2/28 So this new Intel Mac Mini... didn't the old one have better
graphics and also cost less?
\_ I think Apple is overcharging for it, since the new model is $100
more from the last base priced model. As components go down in
price, so should the unit, or the specs should go up with a flat
price. However, keep in mind you do get 256MB more ram ($75),
\_ $75 for 256MB!? What country are you from? You can get 1GB
with that kind of money.
\_ Where? The new mini uses DDR2 5300 ram. The cheapest I've
seen 1 GB is $120 or so. I agree that $75 is overpriced
for 256MB ram, you can get that for around $45.
\_ newegg (first hit, didn't continue searching) CORSAIR
ValueSelect 1GB 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM System Memory - Retail
$100... c'mon do a little searching
\_ The x86 mini and the x86 iMac use 200 pin DDR2 ram
not 240 pin DDR2 ram.
20GB more space, 2 more USB ports, and the new Intel processor
supposedly "delivers two times the performance of the original Mac
mini." The last part I don't get because it's the Intel Core Solo
is a single 1.5Ghz chips, while the original was a single PowerPC
G4 chip (1.42Ghz). I thought, RISC processors allowed computers
to get more processing out of the same raw Ghz? At least that's
what Apple was touting at the pinacle of the Intel vs PowerPC
wars. So how does a single 1.5Ghz chip double performance from a
1.42Ghz chip, especially a RISC based one? And yes, the new mini
uses shared video RAM, but it is an entry level machine, even if
it's not priced like one.
\_ If I understand correctly RISC chips tend to get their speed
from being superscalar (multiple piplines). And the pentium4
is a RISC chip BTW, just has decoders on it for x86. --jwm.
\_ There are a couple of other changes that make the single
proc x86 mini faster than the PPC mini. The x86 mini has a
667MHz system bus, while the PPC had a 167MHz system bus.
The x86 mini uses a 5400 rpm SATA2 HD, while the PPC had a
4200 rpm laptop drive. The x86 mini also has 2 MB L2, while
the PPC only had 512KB L2.
\_ There are a few other changes that make the single proc x86
mini faster than the PPC mini:
1. 2MB l2 v. 512KB l2
2. 667 MHz system bus v. 167 MHz system bus
3. PC5300 DDR2 ram v. PC2700 ram
4. 5400 rpm sata2 HD v. 4200 rpm ata-100 hd
Personally the attractive features for me are the upgrade to
GigE, the 4 usb2 ports and the builtin bluetooth. I don't
know what to make of the shared video b/c it might be faster
than the Raedon 9200 in the PPC mini, but then again you have
to give up around 80 MB of main memory.
If I didn't own a PPC mini, I would probably have bought the
single proc one by now.
single proc one.
\_ Fundamentally, the fact that Apple switched to Intel chips,
\_ Fundamentally, the fact is that Apple switched to Intel chips
ostensibly to save money and because of better heat
performance in small form factors, and the best they
can come up with is a machine that may or may not be faster
than an identical-looking box they released over a year ago
for $100 less, is pissing a lot of people off. -tom
\_ I think that the focus on the $100 price increase
for the base model misses something crucial.
The base model x86 mini has the same specs as the
high end PPC mini and costs almost $200 less. In
addition, the base x86 mini comes w/ gigE, optical
audio out, 4 usb ports, and builtin bt. Personally,
I think apple has done a good job in reducing the
price of the mini.
\_ wow, increasing the price by $100 for no clear
advantage in performance is "reducing the price."
Do you work for Bush? (Here's a hint: in the
computer industry, generally computers get
significantly faster and cheaper in a year). -tom
\_ Apparently tom not only flunked out of UCB, but
even basic H.S. economics. The new Mac mini base
is functionally comparable to the old Mac mini
"deluxe", not to the old Mac mini base. Since
the new Mac mini base costs less than the old Mac
mini "deluxe", there is a drop in price. You get
more value for your dollar, but the unsophisticated
buyer like yourself can only focus on the base
price.
\_ Who gives a shit about that? The reality of it
is that the entry price went up $100. Is the
user getting $100 more value? Basically just
256MB more RAM. Considering how time works
in the computer world and the age of the old
system, this deal stinks.
\_ I think the user is getting more than $100
in value in comparison to the base model
PPC mini:
in value and performance in comparison to
the base model PPC mini:
1. 300 extra MHz - 1.5GHz x86 v. 1.2 GHz
PPC [in addition, the x86 has 2MB l2,
instead of the 512KB l2 in the PPC,
which should make the base mini seem
"snappier"]
2. 20GB extra HD - 60GB sata2 (faster) hd
v. 40GB ata-100 hd (the 4200 rpm hd in
the PPC can be painfully slow) In the
PPC mini, the upgrade to a 60GB HD was
around $40-$50.
3. 256MB extra (faster) RAM - in the PPC
mini a 512MB Dimm was around $50.
mini a 512MB Dimm was around $50. The
extra ram was sorely needed b/c the
mini was very slow w/ 256MB RAM.
