New (?) Mini mac pics

[Hammer]

Good to see Apple doing something in the value end** segment.

**Close enough to PC’s 'value end' definition.

[Hammer]

DonnyEMU wrote:
I wondered when people were talking about the Mac MINI if they were talking about this..

The original Mac Mini..


Does Apple know it stole another product name??

The Real Mac Mini


PS Why would want want an apple mac mini, with such lame built in graphics.. 32 megs and a radeon 9200.. It's a little behind the times.. It won't stand up to games that use a lot of texture memory. This is like buying a PC that's graphics is DirectX7 or 8 compatible, when people regularly buy something that is 9 and above. and I am sorry 1.2 Ghz? I'd rather buy a Mini ITX motherboard and build for myself..

This Apple box should be able to handle XBOX style game ports. ATI's 9200 is a DirectX 8 class VPU.

[Hammer]

adolescent wrote:
This looks cool.  If it's quiet enough I'll probably get one for general browsing/email use.   The G4 iMacs and eMacs were fairly noisy.  I was looking for an AMD PIC but this will probably be more interesting in the long run.

PC system unit for $499 is slightly different fish when compared to AMD’s PIC**(~$249) i.e. its aimed at third world countries.

**Reference design i.e. manufactured by companies such as Samsung.

[Hammer]

Wayne wrote:
Matt,

Keep in mind that it's 100% expandable, but not in the way that you have grown accustomed to as a PC or Amiga user.  The Macs depend on USB and firewire 100% for expansion, pretty much exactly like the old 500 used to rely on that one connector slot on the side.  There are LOTS of expansion parts for the Macintosh, but again, it's left up to the USER to buy only what THEY need.

Wayne

Not quite 100% expandable e.g. I don’t think one could replace the GPU card, unless it uses mini-AGP cards in certain modern laptops.

[Hammer]

DonnyEMU wrote:
Yes a good point directx 8 vs 9... The big difference is the lack of capability to do HLSL style shaders above a version 2.0 shader.This means no cinema quality graphics fx (sort of like sticking a mac with a Geforce 3TI200 or Gforce 4MX instead of a GeForce FX card.  Even Nvidia's CG, and ATI's current shader technology are improved for hardware rendering. Speaking of the XBOX.. The Xbox itself has a better graphics engine than this puppy..

Even with an improved GPU core (closer to NV25(Geforce 4 TI)) compared to Geforce3; XBOX’s NV2A performance is about same as Geforce3 TI-200 due to shared memory bus.

The said Apple box has the benefit of a real CPU compared X-BOX’s Celeron/Pentium III hybrid i.e. comparable to throwing in an Athlon XP/Sempr0n instead of a Duron.

[Hammer]

@Wayne
Note that, TiVO (for PMP device) has recently went for AMD Alchemy Au1200 (SoC Enhanced-MIPS32 core), while Series2™ TiVo ® DVR* are MIPS based (NEC and BCM/Broadcom). BCM7040 still handles encoding side for both Series1 and Series2.

Nemesis for PPC in the embedded space would be MIPS and ARM based.

[Hammer]

But different to lets say a Windows machine, adding memory to a mac actually speed things up drastically. I could barely run UnrealTournament 2004, Neverwinter nights (with all expansions) and Warcraft III on my iBook G4/800, but after plunking in a stick of 512MB RAM all of those games are VERY playable. And all are run on a 800MHz processor and one "crappy" 9200 card with 32MB RAM.

The games mentioned don’t quite stress the modern DX9 PC systems e.g. UT2003's boxed requirements 733Mhz Athlon or 1Ghz Pentium III, 32MB Video Card and 256MB of RAM.  My down clocked A64 @800Mhz (via forced PowerNow) plays those games pretty well (when not searching for crazy FPS and resolutions). They are hardly the next generation DX9c class games.

[Hammer]

minator wrote:

My point is, you can get a much nicer "value" pc at that price.

You can probably get a faster PC if you build it yourself but other big brands just offer Celerons sometimes at *higher* prices.  Some of the PCs I looked at were actually lower specced.

Note that HP and Lenovo offers AMD Sempr0n based systems
(renamed K7 Athlon XP T-bred/Thornton core or K8 Paris cores) at $~499 USD price target.

Includes(for AMD HP box);
AMD Sempron(TM) 3000+ operating at 2.0GHz
9 in 1 Card Reader, 3 USB, + Front Audio Ports.
3.5 in. 1.44MB Floppy Drive
64MB DDR NVIDIA GeForce FX 5100, TV-Out
Keyboard & Scroller Mouse  
Microsoft(R) Works 7.0/Money 2004/MSN Encarta Plus

I recall AMD’s based PC market share is totally kills Apple’s PC share.  

The PCs had graphics so exciting they completely failed to list them (i.e. probably built-in Intel stuff which make even low end ATI or Nvidia kit look like stellar performers).

