backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 41 comment(s) - last by PrinceGaz.. on Mar 2 at 5:36 AM
Two new flavors available immediately today running on Core Duo and Core Solo processors

Apple today has announced new versions of its Mac Mini based on Intel Core Duo and Core Solo processors. The new Minis will be in the same design and form as the current Minis but will include such things such as an infrared sensor for Apple's Front Row home media center controls.

As of today, Apple says that the new Minis will be immediately available, and will come in two flavors:

1.5GHz Core Solo
512MB RAM
60GB HD
$599

1.67GHz Core Duo
80GB HD
SuperDrive
$799

Both units come with the following standard features:
OS X Tiger, iLife 06, Apple Remote, Front Row, Airport Extreme, Bluetooth, DVI Video Out (not Dual-Link), 4 x USB, 1 x FireWire, Gigabit Ethernet.

Along with the new Mac Minis, Apple is also introducing Bonjour technology, which will allow the Mini to automatically connect with any other Mac or Windows machine on the network that is running iTunes, and sync music on the fly. This way, if a new Mac Mini is connected to a home theater, it will be able to stream music over from another PC.

We reported a few days ago that AOpen has launched a Mini-like PC. Which delivers some very competitive features in a form factor that mimics the Apple Mini.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Radeon 9200-->Intel GMA950
By JBird7986 on 2/28/2006 2:05:14 PM , Rating: 2
Seems almost like a downgrade going from an independent Radeon 9200 to an integrated Intel GMA 950 graphics solution. Sure, the ability to have up to 96MB RAM (instead of the previous 32MB) is nice, but it's stealing from system memory now, and the core is not nearly as good as the 9200.




RE: Radeon 9200-->Intel GMA950
By hans007 on 2/28/2006 2:07:26 PM , Rating: 3
950 core is probably equivalent or better than a 9200.

that and its dx9 compatible and the 9200 is not.


RE: Radeon 9200-->Intel GMA950
By Jimmdean on 2/28/2006 2:34:08 PM , Rating: 2
Nope, total downgrade. The dedicated memory puts the 9200 over the top. Being dx9 compliant hardly matters if it doesn't have the power to do anything - GMA 950 would struggle doing the freaking aquarium screen saver!!! Forget about any hardware assisting that the ATI/Nvidia parts do/can offer.

This new mac mini just makes the imac look better and better, at least in Mac-Land...

On the other hand, this would be a pretty good "extra" machine for encoding, just not that great for playback. It could whip through h.267 encoding for a graphically better machine to play back...


RE: Radeon 9200-->Intel GMA950
By SunAngel on 2/28/06, Rating: 0
RE: Radeon 9200-->Intel GMA950
By smitty3268 on 2/28/2006 3:21:18 PM , Rating: 1
As long as you don't want to game or do other 3d intensive stuff, there is no reason to get a discrete graphics card from ATI/NVIDIA. The only downside to this is that main memory will be shorted by 64MB and OSX is pretty memory hungry. This can be upgraded, though.

I am pretty sure I've seen tests where the Core Duo is able to play back 1080p h.267 without any hardware acceleration at all.


RE: Radeon 9200-->Intel GMA950
By blckgrffn on 2/28/2006 3:24:49 PM , Rating: 2
An x1300 w/128 megs dedicated and full HDCP support is what is needed, not this outdated intel junk. That isn't really superior to what preceded it, more of a side step because more memory is available.

Nat


RE: Radeon 9200-->Intel GMA950
By Questar on 2/28/2006 3:28:17 PM , Rating: 2
The 950 already has HDCP support.

Why do you need a 128megs for a multimedia card?


RE: Radeon 9200-->Intel GMA950
By blckgrffn on 2/28/2006 8:01:25 PM , Rating: 2
OSX actually uses the desktop ram for holding the desktop. Anandtech did a nifty shakedown on how video cards with good high speed ram (specifically 256 meg ones) make using osx that much smoother when using the cool features like dashboard.

Go find it.

