma. ;)

GMA 950 supports Core Image, Radeon 9200 doesn't

[MojoStan]

I think Core Image support is a big deal to many Mac buyers, and GMA 950 supports it according to MacRumors. ATI Radeon 9200 doesn't support Core Image (needs at least Radeon 9500).

GMA 950 is an OpenGL 1.4 GPU. Radeon 9200 is an OpenGL 1.3 GPU.

ideal compute "blade"?

[Anonymous Coward]

seems to me that the core duo with a smaller (or none at all) hard disk would be an ideal compute node - does any other vendor make any core duo boxes for so cheap? ideally, a no-disk pxe-bootable core duo machine for less than $450 ? i'd hate to have to toss out the hard disk and eat the $350...

CPU fighting with the GPU over the memory bus?

[smurfsurf]

Correct my if I am wrong, but doesn't shared memory mean that the CPU and the GPU will compete on access to the memory, making the bus a potential bottleneck? And as very much of the eye candy of OS X is done by the GPU, this is not something one wants, if I understand the ars technica article correctly.

http://arstechnica.com/reviews/os/macosx-10.4.ars/ 13
http://arstechnica.com/reviews/os/macosx-10.4.ars/ 14

Re:CPU fighting with the GPU over the memory bus?

[MojoStan]

Correct my if I am wrong, but doesn't shared memory mean that the CPU and the GPU will compete on access to the memory, making the bus a potential bottleneck? And as very much of the eye candy of OS X is done by the GPU, this is not something one wants, if I understand the ars technica article correctly.

Maybe beyond the 64MB on the GPU. I'm not an expert on this subject. However, PCI Express (8 GB/s bandwidth) and dual-channel 667MHz system memory lessons the bottleneck significantly over previous-generation shared memory architectures based on AGP.

Note that Core Solo/Duo has a 667MHz FSB while the dual-channel memory controller supplies twice that bandwidth (DDR2 667). That leaves at least one channel of system memory bandwidth dedicated to the GPU. Also, modern PCI Express GPUs that use shared memory (including NVIDIA TurboCache and ATI HyperMemory) have gotten smarter about combining the bandwidth of the GPUs memory and the shared system memory.

Re:New Mac mini video chipset! Made for Home theat

[afidel]

WTF hardware are you running that has 9TB cache? Netapp 980 tops out at only 16GB, Sun StorEdge 9990 System tops out at 128GB, IBM DS8300 tops out at 256GB, Hitachi TagmaStore tops out at 256GB, and EMC Symmetrix DMX-3 tops out at 512GB. If there's a SAN player I'm not aware of that has 38 times the capacity of EMC's biggest box I would be VERY suprised.

Re:New Mac mini video chipset! Made for Home theat

[Calroth]

But, neither matter anyway.. Apple does not expose an open API to use the video acceleration capabilities in GPU hardware. Only their DVD player can use it. So, all video decoding is done on the CPU -- which makes the new Mini a big improvement with a faster CPU & optional dual core.

It's worth mentioning: there is a project called Accellent, to reverse-engineer Apple's GPU acceleration APIs and make it available as open source. Some folks on the MythTV project are also working on integrating it into the frontend, I think.

Whether it'll work with the Intel graphics chipset is an open question.

bottom of this beauty

[cyfer2000]

Anybody has the picture of the bottom of this beauty?

Bundled word processor

[macphile84]

Actually, home Macs (at least iMacs) come with AppleWorks bundled. It's no Word, but it'll beat out MS Works any day! :-)

What's going to happen to the G4 minis?

[Tinn-Can]

Too bad apple never drops their prices...

Re:New Mac mini video chipset! Made for Home theat

[eobanb]

widescreen 16:9 display with rectangular pixels and a 4:3 resolution

What you've just described is impossible. Think about it. With rectangular pixels at a 4:3 resolution, the screen is going to be 4:3, not 16:9.

That Boombox is almost as dumb as...

[im_thatoneguy]

That Boombox is almost as dumb as... the time two Apple engineers had the following conversation. Engineer 1: How will the user eject a disk? Engineer 2: How about they drag it to the trash can. Engineer 1: But won't that throw it away. Engineer 2: Not if it's a metaphysical analogy to data being purged from the inner sanctum of the Macintosh. Engineer 1: Brilliant!

