Oh Dear, intel integrated graphics

[paperinacup]

I know I risk the chance of getting flamed for this (puts on fire suit) but...

What some people are failing to remember is the the Mac Mini is a STARTER computer and not a GAMING computer. The GMA950 is perfectly fit for what this computer is. The last card they had in the Mac Mini wouldn't push a 30" display either.

I mean seriously what did people expect.... an X1600 XT? Its a $600 machine. I doubt you could find very many PCs without the same graphics for that price. Be VERY glad you aren't stuck with the GMA900 which is ALOT worse.

I personally see nothing wrong with the Mac Mini. Its exactly what I expected.


just my 2 cents

 

[jsw]

Why on Earth do people think they're winning an argument when they say "So it's crap? Well, then buy a PC!"

I don't think its crap. I think it's perfectly usable to a lot of people. Those who disagree can buy other systems - or one of the G4 minis which most stores still have.

The Mac mini used to have acceptable graphics. It had useful hardware acceleration. Now the hardware accelleration is worse, despite being compared to three year old graphics cards, such that most games, etc, will actually need to do most of the rendering in software, competing with CPU time required for everything else. This is a *bad* thing. The performance of the Mac mini for a certain, major, class of applications is now *worse* than it was on its predecessor. That major class of applications *is* important for a computer aimed at the home.

I disagree. Buy an Xbox. To say that a Mac sucks because it doesn't play 3D games is missing the point. I think it's a bogus argument that home-oriented Macs need to play 3D games to sell. I think the sales figures on the mini will support that. And... initial reviews don't seem to show that it sucks once RAM reaches 1GB. I'm not saying sales would plummet if it supported 3D games better - not at all - just that such support is not required to sell minis.

How people can turn around and say "So? Buy a different machine!" and not realise that they're merely confirming the point, not brushing it off. What next? "You need your Mac mini to run Word and Excel at a decent speed? Well, buy a PC!" (Yes, the $600 version of the Mac mini will be unable to run Office X at a speed comparable with anything other than the last of the G3s until Microsoft comes up with the universal binaries, which it doesn't appear to be rushing out of the door.)

So you are now arguing that using Intel chips also makes it suck?

With the low-end version of the Intel Mac mini unable to:

* Run most games

False. Run many 3D games at full speed? No. Run most games? Yes.

* Run most productivity apps for several months, many even for years, at a decent speed.

False. Office runs OK, iWork runs very well, and the switch to Intel isn't negotiable anyway and is not an issue particular to the mini.

* Run Classic Mac apps back from the days where MHz was at a premium (no OS 9 compatability)

Again, I guess you're just angry about the switch to Intel. OS 9 was half a decade ago, for God's sake. Move on.

...just what is it supposed to run? Are buyers supposed to be happy with the iLife suite and TextEdit.app? Who is this computer aimed at? It's not switchers. It's not students. Grandma doesn't have a keyboard or mouse. Who?

I like it. It's aimed at the same market as the previous incarnation. That market will continue to buy it. Switchers and students and grandmothers are buying them right now, guaranteed.

 

[IJ Reilly]

"Everything for nothing"

How is that for an explanation as to why there is always ample amounts of largely illogical whining after every Apple product release?


Lethal

I appreciate your efforts on my behalf, but you have to admit, this time the volume of the griping is far greater than usual.

I've asked several times already if anyone knows of another PC manufacturer who is offering the Core Duo in a desktop computer. I suppose the answer must be no. Not that it matters...

 

[peharri]

To clarify: (1) the Macintouch benchmarks most certainly do test the Core Duo min.;

I asked you for a link. I'm looking at the Macintouch site right now and not seeing anything. They're certainly not in the same place as the Core Solo benchmarks. Neither those on the front page (21:50 EST under "Notes and Tips") or those on the first link refer to the Mac mini Core Duo. Are you misreading the "iMac Core Duo" (I'm not trying to imply you're stupid, I just honestly can't see any other reference to a Core Duo at all and it's the kind of skim-reading error I'd make) or are you looking at another page?

and (2) it might be worse than you thought, not we. So far the numbers we're seeing look fine.

