New (?) Mini mac pics

[Waccoon]

Adolescent:  The pics I've seen show the CPU directly mounted on the board. They just make two motherboards. It's much more cost effective, reliable, and space concience this way.

That makes more marketting sense.  Why make a budget machine upgradable?

Now, an iMac without expansion slots is less forgiveable.

[Hammer]

HopperJF wrote:

Hammer wrote:

Many Windows users are looking for greener pastures and Mac OS X is a delight. Many just want to hook thier relatives up with something that won't require so many tech support calls. I've been checking many PC Tech boards for reaction on this. The response is often "no more recommending Dell".

MacOS X has its fare share of *issues* i.e. refer to http://www.macfixitforums.com/

We never denied that Hammer, but why not approach the computer with an open mind rather than a "defend x86, destroy Mac" attitude?

Notice the context in the targeted quote.  

[AmiXDel]

I dunno, I am REALLY excited about getting this new piece of hardware (the dvd rom BETTER not be crap!!!!), but I will never get over the fact that by simply lifting the lid, dropping on some RAM and closing it, you break warrenty. Also Mac is royally screwing over un-aware customers by charging $300 over the 1Gb RAM stick's worth. That is INSANE!!

Can't wait to try UAE on it, hope the Mac port is up to par with the winblows version.

Also as a side note and possible omen, Bungie just released Marathon 1-3 for free today. Which makes me wonder,"has Aleph-One beeb ported to the Amiga yet?".

[adolescent]

AmiXDel wrote:
I dunno, I am REALLY excited about getting this new piece of hardware (the dvd rom BETTER not be crap!!!!), but I will never get over the fact that by simply lifting the lid, dropping on some RAM and closing it, you break warrenty. Also Mac is royally screwing over un-aware customers by charging $300 over the 1Gb RAM stick's worth. That is INSANE!!

I don't think anyone knows the warranty yet.  In the past Apple let you install things like memory without voiding your warranty.  In fact, if you price a custom system on Apple's website they go out of their way to say that the AirPort card is dealer installed only, but don't mention this when it comes to memory.

Regarding the price, it's about $200 off based on Crucial's prices, not $300.  Although the 512MB is actually cheaper through Apple.

[Floid]

Dan wrote:

Nothing wrong with the video, I say the so-dimm(I assume?) is the worst part. 1GB is *#£$€&€# expensive. I guess Apple realized that getting lots of RAM is you run newer OSes on outdated machines. This won´t run OSX Puma or OSX Lynx or whatever.

I've seen some internal shots; it's a regular DDR DIMM, crammed in on the left? side.  Standard height, Apple likes to use cheap commodity parts where the user can't tell the difference.

Not sure that matters either, because if they wanted to, Apple COULD do upgrade plans as needed later.
Wayne

But thye won´t, thats the whole point, switch to Mac and then upgrade to a faster, bigger more expensive machine the next time. That´s why they didn´t put two regular RAM-slots on. Never underestimate Jobs loathing of the users( see the Newton-thing).

While it's fun to knock them for this, I assume they didn't put two regular slots on because this is the new integrated Freescale wunderchip, and the pin count/loading characteristics don't allow it with ease.  (Anyone know if I'm right?)

[AmiXDel]

ok, $200 - $300 I'll give you that much, but STILL! Man, screw apple, they are no better than M$ in that respect.

http://www.pricewatch.com/m/mn.aspx?i=33&f=1

As for Warrenty...

...I'm going by what the Apple rep told me on the phone today.

[Dan]

Waccoon wrote:

Dan:  Studio Display a TV? Really, most tvs is still CRTs around here. Only real geeks and rich snobs go for lcd and plasma.

Still, you're hard pressed to find CRTs in stores these days.  People like the idea of trading bulky size for inferior picture quality and wonky colors.  :-)

I worked in a photo store, and nearly flipped when my boss started replacing all the monitors with LCDs.  Color accuracy is impossible!!!

Sigh, I was talking TVs :smack:
But you are right about monitors.

[minator]

Can't wait to try UAE on it, hope the Mac port is up to par with the winblows version.

There's JIT so not yet.  This could speed development up a bit though as the port may get more interest.

I assume they didn't put two regular slots on because this is the new integrated Freescale wunderchip, and the pin count/loading characteristics don't allow it with ease. (Anyone know if I'm right?)

No, it's a 7447A (same bus speed, cache size), The "wunderchip" isn't out for some time yet.  The next Freescale chip due is the 7448 which should turn up in iBooks / PowerBooks if they still haven't got the G5 cool enough yet.

[the_leander]

Waccoon wrote:

the_leander:  (admittedly I've not got Doom 3 or Half Life 2, but I suspect that a slightly lower frame rate and medium detail settings would suffice).