Comparison of PPC Mini Specs to Intel Mini Specs

[MCSEBear]

Looking over Apple's specs for both versions here is a comparison of the old PPC Mac Mini specs http://web.archive.org/web/20050401063720/www.appl e.com/macmini/specs.html and the new Intel Mac Mini specs http://www.apple.com/macmini/whatsinside.html

Things That Are Changed:

An Intel Core Solo at 1.5GHz with 2MB of L2 Cache onboard and a 667 Mhz Frontside Bus. (was a PowerPC G4 processor at 1.25GHz with 512K of L2 Cache onboard and a 167 Mhz Frontside Bus.)

A larger hard disk 60GB (was 40GB)

Bluetooth 2.0 built in (was optional)

WiFi G built in (was optional)

Gigabit Ethernet (was 100Mbit)

512 Meg RAM (was 256 Megs)

4 USB 2 ports (was 2)

Digital Audio Out(was headphone jack)

Digital Audio In (Was totally missing)

Remote Control

Support for up to 2 Gigs of 667MHz DDR2 SDRAM (PC2-5300) instead of 1 Gig of 333MHz DDR SDRAM (PC2700)

Things You give up:

ATI's Radeon 9200 with 32MB of DDR SDRAM for Intel's GMA950 graphics processor with 64MB of DDR2 SDRAM shared with main memory

A built in 56K V.92 modem

Things You Keep:

400 Mbps Firewire

Slot Loading Combo Drive DVD-ROM/CD-RW

VGA adapter

Re:New Mac mini video chipset! Made for Home theat

[hackstraw]

WTF hardware are you running that has 9TB cache? Netapp 980 tops out at only 16GB, Sun StorEdge 9990 System tops out at 128GB, IBM DS8300 tops out at 256GB, Hitachi TagmaStore tops out at 256GB, and EMC Symmetrix DMX-3 tops out at 512GB. If there's a SAN player I'm not aware of that has 38 times the capacity of EMC's biggest box I would be VERY suprised.

Generic PCs running modified Linux kernels.

The cache is aggregate between the tape silos and the users, its not RAM.

Sorry for the confusion, if any. Electron accelerators dump bunches of data, and even I get lost in the shuffle from time to time.

Re:New Mac mini video chipset! Made for Home theat

[Bishop]

think about it:

Say that there is a display that pixels that are 4mm wide and 3 mm tall. Say the display is 4 pixels wide, and 3 pixels tall.

1) What is the width and height of the display?

2) What is the width to height ratio of the display?

3) How is what the gp described impossible?

Re:New Mac mini video chipset! Made for Home theat

[kabz]

My new LaCie 250 Gig drive uses Firewire and gets a steady 32 Mbytes/sec when backing up from my Powerbook 12".

I've never seen anything like this throughput from USB 2.0 on PC or Mac. Firewire is really important on this Mac, since USB 2.0 has some bug that really limits the speed, and is kind of known for sucking, though it's fine for keyboards and mice and the like.

Re:New Mac mini video chipset! Made for Home theat

[davez0r]

yea i tried the serenity 1080 one and it's unplayable

the 720p ones work great tho!

peace homie

BSA?

[Anonymous Coward]

What do the Boy Scouts of America have to do with this?

Re:BSA?

[fermion]

since you ask, this paramilitary group is continuing to brainwash innocent children. http://www.thestandard.com.hk/stdn/std/Metro/GE04A k06.html

WOOPEE DOO another IPOD

[Anonymous Coward]

Geez Apple is no longer a computer company. They are a maker of electronic gadgets whipped up with massive marketing.

Re:New Mac mini video chipset! Made for Home theat

[Hollinger]

Yeah. as near as I can tell, this should be possible. "All it would take" (famous last words) is an understanding by the graphics subsystem that the pixel units are non-square, so that it knows my display will effectively stretch the 4:3 picture horizontally. On a standard monitor, the picture might appear squished, but on my plasma, it'll appear normal, if a little lower res than you might expect. However, from 10 feet, I don't think the resolution will made a difference, as I won't ever be composing an email on it. ;)

I guess i'll have to play the "wait and see" game, since I know XP won't do it (tried it for a good day or two) and I'm not sure Vista will either.

intel macs use EFI

[adpowers]

The new Intel machines all use EFI, so what woks in Open Firmware might not necessarily translate over to EFI, alas. I haven't played around with EFI (or even OF for that matter) so hopefully more knowledgeable will step in :).

