[DK-Lach]

It's done...

The first Mac with integrated graphics
And on the website Apple is already claiming, that the Intel Graphics are capable of running modern 3D-games... I don't think so!!!

On another note, my guess is, that in the Mini, we see the configs of the coming MacBook. A solo, a Duo with integrated graphics and probably the much talked about 13,3" display...

So folks, here's the deal. Look at the Mini, add a price premium of 80% for the notebook formfactor and you have the new MacBooks... A budget-notebook clearly differentiated from the MacBook Pro

[rollercoaster375]

I'm just praying that the Integrated graphics are due to size constraints that don't exist on the MacBook, and we'll get a Mobility X1300...

[Dr_LHA]

The good: CPU
The bad: $100 extra
The ugly: Integrated graphics

That said, there is no longer a version without wireless or bluetooth. The Integrated Graphics chip they're using appears to be optimized for decoding video content and supports HDTV resolutions. Hopefully this means it will be great as a below TV box.

Another issue however is the memory. They're sticking 2 x 256Mb chips in the low end one, and 2x512Mb chips if you go for the $90 1Gb upgrade. Looks like you're basically stuck with the memory you get with it.

Still, shipping in 24 hours...

[morningstarrising]

Originally Posted by Dr_LHA The Integrated Graphics chip they're using appears to be optimized for decoding video content and supports HDTV resolutions. Hopefully this means it will be great as a below TV box.

Whichmeans you will be able to watch those Quicktime HD Trailers on your HDTV, and maybe something else coming down the line soon.

[Partial]

yeah I am kind of pissed and utterly dissapointed in this. Apple blew everyone away with the macbook pro.

The mini is very underwhelming, and I am led to believe that will the be the same with the macbook.

[Partial]

Originally Posted by morningstarrising Whichmeans you will be able to watch those Quicktime HD Trailers on your HDTV, and maybe something else coming down the line soon.

I'm sure those future HD movies will look really good stuttering to render at a blazing 7fps.

[morningstarrising]

Originally Posted by tensdanny38 yeah I am kind of pissed and utterly dissapointed in this. Apple blew everyone away with the macbook pro. The mini is very underwhelming, and I am led to believe that will the be the same with the macbook.

isn't that what got you in this spot the first time?

[Partial]

with these specs/prices, I am led to believe this breathes new life into the 1500 dollar 12" powerbook intel-ified. That way they could differentiate and offer many levels of power.

[voch]

Originally Posted by tensdanny38 with these specs/prices, I am led to believe this breathes new life into the 1500 dollar 12" powerbook intel-ified. That way they could differentiate and offer many levels of power.

That's what I'm hoping for. The $799 Mac mini has a Core Duo and that could open up more possibilities for a $1299 non-Pro MacBook and/or that 12" PB replacement you talk of to have one.

The new mini has some nicities. I'm thrilled about the Gigabit ethernet...maybe we'll see it on the non-pro MacBook and definately on any 12/13.3" MBP. The extra USB ports are nice...my dad hates only having two on his 1.25Ghz G4 mini even with a hub.

Say it with me: 13.3" MBP, 1.67Ghz Core Duo, Gigabit ethernet, Radeon X1x00 (fill in a 3 or 6 for that 'x'), DVD+-RW (single-layer is OK, I guess), $1499 (shh...$1599 is fine with me too).

EDIT: took out the "If the $799..." clause...it DOES have a Core Duo.

Voch

[mjteix]

Originally Posted by rollercoaster375 I'm just praying that the Integrated graphics are due to size constraints that don't exist on the MacBook, and we'll get a Mobility X1300...

If Apple continues the tradition of sharing the same "motherboard" on minis and iBooks, maybe not.

We may have:
$999 12/13" widescreen iBook/MacBook with the same specs as the $599 Intel-Mac mini (1.50GHz Core Solo, GMA950, 60HD, Combo, APE, BT2...)
$1299 13/14" widescreen iBook/MacBook with the same specs as the $799 Intel-Mac mini (1.67GHz Core Duo, GMA950, 80HD, SD, APE, BT2...)
$1499/1699 13" widescreen MacBook Pro with MacBook Pro specs (1.67/1.83 Core Duo, X1600 GPU, 80HD, SD, APE, BT2, alu casing, backlit keyb...)
Except if Apple is waiting for the availablity of 12/13/14" LCD panels, I don't understand why they are waiting for the release of the "MacBooks". I hope those panels are at least 1280x800 (to stay in the 16:10 Apple ratio).