Nat


RE: Radeon 9200-->Intel GMA950
By Enoch2001 on 3/2/2006 12:26:09 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I get the feeling your feeling is this is going to be a gaming monster...


I get the feeling that you have been smoking crack. Gaming monster and Mac can't be used in the same context.

Now if this were a PC, perhaps... but a Mac gaming computer? Surely you jest...

Last I checked, I think less than 1% of anyone worth their weight in salt didn't "game" on a Mac.

Hehehe..


RE: Radeon 9200-->Intel GMA950
By Questar on 2/28/2006 3:11:58 PM , Rating: 2
What are you talking about? This is an full bore upgrade from what was in the original Mini.

This isn't gaming rig.


RE: Radeon 9200-->Intel GMA950
By Jimmdean on 2/28/2006 3:31:50 PM , Rating: 2
This gpu has been around for quite a while. Putting it in an Apple isn't going to change anything. As I'm sure most people are used to, Apple handicapped the mini to keep it from encroaching on their bigger margin machines.

What we do know is the GMA 950 supports core image, so that is good. Whether this machine as a whole can cut the mustard (w) h.267, we'll just have to wait and see. But let's not pretend this is the x1600 that Apple could have added for $100.00 more to the top model...


RE: Radeon 9200-->Intel GMA950
By Questar on 2/28/2006 3:40:14 PM , Rating: 2
Sounds like you are changing your stance? So the GMA is not a total downgrade from the previous Mini?


RE: Radeon 9200-->Intel GMA950
By Jimmdean on 2/28/2006 4:11:27 PM , Rating: 2
I still think it is. But even if you disagree, you'd have to admit it's a pretty pathetic partner for the Intel Core Duo...


RE: Radeon 9200-->Intel GMA950
By Questar on 2/28/2006 4:16:24 PM , Rating: 2
Is it week? Sure.

But this is entry level, passive cooled stuff.


RE: Radeon 9200-->Intel GMA950
By PrinceGaz on 3/2/2006 5:36:46 AM , Rating: 2
H.267? Although there is an H.267 codec, I think you meant H.264 which is being used on HD discs.


Hmm
By Lonyo on 2/28/2006 5:09:31 PM , Rating: 2
By mlittl3 on 2/24/2006 1:08:45 PM , Rating: 2
I think the point he/she was trying to make is that the Macmini costs $499 and all ye fanbois tend to fault Apple with high prices. Now the PC version of the Macmini costs $1000. I think PC loving fanbois are starting to see that good engineering costs money.

^^ Where is this guy now that Mac Mini's are $600 and $800, and not the $500 Mac Mini he compared the AOpen to.




RE: Hmm
By Questar on 2/28/2006 5:24:32 PM , Rating: 3
The Mini is still cheaper than the equivelant in a "PC".

Go ahead and price one out. Here's the specs for a Mini:

1.5Ghz Low power cpu
667mhz FSB
512MB RAM
Four USB
Firewire
DVI/VGA/SVGA Output
GigE
802.11g
Bluetooth
Optical in/out
Remote
Slot loading DVD
Silent
OS
iPhoto
iMovie
iDVD
iWeb
GarageBand
Front Row
2"x6.5"x6.5"
2.9 pounds




RE: Hmm
By retrospooty on 2/28/2006 6:37:27 PM , Rating: 3
I dunno about that. I put together a Shuttle system with A64 with 1g ram with all of those features for less than $500. Of course, I had to put the CPU and RAM in myself, but no biggie there. The A64 3200 kills the single core intel.


RE: Hmm
By tenguman on 2/28/2006 6:59:29 PM , Rating: 1
I can't wait to see a MiniPC +Athlon 64 dual core. It would probably shut this whole Apple/Intel tech orgy up.


RE: Hmm
By Questar on 2/28/2006 7:33:11 PM , Rating: 2
Specs?

I find it very hard to believe.


RE: Hmm
By mlittl3 on 2/28/2006 8:26:03 PM , Rating: 2
Hey, dude. Here I am. What's up?