Max memory too low!

[Cadallin]

That's the one thing that really hurts about the intel transition. We lost 64-bit addressing. My G5 could hold up to 16GB of RAM, all of it usable by the system. While I suspect the pro-systems will use Xeons and their hacked on 48-bit addressing to get around this. If they don't their will be an unholy ruckus from the pro-users. The G5's are used for Pro HD A/V, and high resolution still camera work, and there are many working systems out there USING 4+GB of RAM. Of course, we probably won't see a replacement for the G5 tower until ALL the pro-apps are fully ported anyway, which should still be awhile, although I'm sure they're working furiously on it now.

I can see replacing my G5 tower with a decendent of the current dual core mini in a few years, I just hope they increase the ram ceiling by then. Realistically my computing needs could be met by a maxed out dual-core mini with a couple of mini-stack 3.5in HD enclosures connected by FW.

My one plea: Ever since I've switched from windows, the ONE(!) app I miss dearly is Irfanview. My now fellow macheads don't understand, because showing it run under emulation cripples it horribly, but I'd pay a LOT for a Mac port of Irfanview.

Re:Max memory too low!

[Anonymous Coward]

all the current Mac GUI apps live in individual 32-bit address spaces and have a 3GB limit.

Intel processors have bigger physical RAM capacity than the 32-bit limit. You just have to count the width of the address bus on the FSB..

You could build a Xeon "PowerMac" that holds 16GB RAM today, and GUI apps on that machine under OS X would not really be any worse or better off.

Re:Max memory too low!

[Scudsucker]

all the current Mac GUI apps live in individual 32-bit address spaces and have a 3GB limit.

Don't you mean 4 GB?

Intel processors have bigger physical RAM capacity than the 32-bit limit. You just have to count the width of the address bus on the FSB.

Are you talking about 36 bit addressing? IIRC, that allows you to have up to 64 GB in a system, though no individual process can handle more than 4 GB at a time.

Re:Max memory too low!

[Alkarion]

Sorry guys for making a completely off-topic comment. Please accept my sincere apologies. ----- Cadallin, Stephane and I (CGW Forum) tried to contact you, but something seems to be wrong with your mail account. As you can see, I'm resorting to rather uncommon methods now; I hope you will read this. You know where to reach me (CGW Forum, ICQ). ----- Ok, start flaming me.

Re:Max memory too low!

[Anonymous Coward]

No, he probably means a 3GB limit. Windows has a 2GB limit (applications can be specially written and tagged as 3GB capable, but that's very much the exception) and BeOS had an effective 512MB limit (ghastly operating system). Even Linux used to typically have a 3GB limit on 32-bit architectures, although that's been lifted. A lot of things need address space, it's easier to divide it up leaving a substantial proportion unavailable to userspace programs.

The /idea/ was that in the late 1990s Intel would deliver this incompatible 64-bit CPU that everyone would be hungry for, and somehow all the people who still think Win16 is a pretty neat idea would upgrade overnight. Thus, long before you could afford 4GB of RAM, you'd have a 64-bit machine and all the address space you could use. Instead of course it's 2006 and the world's most popular computer has a 32-bit CPU running a NeXTStep cast-off.

No one cares

[Anonymous Coward]

The world is waiting for Vista, Beta 2 is feature complete and on target for retail in 2h 06. No one wants a underpowered computer even if it is small and runs OSX. Come to think of it, the world runs on Windows while /.ers live in their own little imaginary world where they reign supreme...

Off topic

[David Rolfe]

Just FYI, it's capiche. Don't worry, my spellchecker doesn't know it either.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=capiche

Re:New Mac mini video chipset! Made for Home theat

[jazzis]

...not to butt in here; but did you actually read your sig. in the context of your post?

Sorta telling huh?

107,000 sq ft data denter purpose

[Anonymous Coward]

Store all the cash Apple will be raking in. Steve will jump in and roll around naked, perhaps even swim about like Uncle Scrooge.

Re:New Mac mini video chipset! Made for Home theat

[ppc970]

It depends what you want to do...

