I plan to buy a Macbook in the near future if I don't see any Intel-based iBooks soon.
I don't know if any Mac rumor sites have mentioned this (I don't follow them), but the new Celeron M CPUs based on Core Solo architecture (Yonah) are due in mid-April. Since the iBooks are Apple's last remaining Mac products with an ancient CPU/chipset architecture, I wouldn't be surprised is Apple adopted these new Celeron M CPUs as soon as they're available (like they did with Core Duo for PowerBook/MacBook Pro). Also, I wouldn't be surprised to see a $500 Mac mini (or cheaper) using a Yonah-based Celeron M.
If the "Celeron" brand makes you wince, "Celeron M" CPUs (based on the Pentium M architecture) have always been very good performers and an outstanding value. At launch, the new Celeron M CPUs will clock at 1.73GHz and 1.60GHz, have 1MB L2 cache, and 533MHz FSB.
I also distrust Sony (probably not as much as you), but your comment hints that you might not know what Sony's current MiniDisc format (Hi-MD) can do.
their formats, such as Memory Sticks, tend to be compatible only with their hardware,
This is also somewhat true for Hi-MD, but I think Hi-MD player/recorders are reasonably priced (start at $200) when you consider their high-quality recording capability. Also, 1GB re-recordable Hi-MDs are dirt cheap.
they don't like other formats,... If I put music in an unsupported format on a Minidisc, I would have to re-encode, losing quality even more.
The current Hi-MD player/recorders and media can play back MP3 without re-encoding, as well as their proprietary ATRAC formats. WMA and WAV need to be converted to ATRAC3, though. Also, you have to use Sony's proprietary software to transfer "playable" MP3's between the player and a PC. The player/recorder will also work as a standard USB storage drive without drivers, but MP3s transferred to the player this way will not be playable.
In addition to playback, each 1GB disc can record 1h 34m of Linear PCM (lossless) and about 8-33 hours in the various ATRAC formats. Unlike the old MiniDisc format, Hi-MD can now digitally tranfer these recordings to a PC via USB. The MiniDisc's high-quality recording capabilities are why MiniDisc have found a niche among people recording live performances.
I purchased an iAudio U2, which cost only a hundred and gets me MP3, WAV, and even Vorbis support (something I'll never see from Sony).
I think that looks pretty sweet for the price. However, I'd like it better if you could replace or supplement the flash memory with an SD card. I'll assume that player's recording quality is not nearly as good as a Hi-MD player/recorder.
Using a MiniDisc for recording is a bad idea anyway, since there is no way whatsoever to digitally extract them. The only thing you can do is re-record the disc's content from analog line-out.
Hi-MD, which was released in January 2004, can digitally transfer recordings via USB. I think you need to use Sony's "beloved" software, though (SonicStage?).
Yes, before Hi-MD ("standard" MD), there was no way to digitally extract the recordings. I'm pretty sure the GP was talking about Hi-MD, even though he said "MiniDisc."
Recent converts like you are ruining the old school Mac community because you are posers...
real Mac user: someone true to who they are--the misfits, the rebels, the troublemakers, the round pegs in the square holes, the ones who are crazy enough to think that they can change the world.
I find it amusing that an elitist asshole like you is accusing someone else of ruining the Mac community. Unless, of course, you were joking.
I have a motherboard with an ATI Radeon 9100 IGP chipset in one of my machines at the office - the video chipset is a pig... It's a DirectX 9 compatible chipset
I'm not disagreeing with what I think is your comment's point, but the Radeon 9100 is not DirectX 9 compatible. It will not meet Vista's DX9 requirement. ATI's DX9 GPUs start at Radeon 9500 (AGP) and X300 (PCIe). The deceptively named Radeon 9000-9200 GPUs, which were released in the same generation as 9500-9800, are based on the Radeon 8500, a DX8 part. Here's endian.net's page on Radeon 8500/9100:
Add to that your motherboard's shared system and graphics memory bandwidth, it's no surprise that the integrated Radeon 9100 lags behind the a Radeon 8500 (without shared memory) and a GeForce FX 5200 (a true DX9 card). The Radeon 7500 is a little surprising, though. Did you configure your shared system/graphics memory in dual-channel mode?
