I wonder why they went with Intel instead of Amd, the only reason I can see is the supply. If Amd gets too much demand they won't be able to make enough processors and that will hurt them, but who knows maybe that would help them out. Apple did make a wise choice in coming to the x86 platform. But why would you still keep your hardware proprietary, I mean think about how many new customers you could have if you opened it up to any computer. But then if you think about it, why does ms have so many issues? The huge array of hardware software vendors and products, chips, graphic cards motherboards and usually it's these components or drivers that have the issues, not the os itself. So by keeping the hardware set locked down and building the computer yourself, you guarentee stability. I guess, so what else can you do right? I would use mac os x on the pc, even dell said they would sell it if given the option, that would be huge!

Does anyone know how good the graphics card is? I know is not a gaming machine, but lets say you want to use it for dvd playback, video files, and making home movies.

Including a TV tuner in the Mac mini would not be a problem for Apple. The mini is just aching for one.

What's holding them back is that they don't have a TiVo solution, yet. Also, Apple doesn't want to piss off the networks who are just beginning to license their shows to the iTunes store.

The Front Row application is just crippled when compared to MCE.

A TV tuner wouldn't be very useful to the 77% of Americans with cable or satellite boxes.

This would make a great media center.

Neat. Why is this more expensive then the previous models? I thought that the Intel Processors allowed faster speeds for lower prices.

The previous MacMinis were $499 and $599 if I remember correctly... these aren't overpriced... just not as competitive as the previous models...

I'd pay $799 for a model with an ATI RADEON and 1GB of RAM though =)

They're more expensive because the Intel Core processors are more expensive than the PowerPC chips. In fact, the Core processor is the most expensive hardware component for Apple. Or so I've read.

is this a computer or it's more like a media center?

More like a Media Center, from what I've understood.

Comes with a remote, for chrissakes.

Yeah, but so does the iMac and MacBook Pro. (In fact, every time they refresh a line--even the last refresh of the PPC iMacs--they do this.) I see a trend going on here, and I expect this to be standard on all their machines before long.

Absolutely NOTHING like a media center. Notice there is no TV tuner. WTF? If this had a TV tuner with TiVo like capabilities, I would have bought one instantly.

Way to miss the mark apple. Instead, give me a remote control so I can cycle through my screen saver slide show.

I can easily see this blowing Windows MCE units out of the water.

Anyone got a linky to screenshots of Front Row in action?

Also, do these things come with a built-in tuner?

One thing, I don't see this being used with a TV tuner card so it won't blow away Windows MCE until the put that function in. Being able to use it as a TV tuner and have a guide.

No tuner. (Front Row 1.0 is not yet Windows MCE.) Front Row in action:

http://www.apple.com/imac/frontrow.html

Looks nice.

Yeah, it would be nice if they included tuner functionality, though if I can put the sucker online, I'd basically have the ability to watch any of my shows, burn 'em, store 'em....etc.

Still worth looking at, IMO.

"Intel GMA950 graphics processor with 64MB of DDR2 SDRAM shared with main memory"

Ouch... just shoot me now...

Yeah, it's no Radeon 9600, but think about what this box is for: watching media. It's not for gaming, it's not for hard core Mac users. It's a cheap option for hooking up to your TV and the GMA950 is more than adequate for that purpose.

More information on the chipset is here:

http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/gma950/

I don't care, I hate Intel graphics, its a piece of s*** for PC and it'll probably be the same for Mac. Every machine I've used that has had Intel graphics has had bad crash problems, always ended up putting in a real graphics card. The only good motherboard built on graphics is Nvidia, and maybe ATI.

Every Dell I've ever used has had Intel Graphics.

None have failed, all have been rock solid systems.

Since I am the network admin here, I have used all 100+ of our Dell systems. I'd say that's a pretty good track record for Intel graphics.

Indeed. Intel graphics is slow, but it's stable. Leaps and bounds ahead of SiS integrated graphics. They're just crap... or maybe their drivers are. Bit of both? :P

Oh come on now. Defending the current generation of Intel Graphics on the basis of stability is akin to defending a grandmother with a walker in a foot-race. Yes, grandma might be stable with that walker, but stability is (at best) only half the issue.

IMHO, NO company with any regard for or deceny toward the consumer should be using the built-in Intel product -- it's 2006 and it simply doesn't stand pat. To say that those who are going to be purchasing these laptops don't need anything more is a DOUBLE conceit: it's a conceit because point to fact there will be plenty of people who do purchase these laptops with an eye toward at least some gaming, or other more graphics moderate (if not intensive) activities. It's also a conceit because it fails to acknowledge that it's more and more status quo that even the most low-level of activities requires a more robust graphics solution than that provided by Intel in the present moment.

Now, supposedly, for Intel's 3rd generation, they're trying to dislodge themselves from the infamy that has been attached to this underperforming and underachieving product. In another year, maybe I'll be singing a different tune.

But, here and now, this is an irresponsible move by Apple.

The last computer I used with Intel graphics was a Gateway computer with Intel Extreme Graphics and an Intel 845G chipset. The computer had an Intel Celeron 2GHz processor with 512MB PC2100 DDR SDRAM and Windows XP Home Edition SP 2.

This was the slowest computer I have ever used. It was slower than my old ATI Rage IIc AGP 2x graphics card at simple 2D graphics tasks like watching high bitrate streaming video or playing movie DVD's. After experiencing Intel's crappy graphics performance I would never use an Intel graphics solution again.

To say that those who are going to be purchasing these laptops

Laptops?

Are you high? Did you *bother* to read the actual article, or are you just pissing blind? Obviously, you've never even *seen* a Mac Mini, much less looked at it's intended audience/purpose. This kind of makes your comments moot, being uninformed to the extreme, but I will humor you anyway and reply with some actual *gasp* FACTS.

2 points, to inform the clueless:

1.) It's not for gaming, this isn't a gaming device. This is for displaying the desktop and video playback, which it does quite well.

From TFA (had you actually read it, you'd know this):
As expected, the mini will ship with Apple's Front Row media interface and six-button remote control. Apple has designed the Mac mini to easily link up with a television to serve as a media receiver.

A new feature in Front Row enables support for listening to music, photos and videos shared from other machines on the network.

2.) For what this machine is and will be advertised to do, the graphics chip will more than be able to handle. If you want to use it for something else...? Stupid you.

I'm sorry you hate this chip. Perhaps you expected it to do something more than it was intended to do? That's your problem, though...not the chips.

Sounds like you had somethign else wrong with the system. Did you uninstall all the "Gateway" preinstalled crap?

That graphics chip does DVDs quite well on a 1.2 Ghz system, much less a 2Ghz.

Sadly, for each anecdotal report of how bad these chips are, I can give you about 100 about how well they performed at their *intended* tasks.

The computer came with a Windows XP Home Edition CD, NOT a system restore CD. I actually installed a brand new Western Digital 35GB Raptor hard drive along with a PCI Silicon Image 3112 SATA controller and did a fresh install of Windows XP Home Edition SP 2. The performance didn't change.

Gotta tell ya, I don't know what the problem could have been, then. We've got a ton of Dells with those exact chips and they play DVDs just fine.

no matter how good your Pentium is , if u wanna play games one needs a gfx card from ati or nvidia.
Intel's chips are not for gaming, but many people think it is and they end up with slow fps.
because of the strong brand Intel is able to sell crappy stuff with their good stuff.

at the same time the chip is good enough for DVD/mp3 playback. at the price it is very reasonable.

don't expect cheap 100cc Chinese bike to run like a chopper. (Intel is made in china too)
i always go with Germany/USA made amd's

your problem might be that you have shared very little ram with gfx.