On my HD TV, I can set my computer's display to something 16:9 (1920x1080) for example, and then the display will scale the picture. This is fine for video (and in fact, this is what displays like this are doing for video content all the time) but it looks bad for interface elements (unless they are large enough to look good in such a mode, like the Front Row stuff, or other media center type applications).

Apple cashing in on accessories market

[portscan]

There was an article in the Wall Street Journal a few weeks ago about how iPod accessories are now a billion dollar market. Seriously. They indicated that Apple would be expanding into this business to increase its revenue streams from the iPod, so I guess that's what this is. Apple sure knows how to complement its own products with beautifully designed accessories. Others look clunky by comparison (although I must say that the Bose SoundDock does look better than the Apple iPod Hi-Fi, and it's cheaper).

ironic

[seanismdotcom]

Does anyone find it ironic that there speaker system advertises audiophile-quality sound and the bitrate of there songs on itunes music store are 128KB.

Oops, I meant Half-life 2, not Halo 2

[MojoStan]

I meant Half-life 2.

Re:New Mac mini video chipset! Made for Home theat

[Hollinger]

Interesting. :-)

How is the HDTV connected to the PC? Also, what sort of display do you have? My experience with the DVI connectivity between the TV, and my PC was that the display was recognized as a 1024x768 display, and that was the maxmimum resolution my video card would drive. I suppose this might be dependent on drivers as well?

Re:New Mac mini video chipset! Made for Home theat

[Anonymous Coward]

I have one of the original 1.42 GHz Mac minis plugged into my TV doing 720p over DVI. It's pretty good at that resolution. Occasionally, it gets a little choppy if the entire frame changes at once (like panning across a scene really quickly), but that's pretty rare and if you're not looking for it you may not even notice. I doubt 1080 would be very good.

Wrong

[eclectic4]

"What other job would you propose for the thing? It is a low spec machine sold at a very premium price-point. It's one redeeming feature is that is small, quiet and almost looks like a piece of mainstream consumer electronics."

The Mini was specifically designed for switchers and others who wanted a Mac at a lower price than they were previously available for. This was very clear. It's redeeming quality is that it runs OS X. Remember, you represent about 1% of the computer using market as your wants/needs are vastly different than what most of us want a computer to be.

"Frontrow is a quicktime only joke. Where do I get content for that? And don't say iTunes store. Ditch the bundleware and the hardware is nice though, too bad they won't sell em naked."

iTunes store, there, I said it. You have quite obviously never used the bundled iLife apps (iDVD, iPhoto, iMovie, GarageBand, iWeb). As this is merely a part of OS X (see previous redeeming quality), their ease of use, complete integration with each other, and containing much more than normal consumer level features make anything else bundled with any other OS (see % of computer user that you represent) seem like an afterthought.

Still no one is mentioning Digital Recording

[Pooquey]

I've seen a one weblink that mentions the feasibility of the original mac mini for home studio recording. No one has even mentioned the macintels for it. I couldn't care less about dvr/pvr whatever. I don't watch tv. I want to know about how the specs affect Logic/Pro-Tools/Core Audio and all that. Anyone have any answers? I can't find any, and I've read all the hot links. Someone who wants to be clued in here.

Re:New Mac mini video chipset! Made for Home theat

[Westacular]

The down-scaling happens on the content-output side; things like HD-DVD players and Windows Vista will down-scale if they're not outputting to an HDCP-authorized receiver. The TVs themselves don't discriminate.

Mac OS X has no such goofy restrictions (yet?).

IrfanView

[5n3ak3rp1mp]

I can't tell what it is other than some sort of media viewer (i try to remain as pc-free as possible), but you might want to look at a combination of Preview.app, VLC and GraphicConverter, a venerable Mac app.

Re:IrfanView

[Cadallin]

That's the problem. Mac people just see, "oh, it's a media viewer, we have THAT, try preview or iPhoto!" Unfortunately, that isn't all it does it all. It IS a media viewer (an extremely efficient, fast, and with very low memory usage). It is also an editor somewhat comparable to Photoshop Elements, or Paint Shop Pro. It is capable of doing basically all common light weight edits and transformations, and does them both very quickly and efficiently (and with selectable quality levels). I suspect there's an awful lot of hand-tuned assembly deep down in its inner sanctum. Basically it's functional replacement for photoshop Elements AND a media viewer, but with a memory footprint of less than two-megabytes, and it therefore starts in the time required to read the executable off your HD, (i.e. instantly). Also of note that I've been unable to find, is it contains and exceptionally well developed batch processor, better than the one in Photoshop. And you can set up sequential batch processes/batch renames while retaining original file order.

