Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
On day 1 of the 4th year of ownership if the monitor dies you are SOL and you have to scrap the whole system. Not acceptable to me, so I'll never buy an iMac.
In that case, why wouldn't you just hook up an external monitor to your iMac? Do you really still have PCs around from late-2002/early-2003?

Jman888 said:
Yes. How many people do you know that are Wanting this but it is nonexistant. They Should Make it.
This is all based on your guess that there is a large market of people wanting this, and frankly, this comment almost always comes from someone like you or Gordy (very technically literate PC people that can quote you the latest rev of any Nvidia or ATI product line).

I guess my question is this: If the market for people like you guys is as big as you think it is, why hasn't Apple targeted it?
 
wow. 4 pages of complaining and complaining about complainers.

And oddly enough, so does the Aero eye-candy feature of Vista, something that quite a few of dedicated Windows graphics cards can't pull off.

how many times do you think you need to post this claim before it becomes true?

a radeon 9600 non-pro handles Aero without any problems. Microsoft's recommended specs are exaggerating what you need. the GMA950 is able to run it fine. Look at some charts to see where the GMA950 is on the graphics chip pecking order and you'll see that pretty much every single graphics solution available today is faster, and supports DX9. The mini's version of the 950 isn't faster than any other version of the 950, so it stands to reason that any card that's faster would be able to handle Aero just fine, as well.

a LOT of people who are generally PC users are interested in the mini because they want to use it as a HT hub. They have media storage servers and separate gaming rigs (those who play games, anyway), so they're really only looking for:
a small, quiet box
with optical output (for 5.1 and unfiltered CD stereo),
a DVD drive (for upconverted DVD watching),
a hard drive to hold programs any maybe email and stuff,
a fast network connection (gigabit) for streaming video from a media server,
enough memory to keep things working smoothly,
processing power enough to render 720p or 1080p trailers and videos,
a good enough graphics processor to avoid bottlenecking the CPU,
a TV tuner card, preferrably HD with an ATSC tuner.

The mini is 95% there. All you need is an external HD tuner card and a better graphics system. Who cares if it is integrated...that's not the problem. The problem is that when you use exposé, it studders. When Front Row is trying to navigate around, it can be jerky and distracting. Most of all, videos are unreliable in their playback when they're over DVD dimensions.

a lot of you are saying that you don't need a good graphics card unless you're playing games or doing video editing...but that's not true at all. Apple chose to utilize the 3d graphics capabilities of their machines in every aspect of the system. EVERYTHING uses the graphics card now-a-days on OS X.

some things more than others. My dual processor G5 tower hangs when i open my dashboard because it uses the graphics card and i've got a stinky 5200. By all accounts, the 950 isn't much better. In fact by many accounts, it's worse...
 
Quite frankly for a Mac Mini I'd be happy with even a 7300.
True a 7300 just blows away no contest the GMA950 or even 3000 . I have a 7300 that im not using anymore and it had no fan was passive cooled and could turn on every feature shaders vertix etc. I would guess its a $50 card now so I still dont see cheapo Apple using one in Mini. The Integrated graphics are still Integrated graphics. Cheap and slow performing. Ill bet the next mini stays with cheapo integrated graphics and gets a cpu bump.
GMA950 is horrible for gaming and the benches show this. Just go to MacWorld, or Barefeats if you need proof. Next we get to hear from the "it looks great to me crowd" Its wonderful, runs this and runs that and its better then poontang but never a benchmark, never. There is a reason Apple use to bust on integrated graphics before they went cheap.
 
In that case, why wouldn't you just hook up an external monitor to your iMac? Do you really still have PCs around from late-2002/early-2003?


This is all based on your guess that there is a large market of people wanting this, and frankly, this comment almost always comes from someone like you or Gordy (very technically literate PC people that can quote you the latest rev of any Nvidia or ATI product line).

I guess my question is this: If the market for people like you guys is as big as you think it is, why hasn't Apple targeted it?
Ok want Proff. Do a poll on every apple Site. Ask all of them if they would love to have a upgradeable consumer Mac. Seriously.
I know a lot of Mac owners who are ok having a Macbook But buy a Pc for a desktop just because of The mini not being enough. The imacs AIO factor and the Mac Pros Price.
Seriously Start a offsite Poll that anybody can vote on (Without registering because members of this forum find it ok :( )
 
how many times do you think you need to post this claim before it becomes true?

a radeon 9600 non-pro handles Aero without any problems. Microsoft's recommended specs are exaggerating what you need. the GMA950 is able to run it fine. Look at some charts to see where the GMA950 is on the graphics chip pecking order and you'll see that pretty much every single graphics solution available today is faster, and supports DX9.
Maybe that's been the problem -- I've been dinking around with Vista for the past several months on different consumer-grade machines, none of which have been able to do Aero. They've mostly been IBM NetVistas and Dell Dimensions that we issue to our users here at work.

a lot of you are saying that you don't need a good graphics card unless you're playing games or doing video editing...but that's not true at all. Apple chose to utilize the 3d graphics capabilities of their machines in every aspect of the system. EVERYTHING uses the graphics card now-a-days on OS X.

some things more than others. My dual processor G5 tower hangs when i open my dashboard because it uses the graphics card and i've got a stinky 5200. By all accounts, the 950 isn't much better. In fact by many accounts, it's worse...
For my account, I've never had my Intel mini or MacBook (which have been my daily drivers) hang/lag because of anything graphical that Apple's OS X threw at it. The only time Dashboard lags is when you hit it the first time after a reboot, and that has nothing to do with graphics.
 