Let's see in my original post I was comparing $499 1.33 GHz G4 "slow" Macmini to $1000 Aopen mini. Now the price is $100 more with a faster 1.5 GHz Core Solo with Bluetooth and wireless ethernet and 20 more GB of HD space included in the price. By my math, that is still 40% less expensive than Aopen's mini. The $499 Macmini did not include the wireless features and had a 40 GB harddrive.


Almost what I was looking for
By acejj26 on 2/28/2006 3:39:22 PM , Rating: 1
If they would have had component video output, I would seriously consider buying this. I'm looking to buy a small media server so I can just rip all my DVD's to Divx and play them from a "video jukebox." However, I would like to use component output so that I can get progressive scanning and a higher supported resolution than if I were to use S-video. The Tvisto is a nice looking replacement, as is the Vantec Avox, however the Tvisto doesn't include the component cables and the Avox only uses 2.5" hard drives.




RE: Almost what I was looking for
By Questar on 2/28/2006 3:40:51 PM , Rating: 3
Ummm...A DVI to component cable is like $10.


RE: Almost what I was looking for
By acejj26 on 2/28/2006 5:03:58 PM , Rating: 2
show me where


RE: Almost what I was looking for
By Questar on 2/28/2006 5:12:19 PM , Rating: 2
You're a big boy now. Mommy will let you use the Internet seach sites.


RE: Almost what I was looking for
By acejj26 on 2/28/2006 5:16:40 PM , Rating: 2
I did...none of those cables work with a video card. They only work with home video devices that have a DVI port. Read the description on any of those DVI to component cables.


RE: Almost what I was looking for
By SunAngel on 2/28/06, Rating: 0
RE: Almost what I was looking for
By mlittl3 on 2/28/2006 8:20:00 PM , Rating: 1
Dude, you are such a tool.


By retrospooty on 2/28/2006 11:00:16 PM , Rating: 1
I 2nd that !


600 US is waaay too much for the specs
By cgrecu77 on 2/28/06, Rating: 0
By mlittl3 on 2/28/2006 8:31:49 PM , Rating: 1
This dude really hasn't been reading the reviews of the Yonah architecture or any reviews for that matter. Alas, there are still people fighting the megahurts war.

Let me recap for you. Intel got pwned by AMD over IPC (1.8 GHz Athlon 64 could beat a 3.0 GHz P4 in most benchmarks) and heat dissipation (Prescott provided heat for the whole western hemisphere...remember Hurricane Katrina).

Intel threw out the P4 because it sucked all the way up to 3.8 GHz. Intel redesigned (Banias) and redesigned (Dothan) and redesigned (Yonah) and redesigned again (Merom) to finally produce a chip that worked well at lower clock speeds.


RE: 600 US is waaay too much for the specs
By plinden on 2/28/2006 9:38:43 PM , Rating: 2
This dude shows breathtaking ignorance in every line. mlittl3 nailed him on the megahertz stupidity, but everything else shows he's just repeating second-hand something his mates told him.

quote:
it uses this OS that nobody else uses (OSX)

Whatever, I've used pretty much every OS out there, MSDOS, Solaris, HPUX, all forms of Windows, and Mac OS X, and because of its ease of use combined with its configurability, it's my favourite OS ... I don't care if you don't use.

quote:
I'm not familiar with apple's os

About the only correct statement you made.

quote:
I assume it won't play your "legally" downloaded movies

You assume a lot, and wrongly. Out of the box, Macs will play just about every video format out there. I don't think my Mac plays WMPs well, but since I've never actually tried, I can't confirm that and it's not a big loss.

quote:
it's useless as a developing machine because no programmer could work on an Apple due to the lack of tools

The Mac OS X install DVD comes with the XCode tools, similar to MS's Visual Studio, which allows you to build C++, Java and scripting code. This is free, unlike Visual Studio. Not only that, but I am a Java webapps developer, and I have Apache and Tomcat running on my Mac. And eclipse, ant and other Java build tools work seamlessly, Java compilation is faster than on my Windows PC, and I can automount my working directory that I have on my Linux machine and work on as if it were part of the Mac OS filesystem (much easier, and more seamless than mapping Windows network drives).