Are you really suggesting that you don't care if there's little or no hardware acceleration in the Mac mini whatsoever, which is what a significant improvement in so-called "hardware acceleration" between the Mac mini Core Solo and Mac mini Core Duo would imply? I think most of us would be even more disappointed than we already are at such a revelation.

As it happens, I doubt it's true. If the benchmarks show it is, then Apple and Intel may well do a lot of damage to their reputations. I'll be interested to see the link to "Mac mini Core Duo" benchmarks.

 

[LethalWolfe]

...just what is it supposed to run? Are buyers supposed to be happy with the iLife suite and TextEdit.app? Who is this computer aimed at? It's not switchers. It's not students. Grandma doesn't have a keyboard or mouse. Who?

Regular people who like the appeal of such a low profile computer? Computer nerds that want a secondary machine? PC users that want a Mac to "play with"?

From what I've seen over at PC websites the Mini was surprisingly popular. Its low cost and small footprint made it very attractive to people that wanted to try out a Mac but didn't have the money or space for an iMac or a tower. It's also funny that the new Mini is getting significantly more criticized by Mac users than it is by PC users (at least from what I've seen).

If I wasn't planning on getting a laptop I'd absolutely get a Mini to replace my 5 year old PC as my "daily driver" computer (my Mac is primarily my workstation computer).


Lethal

 

[cube]

Buy an Xbox.

That's even worse than saying buy a PC.

A personal computer is supposed to be a *general purpose* system. Wanting to use some non-extreme 3D software is perfectly reasonable. All this "mini is not for games" is just fanboy nonsense.

 

[peharri]

False. Run many 3D games at full speed? No. Run most games? Yes.

Well, if you want to be picky, I'm sure Solitaire and equivalents will run quite well.

False. Office runs OK, iWork runs very well, and the switch to Intel isn't negotiable anyway and is not an issue particular to the mini.

Runs well on what? I specifically talked about the Core Solo. Rosetta requires a dual core set up to run at an acceptable speed. Office X is going to crawl.

Again, I guess you're just angry about the switch to Intel. OS 9 was half a decade ago, for God's sake. Move on.

Do you actually want to address arguments I'm making? I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about in the above. Are you saying (because I have no idea) that you think apps written half a decade ago were less efficient, and more processor intensive, than apps written last year, and therefore would be less useful?

FWIW, I don't happen to think the Intel switch is a justified idea, but the fact is, this is the here and now. And the here and now is that most Mac software is PowerPC only. That most major applications have not been turned into universal binaries. And as such, the Core Solo is going to run them poorly compared to a G4 running at a fraction of the speed. Period. End of story.

I like it. It's aimed at the same market as the previous incarnation. That market will continue to buy it. Switchers and students and grandmothers are buying them right now, guaranteed.

Ok, so Switchers want machines significantly less powerful than their own. Students want machines they can't play games on. And grandma's on NewEgg right now comparing prices on USB keyboards.

Correct?

 

[LethalWolfe]

I appreciate your efforts on my behalf, but you have to admit, this time the volume of the griping is far greater than usual.

I had to give it the old college try, and, yes, the whine-factor seems surprising higher for some reason.


Lethal

 

[peharri]

Regular people who like the appeal of such a low profile computer? Computer nerds that want a secondary machine? PC users that want a Mac to "play with"?

Well, the first group is going to want the computer to be useful, not just low-profile. The second and third groups are nice, but (a) they're not large groups, and (b) they're fairly influential, which means if the machine they get fails to perform, they're going to recommend against them.

From what I've seen over at PC websites the Mini was surprisingly popular. Its low cost and small footprint made it very attractive to people that wanted to try out a Mac but didn't have the money or space for an iMac or a tower.

But that was the old Mac mini. Now look at the current incarnation.

If I wasn't planning on getting a laptop I'd absolutely get a Mini to replace my 5 year old PC as my "daily driver" computer (my Mac is primarily my workstation computer).