Ok want Proff. Do a poll on every apple Site. Ask all of them if they would love to have a upgradeable consumer Mac. Seriously.
I know a lot of Mac owners who are ok having a Macbook But buy a Pc for a desktop just because of The mini not being enough. The imacs AIO factor and the Mac Pros Price.
Seriously Start a offsite Poll that anybody can vote on (Without registering because members of this forum find it ok :( )
I'm thinking that as authoritatively as you've been speaking about "the number of people wanting this" being big, you would have already done such a poll yourself. :confused:
 
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...:official&hs=LD5&q="mac+mini+pro"&btnG=Search
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...al&hs=0E5&q="headless+mac+"+-Mini&btnG=Search
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...:official&hs=yvP&q="Mac+Pro+mini"&btnG=Search
And just google any of its other names in quotes to see people talking about it.(To bad google doesnt move around the words and only takes a Exact quote)

I'm thinking that as authoritatively as you've been speaking about "the number of people wanting this" being big, you would have already done such a poll yourself. :confused:
No but if you go to forums when somebody starts a rumor of a headless consumer mac and people go Nuts.
Or when you say G4 Cube and people change the whole subject to about how they wish there was a consumer desktop mac similar to that.
Or how the people at 123macmini are always talking about the missing link (The non all in one between the Mac mini and the Mac Pro )
 
No but if you go to forums when somebody starts a rumor of a headless consumer mac and people go Nuts.
Just because a minority is vocal, it doesn't make them a large market. And I'm one of those that would love to see an screen-less iMac.

Also net hype doesn't always translate into real $. Take "Snakes on a Plane" as a good example of that.

B
 
Just because a minority is vocal, it doesn't make them a large market. And I'm one of those that would love to see an screen-less iMac.

Also net hype doesn't always translate into real $. Take "Snakes on a Plane" as a good example of that.

B

I guess.. But AIO's Have a even smaller market and it seems to have worked for apple.
 
I guess my question is this: If the market for people like you guys is as big as you think it is, why hasn't Apple targeted it?

Keep in mind that out of all the Macs, the mini in particular is aimed primarily at switchers. In fact, it could so easily be the ideal Mac for any switcher. Only one problem: many (though by no means all) PC users also like gaming.

Who knows how many potential switchers have looked at the mini's integrated graphics & concluded: "No way can I run a lot of my PC stuff through Boot Camp on this!"

An iMac isn't a viable option for many of these guys. So, IMO, Apple are certainly losing market share because of this deficiency.

I think it's about time that at least the higher-end Mac mini had dedicated graphics.
 
Keep in mind that out of all the Macs, the mini in particular is aimed primarily at switchers. In fact, it could so easily be the ideal Mac for any switcher. Only one problem: many (though by no means all) PC users also like gaming.

Who knows how many potential switchers have looked at the mini's integrated graphics & concluded: "No way can I run a lot of my PC stuff through Boot Camp on this!"

An iMac isn't a viable option for many of these guys. So, IMO, Apple are certainly losing market share because of this deficiency.

I think it's about time that at least the higher-end Mac mini had dedicated graphics.

Amen. Im a potential (And likely) Switcher but i dont like Integrated graphis. They are cheap and slow. I think there should be a mac mini pro.
 
The mini is 95% there. All you need is an external HD tuner card and a better graphics system. Who cares if it is integrated...that's not the problem. The problem is that when you use exposé, it studders. When Front Row is trying to navigate around, it can be jerky and distracting. Most of all, videos are unreliable in their playback when they're over DVD dimensions.
Are you talking about an Intel Mini? Cause mine has no such issues. 1.66GHz. Sometimes I read what people say on the web and think I must have gotten a 3.0GHz instead, but About This Mac assures me otherwise. Expose/Dashboard is like lightning, Front Row has no graphics issues and this baby can play 1080p at 24 frames/sec.

Maybe it's possible that people don't actually try something and assume based on what other non-owners have "authoritatively" stated on the web? Sometimes known as FUD.

Amen. Im a potential (And likely) Switcher but i dont like Integrated graphis. They are cheap and slow. I think there should be a mac mini pro.

I agree they need to have a midrange headless model. But why all the ripping on the Mini because of it?
 
Quite frankly, I am glad they haven't upgraded the mini, as I am still feeling quite good about buying the 1.66 Core Duo the week it came out, roughly a year ago:D .

Although the only reason I would buy a newer mini is if a graphics chip came with it.
 