Another thing that I didn't understand is the $599 version of the Mac mini. I think most user would have liked a $599 version with a 1.67GHz Core Duo without the APE/BT2 (used to be a $99 BTO option). Especially when the Core Solo is underclocked (Intel lists only a 1.67GHz version of the Core Solo).
And don't get me started on the iPod HiFi!!!

[voch]

Originally Posted by mjteix Another thing that I didn't understand is the $599 version of the Mac mini. I think most user would have liked a $599 version with a 1.67GHz Core Duo without the APE/BT2 (used to be a $99 BTO option).

Simple. Apple would rather up-sell you to the $799 model. It's a comparitive steal ("double the processor power!", "DVD burner!", and so forth). I'd rather have the $599 model you describe too.

Voch

[DK-Lach]

Originally Posted by mjteix If Apple continues the tradition of sharing the same "motherboard" on minis and iBooks, maybe not.

Is there any reason to believe that Apple won't share the same technology???

I'm disapionted...

[morningstarrising]

Well seeing that the Macbook(iBook) didn't come out today...it's very likely that the Macbook(iBook) won't share the same technology then the mini.

After all it's a much different world then the G4 era was last year.

[Paul]

How does that make it likely? Just because they don't ramp down production of both lines at once doesn't mean the tech won't be reused.

[infinitespecter]

Originally Posted by mjteix Another thing that I didn't understand is the $599 version of the Mac mini. I think most user would have liked a $599 version with a 1.67GHz Core Duo without the APE/BT2 (used to be a $99 BTO option). Especially when the Core Solo is underclocked (Intel lists only a 1.67GHz version of the Core Solo). And don't get me started on the iPod HiFi!!!

The reason Apple includes wireless and integrated graphics is that they can simply grab an off the shelf board from Intel and make very minimal changes. Apple is paying, perhaps $5 to get wireless on board while using a different graphics card would have required more R&D, which would have made the product more expensive.

[Partial]

Except Apple is making a killing on this and cheaping out. Intel will include a board for 40 dollars per board when bought in the thousands with the processors.

Processor and board are like 300 most. I don't remember the exact number, and I am sure it is much, much cheaper for Apple. Maybe as much as half off. Then throw in a wireless card (5 bucks), ram modules (30 bucks), case (15), hdd (35) and you see Apple is probably producing this thing for sub-400 dollars. That is a bastard move not to include seperate graphics. Bitches!

[zippy]

Maybe they'll do what I suggested in another thread: Come out with new Mid-Level Notebooks, 13" and 15" widescreen in the $1200-1500 range, and then use the old iBook case design to introduce a new line of lower priced notebooks, say $600-1000. These would be Intel core solo, with standard displays, intergrated graphics, etc. I would imagine that they would only have to tweak the case a bit to make things fit.

[rasmits]

I love how on the old Mini, they were bragging about their dedicated graphics chip, and how you don't get that on "other" budget PCs.

Looks like it's all gone to hell though, hasn't it.

[mjteix]

Originally Posted by morningstarrising Well seeing that the Macbook(iBook) didn't come out today...it's very likely that the Macbook(iBook) won't share the same technology then the mini. After all it's a much different world then the G4 era was last year.

Maybe, maybe not...
Like I said in my previous post, it may have to do with the LCD panels. Apple usually choose not the same panels as the PC world. It may took longer to have them build in quantity and for the price Apple wants. I still think that whatever size(s) they choose (12/13/14") it will have a 1280x800 resolution (with Apple's famous 16:10 ratio).

Originally Posted by infinitespecter The reason Apple includes wireless and integrated graphics is that they can simply grab an off the shelf board from Intel and make very minimal changes. Apple is paying, perhaps $5 to get wireless on board while using a different graphics card would have required more R&D, which would have made the product more expensive.

I do really get the integrated graphics stuff, it's fine with me. I don't think Apple is using Intel motherboards for the mini. If someone knows... we will know soon anyway (in the next few days someone will disect an Intel-based Mac mini...)
But for the CPU choice, I beg to differ, if Apple hadn't choose to use the Solo version, they would have ask for much more Duo's and (hopefully) a better price, now they have to take inventory for one more chip model, and 2 versions of motherboards (1.5 single and 1.66 dual - or a modified motherboard that can run both, that costs more). If AEP/BT2 are soldered on the board, OK, I understand a little better, if not: I think it's poor marketing/manufacturing. Don't get me wrong, I still think it's a fair price for both Mac mini models. But I think Apple is losing the "Wow factor" in not offering dual-cores all the way while rising the price of the basic model.

[Luca]

I should point out that the compact Macs (128k, 512k, Plus, SE, SE/30, Classic, and Classic II) all used shared video memory as well. Perhaps some of the really early (pre-68040) PowerBooks too. But that was quite a while ago.