Got it. Similarly, no one plays Direct X 9 games with a GeForceFX 5200 (a low-end DX9 GPU).
Vista is still in beta, though. When Vista is complete, I'd be really surprised if a GeForce Go 6200 with enough RAM couldn't run Aero Glass with acceptable performance.
This might just provide laptops with enough power to run Aero Glass.
I'm pretty sure you were kidding, but for those who don't know the AC was kidding, the GeForce Go 7 Series (even the low-end 7200) has WAY more than "enough power to run Aero Glass." Low-end mobile NVIDIA GPUs from two generations ago (GeForceFX Go5100) will support Aero Glass.
Aero Glass requires a DirectX 9 class GPU that supports Windows Display Driver Model (WDDM). Low-end mobile GPUs that meet this requirement include GeForceFX Go5100, Mobility Radeon 9500/X300, and Intel GMA 950. Even GMA 900 (which a lot of current Centrino users have) should work if they write WDDM drivers for it, but I doubt they will.
Here's some links for those who want to see the Aero Glass mobile GPU requirements:
BTW, the "Vista Basic user experience" (formerly known as "Aero Basic") does not look like Windows XP (the GPU requirements will be similar to XP). In fact, I think many users will prefer this interface to Aero Glass. Here's some screenshots:
No DRM in the business edition? Then everybody and his brother will install Windows Vista Corporate with a Volume License Key which requires no activation, just like people did with Windows XP.
Not if they want Media Center functionality, DVD video authoring, Movie Maker HD, and other "home" features that are left out of the "business" versions of Vista.
Apparently, the only versions of Vista that will be available with a Volume License Key ("business versions") will be missing features that most pirates want.
BTW offtopic, but can anyone point me to the Without a Trace episode that got fined by the FCC? December 31, 2004, I believe. I want to see what CBS got fined for and supposedly won't broadcast ever again.
The episode is titled "Our Sons and Daughters" and originally aired on November 6, 2003 (Season 2, Episode 6).
A great plot summary and video preview of the "offensive" part (wmv) is available from (I'm not kidding) the Parents Television Council:
No manufacturer in their right mind would voluntarily miss Christmas with a new product--especially in North America. If it involved a company's flagship product, it would mean certain death for that company. The PS3 is not "the" flagship product for Sony but it'll still be a huge setback.
I'm not sure how we should define "flagship product," but if operating income is the most important defining factor, then Playstation probably IS Sony's flagship product (at least to investors). Just look at the breakup of Sony's sales and operating income from 2003-2005:
Of course, Electronics (which doesn't include Playstation) has the largest portion of sales (66.5% in 2005). But Games (includes consoles) brought in the most operating income in 2003 and 2004. In 2005, Games income dropped below Pictures (movies, tv) and Financial Services, but maybe that's because the PS2 is becoming a stale platform.
Have you tried installing Windows XP on a computer with an SATA hard drive? Oh man. Pain. You actually have to kick the thing into life using drivers loaded off a FLOPPY DISK.
I have installed WinXP and Win2000 on SATA drives (without RAID), and a floppy disk was not required. The floppy install method might still be required to install Windows on SATA RAID (I haven't tried it), which would suck. But from my experience (with Intel motherboards) a floppy is NOT required for installing Windows XP/2000 on a SATA hard disk because (from my experience) the motherboard BIOS settings (not a Windows driver) determines whether you can boot/install Windows on a SATA drive.
Some nForce motherboards I've seen have SATA RAID mode enabled in the BIOS by default, which might require a floppy. One motherboard I installed Windows XP on, the Intel D915GUX, had the SATA boot option disabled by default in the BIOS. After enabling SATA boot and choosing SATA mode without RAID, WinXP w/SP2 installed without a problem.
Maybe SP2 needs to be on the installation CD, but I doubt it because I'm pretty sure I installed Win2000 w/SP4 on a SATA drive (Intel D945GT motherboard) without using a floppy (this was a while ago).
nVidia usually gets drivers out in a matter of days, or a week or two at most. (And not to even mention that their drivers match the performance of their Windows counterparts (as they share the same codebase)
Do you know if that includes PureVideo and H.264 hardware acceleration? I can't find this info with Google. I'd be very pleasantly surprised if they did.