I was all prepared to get this one. I halted when I got to the graphics card part of the spec. Honestly. My only comment during the stevemininote was positive. I didn't think Apple would make such a major error.

Honestly, if Apple does a $999 version of the Core Duo version with decent graphics and a gig of RAM, I'll buy it. Maybe they'll listen to the criticisms and do that. I really hope they're not expecting people who want a combination of power and a small form factor to throw the latter out the window and get an iMac, 'cos the latter's just not going to work for me.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Well, the first group is going to want the computer to be useful, not just low-profile. The second and third groups are nice, but (a) they're not large groups, and (b) they're fairly influential, which means if the machine they get fails to perform, they're going to recommend against them.

But that was the old Mac mini. Now look at the current incarnation.

And, as I've mentioned twice so far in this thread, they (the PC users) largely DON'T CARE about the gaming ability of the Mini 'cause they GAME ON THEIR PCs. Again, from what I've seen the reaction to the new Mini by PC users has been significantly more positive by than the doom-n-gloom-the-sky-is-falling-oh-dear-god-this-is-the-end-of-Apple-and-the-end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it-won't-Steve-Jobs-think-of-the-children!!11!1!! hyperbole melodrama that's going on here at MR.

I'm kinda confused by your seemingly contradictory points (a) and (b). Your point (a) implies that the grounds relatively small size makes them insignificant, but you point (b) implies they are very influential so we shouldn't discount them.


Lethal

 

[peharri]

And, as I've mentioned twice so far in this thread, they (the PC users) largely DON'T CARE about the gaming ability of the Mini 'cause they GAME ON THEIR PCs.

The mind boggles. People will buy an additional computer, for the purpose of throwing in a cupboard somewhere? Ok.

Again, from what I've seen the reaction to the new Mini by PC users has been significantly more positive by than the doom-n-gloom-the-sky-is-falling-oh-dear-god-this-is-the-end-of-Apple
-and-the-end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it-won't-Steve-Jobs-think-of-the
-children!!11!1!! hyperbole melodrama that's going on here at MR.

You know, being patronising doesn't make the problems go away. These are very real issues. Many of us want Apple to produce a viable, low-to-medium range, headless computer. We're not willing to consider "headed" computers (laptops, iMacs), for obvious reasons. Apple has removed such a thing from the market. Right now it sells a relatively expensive low-end machine, or an underpowered medium-range machine, depending on your point of view. It's not what anyone wanted.

Will Apple go bust? Obviously not. But poor sales and a poor reputation will damage Apple, and the Mac mini concept.

In the mean time, so far as I can see, most of us protesting in this thread that, maybe, perhaps, the specs of the Mac mini Core Solo are, well, sub-par, keep having to address two major issues. 1: That it somehow doesn't matter because people will buy it anyway (who?!), and 2: That it's not really underpowered (why, yes it is!) So I get pointed at benchmarks that don't exist, don't make any sense, and actually demonstrate severe design faults if true, plus insults about how I must hate the Mac mini Intel because I don't like Intel (I hadn't mentioned my views - as it happens, I still don't see the justification, but that said, I had planned to buy one - I mean, as in, until I saw the graphics card thing, I was actually telling my wife that was what I planned to do, and that we'd finally get rid of the box in the living room, etc.), and finally the above attempt to laugh off the criticisms of this box.

I'm kinda confused by your seemingly contradictory points (a) and (b). Your point (a) implies that the grounds relatively small size makes them insignificant, but you point (b) implies they are very influential so we shouldn't discount them.

What's contradictory about them? (a) implies the sales alone from that group will not sustain the model, and (b) adds the point that if that group does buy Mac minis, the consequences may be even worse because they're likely to bad-mouth the Mac as underpowered and an unpleasant experience. It's lose-lose. We need more than this group buying Mac minis, and they have to be good enough to impress that group too.

 

[IJ Reilly]

I asked you for a link. I'm looking at the Macintouch site right now and not seeing anything. They're certainly not in the same place as the Core Solo benchmarks. Neither those on the front page (21:50 EST under "Notes and Tips") or those on the first link refer to the Mac mini Core Duo. Are you misreading the "iMac Core Duo" (I'm not trying to imply you're stupid, I just honestly can't see any other reference to a Core Duo at all and it's the kind of skim-reading error I'd make) or are you looking at another page?