I really, really hope the next iBooks (whatever they end up being called) do not end up getting integrated Intel graphics with shared VRAM. I am in the market for one, but I will not buy one. Apple hardware is supposed to stand out, and that's one of the main reasons why you buy it. Remove that, and what do you have left? Not much. You get the OS, but is it worth several hundred dollars more? It's worth something, but to me, it's not worth THAT much.

I do hope that if the next iBook revision does get shared VRAM, that they at least have the courtesy to drop the price some. But after seeing what they did with the Mac mini, I can't count on that either. If it happens, my next notebook will either be a used iBook/PowerBook, or a PC. I won't reward Apple financially for downgrading their products.

[Partial]

Originally Posted by Luca I should point out that the compact Macs (128k, 512k, Plus, SE, SE/30, Classic, and Classic II) all used shared video memory as well. Perhaps some of the really early (pre-68040) PowerBooks too. But that was quite a while ago. I really, really hope the next iBooks (whatever they end up being called) do not end up getting integrated Intel graphics with shared VRAM. I am in the market for one, but I will not buy one. Apple hardware is supposed to stand out, and that's one of the main reasons why you buy it. Remove that, and what do you have left? Not much. You get the OS, but is it worth several hundred dollars more? It's worth something, but to me, it's not worth THAT much. I do hope that if the next iBook revision does get shared VRAM, that they at least have the courtesy to drop the price some. But after seeing what they did with the Mac mini, I can't count on that either. If it happens, my next notebook will either be a used iBook/PowerBook, or a PC. I won't reward Apple financially for downgrading their products.

QFT

[Rolo]

Some info on the Intel GMA950:

http://www.extremetech.com/print_art...=153045,00.asp

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

Including this graphics solution in the mini seems to be fine for hooking the mini up to your TV but leaves something to be desired if you want to play advanced 3D games.

It seems likely that the MacBooks will use the same basic architecture. That's another way to distinguish the MacBook from the MacBook Pro. Both could have Core Duos at different speeds but what separates them even more would be the graphics performance.

Still, the mini is a fine little machine for the home, especially plugged into your home entertainment system.

[Ireland]

The mini was cool, and now is even cooler, in both senses of the word!

[rollercoaster375]

Originally Posted by Rolo Some info on the Intel GMA950: http://www.extremetech.com/print_art...=153045,00.asp http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/gma950/ Including this graphics solution in the mini seems to be fine for hooking the mini up to your TV but leaves something to be desired if you want to play advanced 3D games.

Advanced? Try any.

[Partial]

Originally Posted by rollercoaster375 Advanced? Try any.

QFT

[Robo]

I'll just say this:

If you buy a Mac mini to play 3D games, you're stupid.

[ZachPruckowski]

Originally Posted by Roboman I'll just say this: If you buy a Mac mini to play 3D games, you're stupid.

Maybe, but it's a nice perk to have. It's not the reason to buy it, but if comparing a Mac Mini to any bargain PC, at least it's a talking point. "Yeah, the Mini is $200 more than that comparable Dell, but it's got dedicated graphics and OS X" seems like a good trade, and one that Joe Schmoe could make. Dedicated graphics alone, maybe not.

[Rolo]

Originally Posted by Roboman I'll just say this: If you buy a Mac mini to play 3D games, you're stupid.

True, unfortunately. I really don't get it. I thought going with Intel would get costs down and if they also use integrated graphics to save even more money, why the price increase? Were the G4s that cheap? Guess so.

Still, this is a huge upgrade and the mini is perfectly suitable for using with your TV. Just wish it had a DVR function with a more complete remote. Apple has a toe in the living room so why not jump in with both feet?

[Partial]

Originally Posted by Rolo True, unfortunately. I really don't get it. I thought going with Intel would get costs down and if they also use integrated graphics to save even more money, why the price increase? Were the G4s that cheap? Guess so.

To anyone that says they were that much cheaper, they weren't. There is no way. They had to fund a ton of R&D for that, and then have someone else build their boards.

The boards Apple is using are 40 dollars on top of the chip price for every 1000 purchased. I suspect Apple gets atleast a 20% discount. I am really hoping it was due to space restraints and not Apple being a bastard.

[Partial]

Originally Posted by Roboman I'll just say this: If you buy a Mac mini to play 3D games, you're stupid.

Why? What the Mini should be is a low-profit quality computer for luring customers over from the Dark side. In my opinion, it should be pretty close in power to the iMac, maybe slightly less.

If you added in a 17" quality display, a nice keyboard and mouse, you would be near the same price.

Just a pipdream, though.