To explain what I mean, it is trivially easy if, say, you have a set of photos you've taken, your camera gives them filenames sequentially by time. Irfanview can resample and sharpen the images, give them completely sequential filenames, RETAINING the original order (which I have yet to figure out how to do in OS X). This can be done in just a few seconds.

Using it through emulation doesn't do it justice at all, its very, very fast even on ancient Windows hardware (The Viewer is almost totally I/O limited, unless your system is prehistoric). A Pentium II at 300MHz, running windows 98, runs Irfanview to edit multimegapixel images very well. I know that it doesn't touch the windows graphics api's at all to do any of this, due to posts about concerns about windows vulnerabilities, the author has said that it doesn't.

Unfortunatly other Mac people think I'm trolling when I talk about it. Luckily "Xee" on OS X is starting to equal the media viewer functionality.

http://www.macupdate.com/info.php/id/19978

But for its editing capabilities I'm forced to resort to photoshop, which is no where near as responsive or convenient. Although maybe, (here's hoping) once WINE gets working on OSX Intel, and I actually switch back to intel (*sobs, shakes fist at fate*) by buying an intel based mac I'll be able to use it again.

Re:IrfanView

[5n3ak3rp1mp]

Yeah, that's why I recommended GraphicConverter, because it has a lot of those features including some of the batch processing. It's also been around on Macs forever.

I didn't know about Xee. Thanks for the tip. Preview.app has now been relegated to "fancy PDF viewer" ;)

Re:IrfanView

[Cadallin]

Wow, I do need to start learning to use Graphic Converter now that I look at it, for some reason I think I thought it was still only a Classic App, and thus dismissed it since I knew Classic's days are numbered, but now I see its still under active development. Thank you, I'm going to start reading the GraphicConverter User Guide. I was never happy with preview as anything other than a pdf viewer, although it does do that much more nicely than anything on windows. Therefore since I got my Mac I've been franticly searching for apps to replace Irfanview functionality, Xee only appeared just a few months ago, and I was ecstatic to find it. I think it relies on a lot a CoreImage stuff for display, and as I'm checking the newest version, it's added lossless JPEG transforms. WooHOO!

iDCT is supported in hardware on the 950

[Anonymous Coward]

Not that I like the 950, but just to get the facts straight here.

http://support.intel.com/design/mobile/datashts/30 9219.htm

W00t!

[MichailS]

Yes, the Intel Mac mini is by far the most exciting piece in this lineup! But 8500 swedish Kronor? That is more than 50% more expensive than the old version! =[ Still, comparing it to other ultra-small-and-sexy PCs, it's not that excruciating. And it runs MacOS!

Typo

[David Rolfe]

piece of video being ripped from a CD and transcoded into H.264

Man, I'm being careless tonight, ripped from a DVD of course.

iPod Hi-Fi...

[irchs]

It looks a bit shit, judging by the frequency response (seems to be the same as the iPod), it will sound a bit shit, and all the speakers are forward facing... so its a big expensive ugly mono speaker?!

Unless they have done some crazy engineering to make it not sound so mono, would be interesting to hear it.

But why spend $350 or whatever the equivalent will be in GBP on an iPod Hi-Fi when a decent pair of reference powered monitors will cost you less...

Check these for example: http://www.dolphinmusic.co.uk/page/shop/flypage/pr oduct_id/5965/ - Cheaper, more inputs...

The Mac Mini's are a bit expensive, Dual Core is nice, but I think I will wait till they have smaller MacBook Pro's or they replace the PowerMac's with the equivalent Intel model.

And £70 for a piece of Leather... ...

Thanks

Jan

modmini rundown

[JohnsonWax]

Modmini has a rundown of the new minis including some technical details that I don't think have been published anywhere else.

http://www.modmini.com/gear/reviews/mini-c

splleing is hrad!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's execrable. Please check the spelling of your posts. Those of us who suffer from obsessive-compulsive disorder get headaches from piss-poor spelling and grammar.