That said, this new Mini doesn't cut it for me, because I can't justify spending $600 on something that would be attached permanently to my TV (I have enough computer hardware for general use). If it came with PVR software I would find it easier to justify, but it's still too much.


By kelmon on 3/1/2006 9:44:31 AM , Rating: 3
WMP files work OK on a Mac, particularly since Microsoft stopped supporting and enhancing the very poor version of Media Player that they provided themselves and let Flip4Mac do the job instead. The result is no Media Player (no loss) and WMP files play in QuickTime instead, which works great. The only problem is that Protected WMP file are a no-no in much the same way that Protected AAC files are a no-no outside of iTunes.


Does it come with the usual bundle of SW?
By heulenwolf on 2/28/2006 1:39:45 PM , Rating: 2
If it comes with their new iLife suite like the rest of the new Macs in addition to the new processors, it beats the Aopen minipc on value at the same price point. Apple's store site is currently updating so I can't find details.




By Eug on 2/28/2006 1:57:30 PM , Rating: 3
[q]Does it come with the usual bundle of SW?[/q]

Yes it does.

And it finally gets both Audio in and out, along with digital audio out.
It also gets four USB 2.0 ports. Finally.

If I were going to get one to hook up to my TV, I'd get the Core Duo version, since Core Duo will be needed to play back 1080p H.264.

I may wait until a HDCP-compliant version is released though. By that time it may get a boost up to a 1.83 or 2.0 GHz Core Duo too.


Media Server?
By dcollins on 2/28/2006 1:47:50 PM , Rating: 4
Not terribly long ago, one of these tech webiste (it may have even been anandtech) did an article investigating the possibility of the mini as a media and found the performance to be slightly lacking.

Perhaps the Core Duo model (w/ 1gb of ram and perhaps an external 250) would be up to snuff performance wise. And perhaps Bojour will make such an application even simpler, since apple has always been known for excellent ui's.

Silent, attractive and fairly resonably priced, that sounds like a winner to me.




gma950 is plenty for decoding
By hans007 on 3/1/2006 7:34:19 AM , Rating: 2
the gma950 is plenty for decoding.

yes i know most of you guys like to bash it but i actually own a board with it.

it is really only bad if you play games. i could play HD encoded stuff fine with it, as well as the normal xvid/divx etc.

my setup was a pentium D 820 , with the gma950 (when i was waiting to get a video card).

seems like a totall acceptable CPU, not too many people are going to use the mac mini to game anyway.




RE: gma950 is plenty for decoding
By kelmon on 3/1/2006 9:24:25 AM , Rating: 2
I love a lot of Apple's products and was really loving the specs of the new Mini until I reached the integrated graphics component at which point I had an urge to vomit. I hope that your statement is correct that the chipset is fine as long as you aren't trying to play games as this is not something that I would attempt. However, I am concerned because my current Dell at work has integrated graphics (Intel 82865G) and it's the chief reason that I bring my PowerBook into work - the damned screen redraw is so slow that it's nigh on impossible to work on the Dell despite it having faster memory and processor. As long as this sort of problem won't happen on the Mini and that it can decode video fast enough then I don't see a reason why I couldn't replace my DVD player with one (aside from my wife withholding the cash...) and connect it to the television permanently.


Bonjour is pretty old
By hoodliedoo on 3/1/2006 6:08:55 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Along with the new Mac Minis, Apple is also introducing Bonjour technology, which will allow the Mini to automatically connect with any other Mac or Windows machine on the network that is running iTunes, and sync music on the fly.


Actually, Bonjour was introduced a year or so ago and is the exact same tech as Rendezvous. They changed the name due to some legal issues. Rendezvous has been around since at least OS X 10.2. It is based on ZeroConf. The idea is to be able to used network devices without going through a long configuration process. They just work. It's basically just a replacement for AppleTalk and has been sharing your itunes for years.




By aguilpa1 on 3/1/2006 1:40:55 PM , Rating: 1
NT




"If you mod me down, I will become more insightful than you can possibly imagine." -- Slashdot

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments









botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki