new mac mini's

rees · 1st March 2006, 6:00 AM

As well as the hifi thingy apple have released the new line of intel mac mini's today and the first thing you will probably notice is that they are alot more expensive then the previous lot.

The price difference between US and AUS has also increased to 20% with the base US model at $599 and the base AUS model at $999.
So discounting the 10% gst it's an a %4 increase from the previous 6% that the g4 based mac mini's attracted.

I was considering getting a mac mini however i no longer believe they present much value for money. It's a bit wierd because i thought one of the supposed benefits of transitioning to the x86 architecture was going to be a decrease in chip manufacturing prices, however it doesn't look like it's the case.

what does eveyone else think?

specs of base model;
1.5GHz Intel Core Solo processor
2MB L2 Cache
667MHz Frontside Bus
512MB memory (667MHz DDR2 SDRAM)
60GB Serial ATA hard drive
Combo drive (DVD-ROM/CD-RW)
Built-in AirPort Extreme and Bluetooth 2.0
Apple Remote
$999

specs of top model;
1.66GHz Intel Core Duo processor
2MB L2 Cache
667MHz Frontside Bus
512MB memory (667MHz DDR2 SDRAM)
80GB Serial ATA hard drive
Double-layer SuperDrive (DVD+R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
Built-in AirPort Extreme and Bluetooth 2.0
Apple Remote
$1299

stroggos2k · 1st March 2006, 6:02 AM

Looks fairly dodgey to me.

rees · 1st March 2006, 6:04 AM

oh yeah and i forgot to mention;

"All Mac mini models also include an integrated Intel GMA950 graphics processor with 64MB of shared DDR2 SDRAM"

tnt274 · 1st March 2006, 7:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rees

oh yeah and i forgot to mention;

"All Mac mini models also include an integrated Intel GMA950 graphics processor with 64MB of shared DDR2 SDRAM"

Kabal · 1st March 2006, 8:37 AM

Seems ok to me, I mean weren't bluetooth and wireless BTO options before?
Also comes with a way better hard drive than the old ones (5400rpm instead of 4500rpm) and gigabit ethernet.

Video sucks but I bet its still better than the 9200 i have in my mini

I was hoping for an iBook replacement though. Surely it has to be coming soon - in the same configurations as these mini's most likely.

dirtyd · 1st March 2006, 9:35 AM

Apples machines are always going to be more expensive because they make their profits on hardware. The reason people pay extra is because they're either hollow-headed trend-followers, Mac zealouts, business (creative) users, or people who appreciate the elegant simplicity and integration common throughout a lot of their products.

If you're waiting for a cheap, overclocker friendly speed-demon Mac... don't bother. Sorry if I shat on your dream

nommic · 1st March 2006, 10:01 AM

I wonder how they compare to the old mini, in terms of CPU benchmarking and other system performance measures?

stmok · 1st March 2006, 10:07 AM

It feels like they went backwards on the graphics.

I guess this is one advantage of the upcoming Shuttle XPC X100 has. It uses MXM format...Allowing people to upgrade the graphics part.

Still, if you want to give people the impression you're "better than average" you should go for a more beefy video solution. (Nvidia or ATI)

I'm sure alot of people around here would love to own a small, but very capable box.

Quadbox · 1st March 2006, 10:31 AM

No core-image support, one would have to presume. That means no Aperture.

A pretty big limitation...

EDIT - And as if you'd go for the cheaper model. The core-duo's light-and-day better, and it's only $200 more

The core solo model seems very overpriced

Grit · 1st March 2006, 10:47 AM

Sure that they don't support Core Image? I honestly don't know what that's capable of and I'd tend to agree that it wouldn't. However, core image is part of what makes OS X an attractive to me. I think we'll have to dig around bit to find out more about it.

Otherwise, the interesting thing for me is that we should be relatively sure in knowing that the specs for these should be pretty close to the new iBooks whenever they are released. That is to say, the upper end iBook should be available with a core duo processor. The graphics solution will be the same as well, no doubt. Hence making the question regarding Core Image even more pressing, I guess.

-Grit.

shift · 1st March 2006, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quadbox

No core-image support, one would have to presume. That means no Aperture.

Bad assumption. GMA950 supports QE & CI just fine. Well - maybe slowly, but it supports it.

akashra · 1st March 2006, 12:28 PM

I wonder how heat dissipation in these is. And how it would go if we chucked a Core Duo 2.16GHz in there.
Would the systems that ship with a Core Solo be upgradable to a Core Duo?

vindicator · 1st March 2006, 12:34 PM

The Mac Mini is positions as an entry level machine, a second Mac, or a HTPC.

It preforms all these roles excellently.

If you want to use Aperature, do professional Image editing, or need 3D acceleration, then Apple have a product for you - the Power Mac.

vindicator · 1st March 2006, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by akashra

I wonder how heat dissipation in these is. And how it would go if we chucked a Core Duo 2.16GHz in there.
Would the systems that ship with a Core Solo be upgradable to a Core Duo?

We'll have to wait until some one cracks one open.

Hopefully they'll just have the the 479 pin socket on board, like the iMacs.

Core Solo is rated at 27W max, Duo T2600 (2.16Ghz) 32W max, so heat shoudln't be a problem.

Eroda · 1st March 2006, 12:47 PM

the integrated vidio killed it
the top model shoudl have at least 64mb vid card
running frontrow on that is going to run so bodge

1st March 2006, 6:00 AM	#1
rees Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 740	new mac mini's As well as the hifi thingy apple have released the new line of intel mac mini's today and the first thing you will probably notice is that they are alot more expensive then the previous lot. The price difference between US and AUS has also increased to 20% with the base US model at $599 and the base AUS model at $999. So discounting the 10% gst it's an a %4 increase from the previous 6% that the g4 based mac mini's attracted. I was considering getting a mac mini however i no longer believe they present much value for money. It's a bit wierd because i thought one of the supposed benefits of transitioning to the x86 architecture was going to be a decrease in chip manufacturing prices, however it doesn't look like it's the case. what does eveyone else think? specs of base model; 1.5GHz Intel Core Solo processor 2MB L2 Cache 667MHz Frontside Bus 512MB memory (667MHz DDR2 SDRAM) 60GB Serial ATA hard drive Combo drive (DVD-ROM/CD-RW) Built-in AirPort Extreme and Bluetooth 2.0 Apple Remote $999 specs of top model; 1.66GHz Intel Core Duo processor 2MB L2 Cache 667MHz Frontside Bus 512MB memory (667MHz DDR2 SDRAM) 80GB Serial ATA hard drive Double-layer SuperDrive (DVD+R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW) Built-in AirPort Extreme and Bluetooth 2.0 Apple Remote $1299 __________________ "Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it." - Brian W. Kernighan

1st March 2006, 6:04 AM	#3
rees Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 740	oh yeah and i forgot to mention; "All Mac mini models also include an integrated Intel GMA950 graphics processor with 64MB of shared DDR2 SDRAM" __________________ "Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it." - Brian W. Kernighan

1st March 2006, 10:01 AM	#7
nommic Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Ambiguous Posts: 2,015	I wonder how they compare to the old mini, in terms of CPU benchmarking and other system performance measures? __________________ you exist for my amusement

1st March 2006, 10:07 AM	#8
stmok Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Sydney Posts: 8,889	It feels like they went backwards on the graphics. I guess this is one advantage of the upcoming Shuttle XPC X100 has. It uses MXM format...Allowing people to upgrade the graphics part. Still, if you want to give people the impression you're "better than average" you should go for a more beefy video solution. (Nvidia or ATI) I'm sure alot of people around here would love to own a small, but very capable box. __________________ "Haters gonna hate." => "I have no logical rebuttal to your criticism so I'm going to say something simple and meaningless to make myself feel better."-crabjokeman from Techreport.com forums. "The politicians don’t just want your money. They want your soul. They want you to be worn down by taxes until you are dependent and helpless."-James Dale Davidson.

1st March 2006, 10:47 AM	#10
Grit Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Bris Vegas Posts: 361	Hints at new iBook specs? Sure that they don't support Core Image? I honestly don't know what that's capable of and I'd tend to agree that it wouldn't. However, core image is part of what makes OS X an attractive to me. I think we'll have to dig around bit to find out more about it. Otherwise, the interesting thing for me is that we should be relatively sure in knowing that the specs for these should be pretty close to the new iBooks whenever they are released. That is to say, the upper end iBook should be available with a core duo processor. The graphics solution will be the same as well, no doubt. Hence making the question regarding Core Image even more pressing, I guess. -Grit.

1st March 2006, 6:02 AM	#2
stroggos2k Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Rozelle, Sydney NSW Posts: 6,308	Looks fairly dodgey to me.

1st March 2006, 8:37 AM	#5
Kabal Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Melbourne Posts: 1,045	Seems ok to me, I mean weren't bluetooth and wireless BTO options before? Also comes with a way better hard drive than the old ones (5400rpm instead of 4500rpm) and gigabit ethernet. Video sucks but I bet its still better than the 9200 i have in my mini I was hoping for an iBook replacement though. Surely it has to be coming soon - in the same configurations as these mini's most likely.

1st March 2006, 9:35 AM	#6
dirtyd Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: 127.0.0.1 Posts: 3,699	Apples machines are always going to be more expensive because they make their profits on hardware. The reason people pay extra is because they're either hollow-headed trend-followers, Mac zealouts, business (creative) users, or people who appreciate the elegant simplicity and integration common throughout a lot of their products. If you're waiting for a cheap, overclocker friendly speed-demon Mac... don't bother. Sorry if I shat on your dream

1st March 2006, 10:31 AM	#9
Quadbox Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Brisbane 4065 Posts: 5,090	No core-image support, one would have to presume. That means no Aperture. A pretty big limitation... EDIT - And as if you'd go for the cheaper model. The core-duo's light-and-day better, and it's only $200 more The core solo model seems very overpriced

1st March 2006, 12:28 PM	#12
akashra Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Melbourne, AU Posts: 3,339	I wonder how heat dissipation in these is. And how it would go if we chucked a Core Duo 2.16GHz in there. Would the systems that ship with a Core Solo be upgradable to a Core Duo? __________________ Punctuation is the difference between "Let's eat, grandma!" and "Let's eat grandma!". Building a Metricon Delta 21 in Craigieburn: http://homeofzero.blogspot.com/

1st March 2006, 12:34 PM	#13
vindicator Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: LoNoSho Posts: 6,481	The Mac Mini is positions as an entry level machine, a second Mac, or a HTPC. It preforms all these roles excellently. If you want to use Aperature, do professional Image editing, or need 3D acceleration, then Apple have a product for you - the Power Mac. __________________ Sucessfully sold to: JeffK, Pzest, Hardboiled, chugga15, havoc_1710, Surge, bondy_112, TRiN, kangfu, maddcore, hobo-jo, dwdc, Nanokillaz, PooJou, $tealthFiga, smoothunit, Wozzernux, core2dubious Sucessfully bought from: actinium, kogi, z2177199

1st March 2006, 12:47 PM	#15
Eroda Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Greenmount, Perth W.A Posts: 479	the integrated vidio killed it the top model shoudl have at least 64mb vid card running frontrow on that is going to run so bodge __________________ Doin it for the Money!!!