Are you really suggesting that you don't care if there's little or no hardware acceleration in the Mac mini whatsoever, which is what a significant improvement in so-called "hardware acceleration" between the Mac mini Core Solo and Mac mini Core Duo would imply? I think most of us would be even more disappointed than we already are at such a revelation.

As it happens, I doubt it's true. If the benchmarks show it is, then Apple and Intel may well do a lot of damage to their reputations. I'll be interested to see the link to "Mac mini Core Duo" benchmarks.

On second look, you are correct -- Macintouch tests only the Core Solo -- but it still wins three out of four graphics tests they ran. Another thread popped up here moments ago with additional testing, but they don't seem to cite any source or which mini they tested.

If I cared about things like hardware acceleration, then I wouldn't buy a mini.

 

[IJ Reilly]

I had to give it the old college try, and, yes, the whine-factor seems surprising higher for some reason.

It's this obsession with gaming. Honestly, I think gamers can't even contemplate anyone buying a computer for any other purpose.

 

[jsw]

It's this obsession with gaming. Honestly, I think gamers can't even contemplate anyone buying a computer for any other purpose.

I've finally decided that they are right.

 

[cube]

On second look, you are correct -- Macintouch tests only the Core Solo -- but it still wins three out of four graphics tests they ran.

Those test don't matter because the average Joe buying the mini is not going to raytrace. It's the hardware accelerated results the important ones for interactive 3D applications.

 

[IJ Reilly]

I've finally decided that they are right.

Best laugh of the day. Thanks.

 

[Macmadant]

come one everyone, start voting https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/183964/

 

[Macmadant]

Having read through the many, many, many posts regarding integrated graphics on the new mini, and seeing proof that it doesn't produce optimal frame rates when running WoW and also might occasionally hiccup when doing true HD video (with a whopping 512MB installed), I've decided that the integrated graphics make the mini nearly useless.

It can't play state-of-the-art 3D games at full speed, it can't do true HD video, Office apps are slow because of Rosetta... in short, the integrated video makes the mini of no value whatsoever to 99.9% of the market.

Given how poor the graphics are, I conclude that the only way to get any value - if "value" is even the right word - out of this flop is to boot into single user mode and, oh, I don't know, play with UNIX or get onto some BBS somewhere. What that means to me? Only dweeby, poor, Apple fanboy geeks will buy this thing.

And, so, it's too big.

First of all, there's no need for an optical drive. I mean, really, the thing won't do HD, so movies are practically useless, and like I said, single user mode is the only useful mode, so the optical drive is useless - removing it saves space. "How would you upgrade OS X?" you ask. Two replies: (1) this rev of the mini is so worthless that you'd better off tossing it than upgrading the OS; and (2) Intel Macs can boot off of USB, so how about if Apple would just ship OS X loaded on those worthless Shuffles no one buys and put that in the box instead of the dumb remote? Then, if you're too broke to buy a better mini when they get real, you could go to your friend's mom's house and download OS X 10.4.6 or whatever off her PC and put it on the mini.

Second, why AirPort and Bluetooth? Dweeby, poor, Apple fanboy geeks don't really use those anyway, so it's a waste of space. Not a lot of space, but, still, some. Let the geeks hook up an old CB radio connection or something if they want. Just put the modem back in, OK? Because that's all you need for a BBS, and, if you can't afford any better than the mini, likely you're lucky if you can even afford a phone line.

Third? Dump the hard drive. Hell, just boot off the Shuffle. No games + no movies + no apps = no need for a hard drive. Or throw in one from the iPod minis I know Apple has sitting around in warehouses - seems appropriate, I mean, really, why not use a mini drive for the mini? Poetic, I think.

Fourth? Nix all the ports in back except for two USB ones (one for the Shuffle, one for the keyboard - single user mode doesn't require a mouse) and two screws to which the geeks could hook the antenna up for the old black and white TV they'd use when they were playing with 'grep' or chatting on the BBS about which Star Trek captain was the best.

If Apple would have just done all that instead of producing the steaming pile of... uselessness that is the Intel mini, I bet they could have shaved an inch off the height.

They didn't even try, so count me as yet another disappointed reviewer.

You are 100% right, andi totally agree with you

 

[jsw]

You are 100% right, and I totally agree with you

I hate to have to ask, but I must know: you do realize I was being sarcastic, right?

 

[baleensavage]

Now I have to agree with everyone griping here about the Mac Mini being underwhelming. For $600 you should definitely be able to get a real graphics card. But I have to question everyone who is complaining about the Mac Minis ability to play games. Since when were there games for the Mac anyway? Macs have always been lagging in the gaming department. Sure you can get Halo or Doom 3. But really, those games are old news. I have to agree with the person who said for games that you should get an XBox (though I would say get a PS3 when they come out, XBox has way too few RPGs). Because you're never going to get as good of a gaming experience on a computer than you will on a console unless you spend a fortune on some high-end Alienware PC. For $400 you can get a cutting edge gaming machine and 500 times the games selection. If you want games, don't shell out $600 for a MacMini.

The real problem with the MacMini is the price. Apple increased the price and decreased the performance. Basically they made the Mac Mini an Apple Dell, but they didn't make it price competitive. What ever happened to the idea that the switch to Intel would bring cheaper Macs?

Of course, the Mac Mini has always been a terrible computer. We have a bunch of the first run of them here at my work and they run slower than my iMac DV (G3) at home. They are great as word processors and internet computers, but anything more than that is really pushing it.

 

[LethalWolfe]

The mind boggles. People will buy an additional computer, for the purpose of throwing in a cupboard somewhere? Ok.



You know, being patronising doesn't make the problems go away. These are very real issues. Many of us want Apple to produce a viable, low-to-medium range, headless computer. We're not willing to consider "headed" computers (laptops, iMacs), for obvious reasons. Apple has removed such a thing from the market. Right now it sells a relatively expensive low-end machine, or an underpowered medium-range machine, depending on your point of view. It's not what anyone wanted.

Will Apple go bust? Obviously not. But poor sales and a poor reputation will damage Apple, and the Mac mini concept.

In the mean time, so far as I can see, most of us protesting in this thread that, maybe, perhaps, the specs of the Mac mini Core Solo are, well, sub-par, keep having to address two major issues. 1: That it somehow doesn't matter because people will buy it anyway (who?!), and 2: That it's not really underpowered (why, yes it is!) So I get pointed at benchmarks that don't exist, don't make any sense, and actually demonstrate severe design faults if true, plus insults about how I must hate the Mac mini Intel because I don't like Intel (I hadn't mentioned my views - as it happens, I still don't see the justification, but that said, I had planned to buy one - I mean, as in, until I saw the graphics card thing, I was actually telling my wife that was what I planned to do, and that we'd finally get rid of the box in the living room, etc.), and finally the above attempt to laugh off the criticisms of this box.


What's contradictory about them? (a) implies the sales alone from that group will not sustain the model, and (b) adds the point that if that group does buy Mac minis, the consequences may be even worse because they're likely to bad-mouth the Mac as underpowered and an unpleasant experience. It's lose-lose. We need more than this group buying Mac minis, and they have to be good enough to impress that group too.

What part of, largely from what I've seen PC users don't really care about the integrated gfx of the new Mini and are actually positive about the machine is so difficult for you to comprehend? I was disappointed too when I saw that the new Mini was using integrated gfx, but there is no point in all this belly-aching when you don't even know how the machine will perform.

Hey, I like pointless melodrama as much as the next guy, but can you show specs, benchmarks, tests... something tangible to point out how horrible of a machine the new Mini is please? If after a bunch of real world tests come back and the new Mini is a dog compared to the old Mini then, yeah, I'll agree that the new Mini is a flop. But if the new Mini kicks the old Mini's ass in everything except demanding 3D games then, no, I'm not gonna agree that the new Mini is a flop.


Lethal

 

[Macmadant]

I hate to have to ask, but I must know: you do realize I was being sarcastic, right?

no i didn't, well that was quite embarrasing lol, maybe i sould have read the rest of the thread you started.

Edit: i never actually read through your post only the top sentances, and figured you were moaning about the mini

 

[jsw]

Well, if you want to be picky, I'm sure Solitaire and equivalents will run quite well.

Yup. you've nailed it. Nothing else will run. And you know this because you've tried, right?

Runs well on what? I specifically talked about the Core Solo. Rosetta requires a dual core set up to run at an acceptable speed. Office X is going to crawl.

Contrary to all intuition and reason, some people don't give a rat's butt if it runs Office well. And, of course, there are no reviews yet showing it won't do so anyway. It runs on my iMac with one core shut off. I'm sure it will run on a solo. Fast? No. Buy iWork. It's cheaper anyway.

Do you actually want to address arguments I'm making? I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about in the above. Are you saying (because I have no idea) that you think apps written half a decade ago were less efficient, and more processor intensive, than apps written last year, and therefore would be less useful?

I am saying that the ability to run 5-year-old (or older) apps is not a major consideration when I buy a new system, given that, in order to have such apps, I likely have an older system which will still run them just as well as it always did.

FWIW, I don't happen to think the Intel switch is a justified idea, but the fact is, this is the here and now. And the here and now is that most Mac software is PowerPC only. That most major applications have not been turned into universal binaries. And as such, the Core Solo is going to run them poorly compared to a G4 running at a fraction of the speed. Period. End of story.

The benchmarks don't seem to be on your side. Slower? Yes, at times, than a 1.5GHz G4. "Poorly" compared to much slower G4's? No.

Ok, so Switchers want machines significantly less powerful than their own. Students want machines they can't play games on. And grandma's on NewEgg right now comparing prices on USB keyboards.

Correct?

Well, I guess we'll just have to see if Apple makes a profit on them. If they do, it was a good call for them to make them as they did.

 

[peharri]

What part of, largely from what I've seen PC users don't really care about the integrated gfx of the new Mini and are actually positive about the machine is so difficult for you to comprehend?

What the hell? Did I scream at you about irrelevent points?

FWIW, your comment is not my experience. Other than myself, I know at least one person who was lined up to get a Mac mini after being with the PC exclusively for several years. He had actually ordered a Macbook Pro, then cancelled the order because of sticker shock, but thought the Mac mini Intel was going to be, well, at least as good as its predecessor. He's not getting it. PC people I know are underwhelmed by the spec of the Mac mini.

Hey, I like pointless melodrama as much as the next guy, but can you show specs, benchmarks, tests... something tangible to point out how horrible of a machine the new Mini is please? If after a bunch of real world tests come back and the new Mini is a dog compared to the old Mini then, yeah, I'll agree that the new Mini is a flop. But if the new Mini kicks the old Mini's ass in everything except demanding 3D games then, no, I'm not gonna agree that the new Mini is a flop.

What part of Everyone from Macintouch to Extremetech have already published benchmarks varying from overall Mac mini performance figures to those that focus on the card itself do you not understand? (Sorry *snort*)

The $600 model will be, we can tell you already, faster when it comes to a specific subset of applications, namely Universal Binaries that are not 3D intensive. That means no (modern, non-trivial) games. No Office X. No Photoshop. etc.

The $800 model will probably run most non-3D intensive Mac OS X native, universal and PowerPC only, apps at an acceptable speed. We know this because the iMac does already.

They're going to fly with some apps. Unfortunately, some relatively important ones they're going to crawl with. We know this already. I'd be happy, as I've said before, if Apple comes up with a $999 version with a decent (iMac style) graphics card (and a gig of memory.)

 

[jsw]

I'd be happy, as I've said before, if Apple comes up with a $999 version with a decent (iMac style) graphics card (and a gig of memory.)

We may disagree about the usefulness of the mini as it stands, but I'd certainly buy what you describe over the mini - however, it's not an option, and the mini isn't so bad - to me.