Its a real shame Apple had to shackle its Pro notebook and consumer desktop with the uninspiring x1600.
I think the Radeon x1600 is a fine GPU for their "professional" notebook and a very good GPU for their "consumer" desktop.
The Mobility Radeon x1600 in their mid-sized MacBook Pro is ATI's second-best current-generation mobile GPU. The Mobility Radeon x1800 is ATI's current high-end part and the only noticable difference (for most users) between x1600 and x1800 is 3D gaming performance, which is not worth the extra cost for the vast majority of MacBook Pro buyers. The x1800 is more appropriate for Alienware gaming notebooks or giant Dell XPS desktop replacement notebooks.
I think the (non-mobile) Radeon x1600 in the iMac is a heck of a nice GPU for a "consumer" PC. Any current generation GPU (like Radeon x1300 or GeForce 7300) would be a fine choice IMO because the extra 3D gaming performance would be a waste for the vast majority of iMac buyers. Anyone that needs more gaming power than an x1600 shouldn't be buying an all-in-one computer with non-upgradable graphics. It would be nice, however, if Apple offered a headless upgradable desktop that wasn't a freakin' workstation.
OS X relies on the graphics card for so much and they give it so little attention.
Are you talking about stuff like Quartz Extreme and Core Image/Video? I think the Radeon x1600 gives plenty of GPU power for OS X. Heck, Intel's maligned GMA 900 integrated graphics seemed to have snappy OS X performance on the Intel Developer Macs. Core Image only requires a Radeon 9500 or GeForce FX 5200, which are both two generations older than the Radeon X1600.
I noticed that the motherboard only supports 8X while most graphics cards want 16. And strangely, the intergrated video is ATi even though the chipset is NVidia.
This is a server motherboard, not a workstation board. On a server board, PCI Express x8 slots (4GB/sec) are meant for things like dual port 4X Infiniband cards, dual channel Ultra320 SCSI cards, and 2GB/sec Fibre Channel cards. On a server board, PCIe x8 slots are not meant for graphics cards because most servers only need very basic integrated GPUs.
On recent desktop/workstation motherboards, PCIe x8 interfaces (using x16 slots) are usually a "hack" to get two PCIe x16 graphics cards working in SLI or Crossfire mode. Early dual-graphics chipsets didn't have enough PCIe lanes (around 20 per chip) to allocate for two true x16 interfaces. The newest ones do.
If you are looking at the Opteron 1xx series (for single CPU workstations), then you should know that they are Socket 939 (like Athlon64) and not Socket 940 like the other Opterons (dual CPU and up).
Apple still wins this fight though because of the video store and other media integration. What happens when Apple hooks front row into an HD version of the video store?
I think the Mac mini needs a much bigger (non-notebook) hard drive to work well with an HD h.264 video store. The $600 mini has a 60GB drive, the $800 mini has an 80GB drive.
Using the Maria Taylor trailer as an example, 720p requires about 3.1GB per hour. 1080p requires about 4.0GB per hour. On a 60GB hard drive, that's about 10 two-hour 720p movies or about 7 1080p movies with no room for anything else (OS X, apps, other data files). An HD movie won't fit on an SL DVD.
BTW, Apple recommends a 1.83GHz Core Duo for h.264 720p playback.
I have the same chipset in my HP S7320 slimline PC and it gets horrible framerates. Major chopfest with Doom3... even gets choppy with WoW
Not the same chipset, GPU, or processor. The HP Pavilion s7320n uses the 915GM chipset (not 945GM), GMA 900 graphics (not GMA 900), and a Celeron M (not Core Solo/Duo). I know the chipset and GPU aren't that much different, but Core Solo/Duo is significantly better than a Celeron M based on the previous generation Pentium M core.
Isn't the HP s7300 supposed to be a low-end (Celeron M, integrated GPU), SFF Media Center PC? I don't think we should expect good results in Doom 3 or Far Cry on a low-end PC.
For what I think is its intended purpose, I think it's a very nice PC. If you replace that dial-up modem with a TV tuner card, I think it's a much better "media center PC" than the Mac mini with external tuner and 3rd party DVR software/remote.
I was actually shocked that Apple used Core Solo/Duo for the Mac mini. Those processors are not meant for "low end" computers, although the price increase makes the mini "less low-end." I assumed Apple would wait for Core Solo-based Celeron M CPUs and maybe lower the price of the Mac mini.
it mostly talked about the new remote and how cool a 6 button remote is.
Kind of neat, but what about channels with 7 8 9 and 0?
Also the on/off button, record button, volume, channel up/down, replay, mute... the buttons that TV and DVR (Tivo) users have gotten used to.
TFA misses TF point when he lavishly praises Apple's 6-button remote over Windows Media Center remotes. Try controlling Front Row's television/DVR functions with that 6-button remote. Of course, FR doesn't controll TV/DVR.
I suspect he hasn't tried a Windows MCE remote, hasn't tried Tivo, or is a complete moron if he thinks they're complicated. Most non-TV/PVR related functions can be controlled using just six buttons: "Green Button," "OK," up, down, left, and right. Every Windows MCE review I've read actually praises the remote and interface, especially compared to other PC PVR solutions (like ATI).
Here's a photo of a Windows MCE remote with visible buttons:
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
Slashdot Mirror
If the "Celeron" brand makes you wince, "Celeron M" CPUs (based on the Pentium M architecture) have always been very good performers and an outstanding value. At launch, the new Celeron M CPUs will clock at 1.73GHz and 1.60GHz, have 1MB L2 cache, and 533MHz FSB.
In addition to playback, each 1GB disc can record 1h 34m of Linear PCM (lossless) and about 8-33 hours in the various ATRAC formats. Unlike the old MiniDisc format, Hi-MD can now digitally tranfer these recordings to a PC via USB. The MiniDisc's high-quality recording capabilities are why MiniDisc have found a niche among people recording live performances.
I think that looks pretty sweet for the price. However, I'd like it better if you could replace or supplement the flash memory with an SD card. I'll assume that player's recording quality is not nearly as good as a Hi-MD player/recorder.Yes, before Hi-MD ("standard" MD), there was no way to digitally extract the recordings. I'm pretty sure the GP was talking about Hi-MD, even though he said "MiniDisc."
Vista is still in beta, though. When Vista is complete, I'd be really surprised if a GeForce Go 6200 with enough RAM couldn't run Aero Glass with acceptable performance.
Aero Glass requires a DirectX 9 class GPU that supports Windows Display Driver Model (WDDM). Low-end mobile GPUs that meet this requirement include GeForceFX Go5100, Mobility Radeon 9500/X300, and Intel GMA 950. Even GMA 900 (which a lot of current Centrino users have) should work if they write WDDM drivers for it, but I doubt they will.
Here's some links for those who want to see the Aero Glass mobile GPU requirements:
BTW, the "Vista Basic user experience" (formerly known as "Aero Basic") does not look like Windows XP (the GPU requirements will be similar to XP). In fact, I think many users will prefer this interface to Aero Glass. Here's some screenshots:
Apparently, the only versions of Vista that will be available with a Volume License Key ("business versions") will be missing features that most pirates want.
A great plot summary and video preview of the "offensive" part (wmv) is available from (I'm not kidding) the Parents Television Council:
Don't miss PTC's "explicit" and "EXTREMELY offensive" description of each controversial scene from that episode: For more laughs, check out their online FTC Complaint Form which probably contributed to the fine and ban.2003 Operating Income (Yen in billions)
2004 Operating Income (Yen in billions) 2005 Operating Income (Yen in billions): Of course, Electronics (which doesn't include Playstation) has the largest portion of sales (66.5% in 2005). But Games (includes consoles) brought in the most operating income in 2003 and 2004. In 2005, Games income dropped below Pictures (movies, tv) and Financial Services, but maybe that's because the PS2 is becoming a stale platform.Some nForce motherboards I've seen have SATA RAID mode enabled in the BIOS by default, which might require a floppy. One motherboard I installed Windows XP on, the Intel D915GUX, had the SATA boot option disabled by default in the BIOS. After enabling SATA boot and choosing SATA mode without RAID, WinXP w/SP2 installed without a problem.