I agree they need to have a midrange headless model. But why all the ripping on the Mini because of it?
Oh. sorry it sounded like i was ripping on the Mini i wasnt. I was just saying that they are cheap (2$-4$) And are 1/7 The speed of the GPU in the :apple: Tv
The fact that they can put a GPU in the :apple: Tv and not the mini kinda makes me mad. I hope they put a decent card in the next. Or Give it the 7400 (Hopefully clocked higher) and offer me a midrange upgradeable one. Because i want a Mac but cant really justify integrated graphics.
 
Oh. sorry it sounded like i was ripping on the Mini i wasnt. I was just saying that they are cheap (2$-4$) And are 1/7 The speed of the GPU in the :apple: Tv
The fact that they can put a GPU in the :apple: Tv and not the mini kinda makes me mad. I hope they put a decent card in the next. Or Give it the 7400 (Hopefully clocked higher) and offer me a midrange upgradeable one. Because i want a Mac but cant really justify integrated graphics.

Well, the :apple:tv is a new product while the mac mini has been out for a year now. Hopefully and I'm pretty confident the new mac mini's will have a new graphics chip, either the nVidia G72M or Intel GMA 3000
 
The mini would be better as a media centre if it had:

* Games level graphics. Would make a neat little gaming system set top box.
* Full size 3.5" hard drive. Need a big honking 750MB drive for a decent video recorder / media holder.
* Blu-ray drive and HDMI connector for next-gen movies.

And the whole thing needn't be much bigger than it is now.

I think we need it for people who want a separate monitor. Since Apple won't give it to us, for most people I think you have to just suck up the pain and buy a 24" imac, enjoy it, and if necessary sell it on when that screen doesn't fit your needs. You'll lose a little, but Macs have reasonable resale, so it may not be as much pain as you think.
 
So should we be expecting these updates anytime within the next month? Only reason I ask is I am installing a touchscreen "carputer" and want to use the Mini instead of those sub-par "PC" setups. Just curious as I notice it has been almost 6 months without an update. I don't mind spending the $$$ for the 1.83Ghz now but I would hate to see something new come out next week!
 
So should we be expecting these updates anytime within the next month? Only reason I ask is I am installing a touchscreen "carputer" and want to use the Mini instead of those sub-par "PC" setups. Just curious as I notice it has been almost 6 months without an update. I don't mind spending the $$$ for the 1.83Ghz now but I would hate to see something new come out next week!

Well now that's the big question isn't it :) . I think the Feb. 20 rumor isn't completely without potential, but my bookie still has it at 10 to 1.

He also won't take bets anymore on the "new mini by the end of March" teaser, as it has become too close to a sure thing, and bookies are almost never wrong. So if you have 6-8 weeks to wait like I do, I'd wait, and if comes out earlier I'll use my winnings to pay for it :cool: .
 
Apple usually only announces a SE one week in advance, right?

So it's possible they might send out an invite on the 13th and still make it in time for the 20th.

-=|Mgkwho
 
Are there any DX10 cards out at the moment?

We have always been talking about how the iMacs, MBPs, and *other macs* have dated puny graphics but I just popped by ATi's website and apparently they are still selling the X1600. Why isn't it replaced with something else yet? :confused:
 
Are there any DX10 cards out at the moment?

We have always been talking about how the iMacs, MBPs, and *other macs* have dated puny graphics but I just popped by ATi's website and apparently they are still selling the X1600. Why isn't it replaced with something else yet? :confused:
You need to look again, Ati has a bunch of stuff more powerful then the old 1600. Just not for little marketshare Mac.
 
Are there any DX10 cards out at the moment?

We have always been talking about how the iMacs, MBPs, and *other macs* have dated puny graphics but I just popped by ATi's website and apparently they are still selling the X1600. Why isn't it replaced with something else yet? :confused:

I really dont get ATI. actualy (Yes i know theyre laptop gpu's) the x1600 Costs MORE than a much faster 7600 GT .. WFT (My new word) Personally i have always preferred nividia over ati. Most of they're cards are pretty fast. All are affordable (strike the 8800GTX But that will be like 400 after the r600 comes out. Its always been nividias strategy.)
also they have the 7900GS .. 179$ But when backed with 2gigs of ram and a Conroe you can get 60+ FPS on High on most games With all maxed at Semi high reses (Whatever is over 1024 x 768 but under 1600 x 1200 )
 
I really dont get ATI. actualy (Yes i know theyre laptop gpu's) the x1600 Costs MORE than a much faster 7600 GT .. WFT (My new word) Personally i have always preferred nividia over ati. Most of they're cards are pretty fast. All are affordable (strike the 8800GTX But that will be like 400 after the r600 comes out. Its always been nividias strategy.)
also they have the 7900GS .. 179$ But when backed with 2gigs of ram and a Conroe you can get 60+ FPS on High on most games With all maxed at Semi high reses (Whatever is over 1024 x 768 but under 1600 x 1200 )

FPS
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.