Re:New Mac mini video chipset! Made for Home theat

[miller701]

Would that it were true. They're 5400 RPM. Look at the top of the 3rd column from the left.

Woah. When they were first announced, I went to the apple store to price one out. I clicked on the "Learn More" link below the drop down for upgrading the HD and they said they were 7200 RPM, but now that's changed to 5400.

I stand corrected. It must have been a error that they noticed and changed.

I also noticed they now have two DIMM slots, but they say you have to have them in pairs, but at least the max is 2 GB. The Imac seems like a better value, unless you have a nice LCD display and your CPU just died.

Re:New Mac mini video chipset! Made for Home theat

[n8_f]

That isn't a factor for any modern computer. Most OSes, including OS X, give priority to drivers over user apps and the amount of CPU required is pretty small. I've used dual G4/500s, dual G4/800s, dual G5/2.0 Ghz, iBook G4 1.2 Ghz, PB15 1.6 GHz, MPB Core Duo 1.87 Ghz, and a few others. They all get the same transfer speed. USB 2 sucks, but it sucks hardcore on OS X.

VRAM and the living rooms of America.

[benbranch]

Okay I love it, hell it is an Apple product so everyone except hardcore cynical tech fiends will love it. I really do think that this Mac Mini should have used the same VPU as the new MacBook Pro (ATI Mobility Radeon X1600) running the 256MB VRAM option, this would give it a gaming edge that would assist in having this product appeal to the whole family. Yes it would have increased the cost price of the thing, but not by so much that Apple couldnt swallow it. Dell is down and Apple is golden right now, this is the exact moment that Steve Jobs should be stepping up to the plate with a fully featured Mac iMedia Home Centre and taking the living rooms of the US by storm.

I'm keeping my "4 times slower" mini

[argent]

Well, I guess Apple's decided to terminally cripple the mini. GMA950? As if the limited VRAM in the original model wasn't bad enough, they stick a chip in that only nominally supports 3d in the quote-upgrade-unquote.

I'll keep my old "4 times slower" mini with a functional GPU.

There's a long gap between Intel & "Performanc

[argent]

I don't want a "performance GPU", but I want one that's going to do OpenGL better than what I already have. They've got a choice of two different Core Image capable GPUs in the Macbook and iBook they could have used. But... no...

Intel must be soaking them on the Core Solo/Duo if they feel they have to risk using Intel GPUs in a Mac to keep the price down.

Can you elaborate on this "advanced video".

[argent]

I'm not a gamer, but I DO use a lot of OpenGL-based apps, in 3d, and while the existing mini's GPU is limited what it does do it does well. What does the "advanced video" do that I should care about?

IS it more powerful?

[argent]

this chip is actually more powerful than what was in the older Macmini

Intel GPUs are notoriously horrid at 3d.

So... are you sure?

Minor corrections

[argent]

Comparing what's shipping:

An Intel Core Solo at 1.5GHz with 2MB of L2 Cache onboard and a 667 Mhz Frontside Bus. (was a PowerPC G4 processor at 1.25GHz with 512K of L2 Cache onboard and a 167 Mhz Frontside Bus.)

An Intel Core Solo at 1.5 GHz with 2MB and 666 MHz FSB (was, PowerPC G4 at 1.25 or 1.33 GHz with 512K of L2 and a 166 Mhz FSB)

-or-

An Intel Core Duo at 1.66 GHz with 2MB and 666 MHzFSB (was, Power PC G4 at 1.42 or 1.5 GHz with 512K of L2 and a 166 MHz FSB)

(I know, round up, but 666 MHz is mildly amusing)

Things You give up:

ATI's Radeon 9200 with 32MB of DDR SDRAM for Intel's GMA950 graphics processor with 64MB of DDR2 SDRAM shared with main memory

ATI Radeon 9200 with 32MB or 64MB.

Commiseration and alleviation...

[argent]

One thing to remember is that actually running your software with 64-bit addressing has a performance penalty, and while you can fit more memory in a processor with a wider address bus few applications will actually use it... what it does give you is more cache and the ability to more efficiently run multiple large applications concurrently.