Maybe SP2 needs to be on the installation CD, but I doubt it because I'm pretty sure I installed Win2000 w/SP4 on a SATA drive (Intel D945GT motherboard) without using a floppy (this was a while ago).
The Mobility Radeon x1600 in their mid-sized MacBook Pro is ATI's second-best current-generation mobile GPU. The Mobility Radeon x1800 is ATI's current high-end part and the only noticable difference (for most users) between x1600 and x1800 is 3D gaming performance, which is not worth the extra cost for the vast majority of MacBook Pro buyers. The x1800 is more appropriate for Alienware gaming notebooks or giant Dell XPS desktop replacement notebooks.
I think the (non-mobile) Radeon x1600 in the iMac is a heck of a nice GPU for a "consumer" PC. Any current generation GPU (like Radeon x1300 or GeForce 7300) would be a fine choice IMO because the extra 3D gaming performance would be a waste for the vast majority of iMac buyers. Anyone that needs more gaming power than an x1600 shouldn't be buying an all-in-one computer with non-upgradable graphics. It would be nice, however, if Apple offered a headless upgradable desktop that wasn't a freakin' workstation.
Are you talking about stuff like Quartz Extreme and Core Image/Video? I think the Radeon x1600 gives plenty of GPU power for OS X. Heck, Intel's maligned GMA 900 integrated graphics seemed to have snappy OS X performance on the Intel Developer Macs. Core Image only requires a Radeon 9500 or GeForce FX 5200, which are both two generations older than the Radeon X1600.On recent desktop/workstation motherboards, PCIe x8 interfaces (using x16 slots) are usually a "hack" to get two PCIe x16 graphics cards working in SLI or Crossfire mode. Early dual-graphics chipsets didn't have enough PCIe lanes (around 20 per chip) to allocate for two true x16 interfaces. The newest ones do.
If you are looking at the Opteron 1xx series (for single CPU workstations), then you should know that they are Socket 939 (like Athlon64) and not Socket 940 like the other Opterons (dual CPU and up).
Using the Maria Taylor trailer as an example, 720p requires about 3.1GB per hour. 1080p requires about 4.0GB per hour. On a 60GB hard drive, that's about 10 two-hour 720p movies or about 7 1080p movies with no room for anything else (OS X, apps, other data files). An HD movie won't fit on an SL DVD.
BTW, Apple recommends a 1.83GHz Core Duo for h.264 720p playback.
Isn't the HP s7300 supposed to be a low-end (Celeron M, integrated GPU), SFF Media Center PC? I don't think we should expect good results in Doom 3 or Far Cry on a low-end PC.
For what I think is its intended purpose, I think it's a very nice PC. If you replace that dial-up modem with a TV tuner card, I think it's a much better "media center PC" than the Mac mini with external tuner and 3rd party DVR software/remote.
I was actually shocked that Apple used Core Solo/Duo for the Mac mini. Those processors are not meant for "low end" computers, although the price increase makes the mini "less low-end." I assumed Apple would wait for Core Solo-based Celeron M CPUs and maybe lower the price of the Mac mini.
TFA misses TF point when he lavishly praises Apple's 6-button remote over Windows Media Center remotes. Try controlling Front Row's television/DVR functions with that 6-button remote. Of course, FR doesn't controll TV/DVR.
I suspect he hasn't tried a Windows MCE remote, hasn't tried Tivo, or is a complete moron if he thinks they're complicated. Most non-TV/PVR related functions can be controlled using just six buttons: "Green Button," "OK," up, down, left, and right. Every Windows MCE review I've read actually praises the remote and interface, especially compared to other PC PVR solutions (like ATI).
Here's a photo of a Windows MCE remote with visible buttons:
I meant Half-life 2.
If you want Core Duo/Solo support, Aopen announced an updated version last week.
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).
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.
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.
At least Mac fanbois will stop using that lame argument.