Note the NVIDIA Geforce FX 5100 with the HP box.  

[Hammer]

True, but then again the macintosh isn't really a gaming machine. It won't run games like FarCry but still it runs most mainstream games good enough.

Note, FarCry is a mainstream game i.e. sales chart breaker.

[Hammer]

bloodline wrote:

Argo wrote:
I could see one of these in the living room as part of the entertainment center. When I first looked at this my thought was "This should be an Amiga".
To me the Mac is becoming more and more what I think the Amiga would be like if Commodore hadn't gone under due to the management.

You know what... if the MAC Mini was based on an Athlon64 (but everything else the same), I would have an order in today.

It would be a waste if a desktop capable CPU family is just thrown into the embedded markets due to the incompetence of its stake holders.

Price sensitive PearPC audience may actually like Apple mini-Mac...

[Hammer]

Acill wrote:
All of you bashing this as low end and the video not being up to speed need to keep in mind that its not meant to be a game machine, its a entry level, low cost Mac intended for users that want to move music to and from the ipod, surf the net, send email and work on some basic things. It can do some nice games. I have a slower iBook with the same 9200 chip in it. Its got 1.25GB of RAM sure, but I can run Unreal 2004 on it just fine. This will be a great machine for those wanting to try a Mac at a low price entry point.

Video with Steve Jobs showing the new Mac mni HERE

One could repackage it as iBOX...

[Hammer]

Waccoon wrote:

Hammer:  The games mentioned don’t quite stress the modern DX9 PC systems e.g. UT2003's boxed requirements 733Mhz Athlon or 1Ghz Pentium III, 32MB Video Card and 256MB of RAM. My down clocked A64 @800Mhz (via forced PowerNow) plays those games pretty well (when not searching for crazy FPS and resolutions). They are hardly the next generation DX9c class games.

The point to a good 3D engine is to make it versitile.  I've yet to come across ANY game that runs poorly on a GeForce3 -- with all the detail turned off.  It's not a matter of framerates, or at least it shouldn't be.  It's a matter of how good you want it to look.

I get annoyed when people talk about graphics.  3DMark 2004 gives me about 5 FPS on my Radeon 9800 Pro, which is still a damned fast card, and I don't think that demo looks anywhere near good enough to be getting framerates like that.  That shows the enormous inflexibility of their 3D engine in favor of detail.  "Real" engines, like the one in Doom3, are perfectly happy running on four-year-old hardware at full speed.  The game logic accounts for only a fraction of the total power needed to run the game, so any graphics card will work.

And, no, Mac Mini people will not expect to run Doom3.  Although if they do, it will still work fine.  :-)

The strength ID’s DOOM3 licensing activities illustrates the inclination for 'effective' 3D engine for game content providers.

Hammer:  One could repackage it as iBOX...

Just as a side note, I think it's interesting that the Mini uses a flat memory model for its graphics, just like the XBOX.

...or did I hear that wrong?
[/quote]
Well, Apple did state ATI Radeon 9200. As you may already know; MS's XBOX is dual memory channels based NB i.e. P6's ~1GB consumption is shared within NV2A (basically nForce IGP)’s ~6.4GB bandwidth. NV2A IGP has two Vertex Shaders i.e. just like Geforce 4 TI but clocked lower @250Mhz.

It would be nice IF the mini-Mac has a GameCube sandbox virtual machine (non-standard CD not factored).

[Hammer]

I compared prices at an online shop and some of the machines were HP - complete with Celerons.

Refer to
1. HP's Compaq Presario SR1000Z series for AMD based systems (www.shopping.hp.com).
2. http://www.itfacts.biz/index.php?id=P1534

AMD already out sells Intel in certain PC desktops segments.

I wonder if some companies have suddenly put some machines on offer because they know people will be comparing prices?

HP’s Compaq Presario SR1000Z have been already been selling for awhile now i.e. before Apple's Mini-Mac.

[Hammer]

Yes you could build your own PC, and you will, but millions won't.

$495.82 USD (without GST) pre-built (with OS) via national level PC vendor (e.g. pluscorp.com.au). This is with AMD Sempr0n 2800+ (@2.0Ghz), ASrock K7S-41GX, PC3200 256MB, 40GB HD, combo DVD-ROM/CD-RW drive, ATX case and PSU.

PS; Mac-Mini cost $611.591 USD in Oz.  

Apple has a long time reputation for quality products

They have  their own hiccups. Refer to http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=17981

[Hammer]

How much more will you need to actually get that 470$ PC to equal AppleWorks suite plus iLife; iMovie, iPhoto, iDVD, iTunes, Garage Band?

Already matched it with American HP's SR1000Z series.  

Plus you would be stuck with Windows

Actually, there are campers who likes Windows NT architecture e.g. ReactOS campers.