There's only two systems I know of where 64-bit mode gives an actual performance increase on applications that are not actually written to take advantage of large sparse address spaces. That's the Alpha, which doesn't really have a 32-bit mode, and the AMD, where the 32-bit mode is a compatibility mode for Intel's register-crippled x86 architecture.

Power PC didn't have that problem, and I have read that Intel's AMD64 implementation isn't any speed demon... so that means it's worthwhile to look at ways to alleviate the memory crunch.

If you really *are* using that much RAM, setting up an interleaved RAID-0 array just for your swap (since OS X unhappily doesn't seem to support multiple swap files or partitions) might be worthwhile... or even getting a physical RAM disk for it... bringing back the old days where you'd have a high speed (for the time) fixed-head disk for swap. Get the fastest disks you can, and don't worry about how big they are or if you're using them "efficiently".

Re:Commiseration and alleviation...

[Cadallin]

Sorry, I will freely admit that I'm not actually doing that kind of work with my Macintosh. I have but a mere 1.5GB installed in my G5 (although I probably could use an upgrade, I regularly max out my RAM when doing batch operations in Photoshop.)

However, I thought it worthwhile to point out that there are indeed people that do (The Pro Apps Users), and that for them, Intel switch is decidedly a bad thing(!); due to the horrific monstrosity that is the x86 address bus.

However, it does very much depress me that the OS X upgrade path means moving to a LESS capable architecture. I will eventually have to replace my G5 Tower, and that machine will probably be decendent of the Mac Mini, only possibly a Pro Tower, which I'm guessing will be Xeon based. Intel has really got to consider migrating their physical address space hacks down market, 32-bit Addressing just ain't cuttiing the mustard anymore.

Duo vs Solo benchmarks???

[argent]

One that people have these in their hands, I'd like to see...

1. Duo versus Solo benchmarks, particularly the benchmarks Apple used to tout the performance of the original iMac and Macbook Pro. Multithreaded benchmarks will get WAY better results on a multiprocessor because the saved context switches can give you superlinear speedup.

2. OpenGL benchmarks versus the original mini.

You forgot something...

[SuperKendall]

No Keyboard. No Monitor. No mouse. No spreadsheet. No drawing program. Pricy for what you do get.

Didn't you forget the "Lame" part at the end?

Another reader missing the aspect of a computer that is more than the sum of its parts.

Both feet in mouth?

[SuperKendall]

And yes, you can most certainly do HD video without HDCP. (???)

Not really. True, there are no BluRay or HD-DVD drives even on the market yet, but could you add one when they're released in May? I doubt it. I'm not saying it makes the Mac Mini worthless, just not great as a media center, even for the price.

I hate to be the one to tell you, but you kind of got it totally wrong a second time. HDMI is like a superset of HDCP. Imagine HDCP (which is a video only standard) bundled with audio as well - now you have HDMI. It's what all the newer sets come with, as HDCP will not be fully supported going forward the way HDMI is (offers a more protected path for video). If you must have HDCP support because you have some ancient HD set, then just get an HDMI to HDCP converter, and hope that your HDCP support is modern enough to cope (really early DHCP devices may not work).

80GB is tiny for PVR purposes, especially when you factor in that the same storage is used for the OS and any other software you want to install. PVR, in my opinion, is part of what makes a "media center PC" a media center PC. Roughly 50% of it, in fact.

Best tell TiVO to drop that 40GB model then.

80GB is not that bad with pre-comrpessed downloaded video. You are not understanding that the main point is not PVR use, which is the dinosaur of our age; it's watching streamed or downloaded video. Downloaded video takes up much less space because it can be properly compressed in the first place rather than having to use a generic compressions that will capture an incoming TV stream. The TiVO PVR's are better for this reason as well, because they capture the digital MPEG2 stream and don't have to re-encode.

And of course you can always get the LaCie companion drive (or other firewire drive) if you wish to have more storage.

I'm not going to argue about fewer buttons = less efficient input; that's a given. Think cell phones vs. keyboards. Unless FrontRow can read my mind, it's going to need more menus for the same functionality when compared to a more complete remote.

I reserve judgement until I've actually tried something, but I'm sure your technique of spouting off without experience works well for you; after all it sure got you far on that whole HDCP thing.