4. Builtin Airport and BT - in the PPC
mini these were BTO options that added
about $50.
5. 4 USB2 ports - don't need to buy a
ugly usb hub, which saves $20 or so.
6. gigE instead of 10/100
7. optical audio out
Even if one says that Apple's BTO prices
were 2x the real cost for RAM and HD and
NO additional price should be added for
the faster processor, the price difference
($20-$25 HD + $25 RAM + $50 BT/Airport
~ $100) is easily made up by the add'l
features of the base model x86 mini.
I still think that the correct comparision
is between the old deluxe PPC mini (1.42,
1.5 GHz) and the new base model x86 mini.
The PPC deluxe model cost $599 and did not
come w/ airport, bt, 512MB of ram, gigE or
optical audio out. The only feature that
the the deluxe PPC mini had was a bigger
HD. Arguably, all the extras in the x86
mini more than make up for these 20GBs.
To get a 1.5GHz PPC mini that w/ a config
similar to the base x86 mini, one had to
spend nearly $800 (I know I bought one).
optical audio out.
1.5 GHz w/o superdrive) and the new base
model x86 mini. The PPC deluxe model cost
$599 and did not come w/ airport, bt, 512MB
of ram, gigE or optical audio out.
The only feature that the deluxe PPC mini
had was a bigger HD. Arguably, all the
extras in the x86 mini more than make up
for the smaller HD, even if there is NO
performance upgrade (ie you are getting
a x86 mini w/ many more features today
than you would have if you bought a 1.5
GHz PPC mini on monday).
Furthermore, to get a 1.5GHz PPC mini
that w/ a config similar to the base x86
mini, one had to spend nearly $800 (I
know I bought one).
w/ a config similar to the base x86 mini
one had to spend nearly $800 (I know b/c
I bought one), which is why I say that
the base model today is $200 cheaper than
the comparable PPC model.
To me the base mini easily demonstrates
that every year you get more computer at
cheaper prices.
that every year you get more computer
at cheaper prices.
If you just want to focus on the cost of
entry, you are right it is $100 more. I
think that such an inquiry is basically
useless b/c it ignores almost all of the
relevant facts.
\_ The thing that kept me from getting
an mac mini before was that I was
worried the G4 would be slow. That's
corrected now, and all the extra
goodies look good!
\_ The old 1.4GHz PPC mini was pretty
good provided you got enough ram.
The new 1.5GHz core solo mini should
be quite nice if you get 1 GB of ram.
The addition of front row and the
remote make it fairly attractive (to
me) as a htpc.
\_ why is it that tom always seem to have a
stick up his arse?
\_ He says it's $200 less. You say it's $100 more.
Only one of you can be correct.
\_ The entry-level model is $100 more than the
old entry-level model. He claims that the
entry-level model is now faster than the high-end
\_ The entry-level model is $100 more than the old
entry-level model. He claims that the entry-
level model is now faster than the high-end
model was before, so it's $200 cheaper. He
ignores the fact that by Moore's Law, the
machine should be almost twice as fast for
the same cost by this point, not $100 more
for a possible incremental speed increase.
And it's not like the old entry-level Mac Mini
was a great deal to begin with. -tom
machine should be almost twice as fast for the
same cost by this point, not $100 more for a
possible incremental speed increase. And it's
not like the old entry-level Mac Mini was a
great deal to begin with. -tom
\_ I'm not claiming that the entry level x86
system is faster than the high end PPC
system. I'm claiming that they are comp-
arable. I get the $200 savings b/c a
similarly spec'ed 1.5 GHz PPC mini would
have cost about $799.
Re Moore's Law - Is this your argument:
1. 1.2GHz/1.4GHz PPC mini released in
Jan 2005
2. ~ 12 months have passed
3. The proc should be 2.4GHz/2.8GHz
Please note, the period for Moore's law
is 24 mo these days, not 18 mo or 12 mo
as in the past. Also note that Moore's
law says nothing about cooling and power.
There is no way Apple/Intel could pack
in a 2.4 GHz P4 in that form factor w/o
a huge ps and hideously loud fans.
If your argument is that the low end
mini ought to have had a core duo proc,
I think this is unrealistic, considering
Moore's own company cannot make these
chips cheap enough for this price point.
Re the mini not a good deal -
I've owned numerous SFF PC's and I never
had one that was as silent as the mini
w/ equiv power (sure you can get a 800
MHz via c3, but it not nearly as fast
as a 1.4GHz PPC G4). Personally I think
the PPC mini was a great deal for a
completely silent and totally integrated
package. The addition of front row make
this far more desirable as a HT pc than
a xbox or a pc running mythtv/windows
media center b/c it is small and quiet.
\_ Look, I'm glad you're happy with it.
Buy one and enjoy it. But to claim it's
a good deal is ridiculous. -tom |
http://csua.com/feed/