Interesting how medium detail will work, and not low.  That's fine for the moms-and-pops Wayne mentioned.  :-)

Are you trying to be funny (if so you're not succeeding) or just trolling? Obviously if a game runs in medium or higher levels of detail then by definition it will  run that same game at low detail, just a damned sight faster. What I was trying to get accross is that the 9200 is no slouch and is more then capable of playing modern games at medium - high levels of detail settings at high resolutions.

the_leander:  This system, with 512Mb of ram will fly playing all but the most recent big name games if my own experiences with similarly powerful systems in the x86 world are anything to go by.

Wow.  512MB in a mom-and-pop machine.  Who knew Macs were so efficient with memory?  ;-)[/quote]

512Mb is pretty much a necessety if you plan on playing modern 3D games on any computer these days, do try to keep up 007  :-P

But you do have a point, the 256Mb's of ram is the absolute minimum you'd want to run OSX with (or windows 2000/XP for that matter) and that is sad. Modern OS's are hogs, even Zeta (BeOS R5.1 derivitive) struggles with "only" 64Mb of Ram. :lol:

[Waccoon]

512Mb is pretty much a necessety if you plan on playing modern 3D games on any computer these days, do try to keep up 007

Now, be nice.  I just get tired of everyone bashing Windows for using so much memory, while all the other Operating Systems out there use the same amount.

Of course, a good OS will always have a high memory usage at idle.  If you've got it, you should use it, and they use it mostly for caching, which is all disposable.  There's no telling how much memory an OS "actually" uses, save for the typical marketting boloney.

[the_leander]

Waccoon wrote:

512Mb is pretty much a necessety if you plan on playing modern 3D games on any computer these days, do try to keep up 007

Now, be nice.  I just get tired of everyone bashing Windows for using so much memory, while all the other Operating Systems out there use the same amount.

Of course, a good OS will always have a high memory usage at idle.  If you've got it, you should use it, and they use it mostly for caching, which is all disposable.  There's no telling how much memory an OS "actually" uses, save for the typical marketting boloney.

Heh, it seemed funnier when I typed it at the time. But whilst you do have a point about caching, you can get a good idea about what the OS in question is comfortable as a bare minimum. Zeta for example will be happy with 64Mb's of ram and whilst will operate at a stretch with 32, it isn't pretty. Windows 2000 likewise is ok for use in office apps with as little as 128Mb's of ram, the moment you want to play games however you'll need 512Mb's of ram, 256Mb's just doesn't cut it (been there, done that).

WindowsXP however to get the same sort of responsiveness as win2k with 128Mb of ram, you need 256Mbs, and for games at the same sort of speed as win2k with 512Mb's you'll need about the same, but will have less ram to spare playing the same game then if you ran win2k. Mostly because of differences in the GUI, extra services and extra bloats.

[Ilwrath]

Also Mac is royally screwing over un-aware customers by charging $300 over the 1Gb RAM stick's worth. That is INSANE!!

Well, they're screwing their customers but not in the way you think.  The motherboard only has a single RAM socket, so you need to use one single module.  And, that module is NOT a standard SDRAM, it's a SODIMM like a laptop would take.  The price is quite competative for what those actually go for.

Is it insane?  Yes....  But it's the design that's insane, more than the upgrade price.  (same with the tiny hard drive....)

[dslcc]

I've seen some internal shots; it's a regular DDR DIMM, crammed in on the left? side. Standard height, Apple likes to use cheap commodity parts where the user can't tell the difference.

DIMM0/J21:

  Size:   256 MB
  Type:   SDRAM
  Speed:   PC100-222S

DIMM1/J22:

  Size:   256 MB
  Type:   SDRAM
  Speed:   PC100-222S

DIMM2/J23:

  Size:   256 MB
  Type:   SDRAM
  Speed:   PC133-333

DIMM3/J24:

  Size:   64 MB
  Type:   SDRAM
  Speed:   PC100-222S

This is how my mac ram is reported in OS X system profiler. The top two are good sticks that I bought from OWC. The third was taken out of a PC, and the bottom one came with the mac. The lower latency ones are better (the top two and the bottom -2225). In this case Mac supplied the better ram. Doesn't always happen though. Mac sometimes uses the higher latency memory. It is possible to tell what the ram is like without opening the case.

[Ilwrath]

I've seen some internal shots; it's a regular DDR DIMM, crammed in on the left? side. Standard height, Apple likes to use cheap commodity parts where the user can't tell the difference.

Good point  I stand corrected.

I guess I shouldn't believe everything I read on the internet. :lol:

So it's back to an insane price, but a slightly more sane design.  :-)

[JoannaK]

There are couple really clean and nice pictures of mothernoard linked at Mini-itx site news article. http://www.mini-itx.com/news/13909018/

That DDram socket looks Huge on that board  :-o

[Rbby]

Maybe I'm mistaken but isn't this forum, just by it's name, all about the Amiga ? We should all be intereted in what's going on in the Amiga community instead of what's going on with the Mac or Microcrap. I may be in the minority here but I could care less about those other OS's. Being an Amiga owner since the day when I first saw and purchased an Amiga 1000, for me the other systems could never even come close to the multitasking environment of my trusty Amiga.