Personally I may feel the need for more buttons as well. One thing I expect to see to satisfy that need is bluetooth remote options now that there's an official "HTPC" oriented mini with Bluetooth in every unit.

But again you are not thinking of the future - what use have you for numbers when there are no channels, only content? Aren't they just a waste of space? No remote has as many buttons as a real keyboard which can be tucked out of site until needed, whereas on a remote I only use five or six keys with regularity (and could use less if they were ore programmable). In the end I have to ridicule you a bit for your thinking the number of buttons on even the most expensive remote are sufficient for a real HTPC as opposed to a keyboard.

Re:New Mac mini video chipset! Made for Home theat

[Tibor the Hun]

Peace out.

i got the first intel mini in west la

[Anonymous Coward]

And,

I took it back the next day. Listen peeps, if you're a mac head and use ANY pro authoring apps, wait several months before you get an intel mac. Adobe isn't going to be there for a year, and now that they own Macromedia. No flash, no photoshop, no music apps. Mac Office won't have universal binaries for a while either, so it runs under emulation too.

So yeah, this emulation, Rosetta. It works well enough for lightweight, small apps, but if you use any more resource-intensive stuff, the whole machine is brought to its KNEES. When there's nothing running under Rosetta, the thing flies and was just as quick as my dual g5.

of course, the whole apple iLife workflow is awesome on it, and its got this Front Row media pc style deal which is cool.

but rosetta's not a solution for authoring apps. stay far away if you need to get real work done on 'em.

whoa!

[doodlelogic]

9TB external storage a little excessive for a Mac Mini. Kind of loses the form factor?

5400 :(

[ChunderDownunder]

The thread for this article confirms they're 5400rpm :(

Look on the bright side, still better than the 4200 parallel ATA in previous minis.

Re:5400 :(

[Tumbleweed]

I don't see where that says they're using 5400rpm drives...BUT, I went and checked Apple's website, and the 'learn more' bit on the hard drive section of the purchase page does now says 5400rpm instead of the 7200rpm it used to say.

Not a surprise, but disappointing.

It would be interesting to migrate the mobo out of one of these into a larger case, then upgrade the drive to use, say a 10k Raptor 150, the lowest-latency RAM (and a full 2 Gig of it), upgrade the processor to the fastest Core Duo made with a monster HSF on it, upgrade the optical drive to the fastest-available now, and see what it could do. It's a shame the graphics can't be upgraded, but oh well. Maybe some day they'll make an SFF-sized Mac which would allow that. *shrug*

Windows/Linux/BSD-based boxes can be silent too

[typical]

You know, Apple is not the only hardware manufacturer that produces computers that do not make noise. I've no idea whether or not Dell sells silent computers, but the wonderful thing about the PC architecture is that it is open and there are many competitors.

Re:Windows/Linux/BSD-based boxes can be silent too

[ivan256]

You know, Apple is not the only hardware manufacturer that produces computers that do not make noise.

I don't disagree. Dell isn't one of those companies though. None of the 'big' PC brands are. You want silent, you're talking a special 'expensive' brand, or home built.

the wonderful thing about the PC architecture is that it is open and there are many competitors.

Do people who see somebody say something positive about Apple just *assume* that said person hates PCs, or isn't a PC user? As somebody who owns many computers of multiple architectures, I would say that you use the right tool for the right task.

Ah, yes. Macs with slow video

[typical]

I remember owning a Power Mac 6100/60. The thing had terminally slow video display, since it used the bottom N amount of main memory as video memory (why systems that do this don't let you resize the amount allocate to video memory is beyond me).

Stuffing a L2 cache into the thing (this was back when L2 was off-die and you stuffed a board containing it into a slot by the bus) let the computer store almost all of a single video image, and significantly improved video performance.

I don't intend to ever get another machine that reduces the price by maybe a couple of dollars by reusing main memory for video display. Yuck.

Re:New Mac mini video chipset! Made for Home theat

[3.14159265]

Can it cope with 1920x1080p? I would think the CPU is just not powerful enough.
I still dream of a MacMini-sized HTPC... sigh...

Re:New Mac mini video chipset! Made for Home theat

[shaka999]

So your telling me iTunes changed somehow? I'd call that some data.