Log in

View Full Version : Mac Mini all About HD Movies? I Don't Think So


Jason Dunn
01-24-2005, 04:00 PM
<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20050120.html' target='_blank'>http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20050120.html</a><br /><br /></div><i>"Everyone seems to think the Mini is a media PC, and it has the basic characteristics of one. Though the box has no TV tuner, Apple does offer an analog adapter. And you can burn DVDs with it if you get the optional DVD burner. Still, there were hints in that MacWorld presentation of something bigger to come, and the Mac Mini is a big part of that. Here's my thinking, and it is just thinking -- I have no insider knowledge of Apple's plans, I haven't been diving in any Cupertino dumpsters, and nobody who knows the truth has told me a darned thing. I think the Mac Mini is a fixed component in a system that will extend iTunes to selling and distributing movies."</i><br /><br />A very interesting and engaging article penned by Robert X. Cringely - he has an amazing mind, but I'm pretty sure he's wrong on this one. I've been experimenting with different media player solutions over the past year, and integrating a computer with your TV set isn't as simple as it might seem. There would have to be many other pieces falling into place before a Mac Mini could serve as a conduit for HD content, and as it stands right now the Mac Mini itself doesn't fit. Let's start with performance - the Mac Mini simply doesn't have the horsepower to decode HD video, unless AVC H.264-encoded HD video is somehow <i>extremely</i> easy to decode. The video chip set (ATI Radeon 9200) with 32 MB of RAM, and the front-side bus speed of 167 mhz simply don't have the capacity to do HD video. The ATI Radeon 9200 has no HD-specific decoding capabilities, which means the heavy lifting would have to be done by the 1.25 Ghz CPU.<br /><br />And a 40 GB or even 80 GB hard drive? Completely insufficient - sure, you're doing a progressive download, but at 40 GB you'd only be able to fit a couple of movies on there. There's no optical out for audio on the Mac, nor any indication of support for 5.1 sound - you're not going to connect this to your TV set using a 3.5mm minijack (though it's possible with a cable converter). The pieces of the puzzle are all wrong. Ultimately I think this is a pipe dream - people ascribe God-like precogniscience to Apple and it's business plans, but history has shown they're just as short-sighted as most computer companies. The Mac Mini is a cheap Mac designed to lure in budget-minded computer users who want to try out what Apple has to offer, nothing more. Sometimes a duck is really just a duck.

Jason Dunn
01-24-2005, 07:11 PM
Gee, I thought this would have triggered at least a couple of comments. ;-)

James Fee
01-24-2005, 07:31 PM
I don't know. Its just people making something out of a computer that isn't designed to do anything of the such. Remove the CD drive and add more HD space and you have something that could work well, but even then the form factor is bizzar for a home theater setup. Anyone who has tried to balance an Xbox or other similar square form on top of a receiver or dvd player knows what I'm talking about.

klinux
01-24-2005, 07:36 PM
Yeah, using the Mini for a digital (mostly audio) server makes sense but not for HD. It is like mini-itx, make it small enough people's imagination starts to come alive!

PJE
01-24-2005, 07:38 PM
I agree with what you say.

It's a shame Apple didn't see the potential, but without optical out it can reach the level of a non-HD TiVo style box for a few customers who can port in content over Ethenet/WiFi, but the market is going HD.

The Mac mini is therefore, plain an simple a small email/browser box for non-power users. Or a nice MP3 jukebox for the home entertainment unit.

What will be interesting is what the PC manufacturers will put up against it. Via already has the 12cmx12cm NanoITX motherboard which will be able to be built into this type of device, but it really needs someone to do NanoITX (or even MiniITX) board with a Pentium M and a nice video chip.

Check out the Nanode at: http://www.mini-itx.com/news/nanode/

klinux
01-24-2005, 10:32 PM
I don't think it is a fact of Apple not seeing the potential - it is the classic question what to do when and how much?

For example, in the lab of Apple (or insert your favorite company's name here) there is probably a machine that has enough horsepower and features that can do what 90% of what an HDTV consumer wants to do with a HTPC.

However, can they solve the thermal problems by making it quiet and stylish enough? Have they solved most of the human interface problems/quirks? There are so many questions here to make such a device as easy, intuitive, and stable to use as a plain television.

And finally, say if those problem are all solved and it comes time to sell the machine. It may cost $2000, for example, which may be cheap considering Apple's premium and expensive for many other consumers. Many not likely pay that much for something that they have not even used or heard of. (OS X? What's that? Does it run Windows? Do I have to install anti-virus?)

The iMac Mini, thus, is a trojan horse. People are more likely to to buy something that is $500 - heck they spend that amount of money on a iPod so why not a stylish SFF that works with my iPod too? Apple did not position this explicitly as a HTPC or a car PC (many people noticed the DIN size too) and no doubt someone's tinkering in their lab figuring out what to do with revision b, etc, or its big brother - the iMac HDTV!

Lee Yuan Sheng
01-24-2005, 10:36 PM
How much processing power does a HD stream need? Just asking out of curiousity.

PJE
01-24-2005, 10:41 PM
The iMac Mini, thus, is a trojan horse. People are more likely to to buy something that is $500 - heck they spend that amount of money on a iPod so why not a stylish SFF that works with my iPod too?

With their focus on the iPod and digital music, why no optical output?

I can understand it not being HD, but not being able to output music to an amp via an optical cable is a little stingy. Firewire/USB is fine but Id rather have some things built in. Creative? had a combined optical output and headphone socket which would work very well in this applicaiton.

Phronetix
01-24-2005, 11:23 PM
The iMac Mini, thus, is a trojan horse. People are more likely to to buy something that is $500 - heck they spend that amount of money on a iPod so why not a stylish SFF that works with my iPod too?

With their focus on the iPod and digital music, why no optical output?

I can understand it not being HD, but not being able to output music to an amp via an optical cable is a little stingy. Firewire/USB is fine but Id rather have some things built in. Creative? had a combined optical output and headphone socket which would work very well in this applicaiton.

Why no optical out?

The answer is simple, really. It's not meant to function as a media-centre. It's a computer. Perhaps Cringely went a wee bit far out on a limb with his comments?

I agree with Jason on this one. Sometimes a duck is just a duck. The Mac mini doesn't need those bells and whistles. You bring it home in its cute lil box, pop it out, plug in the various cords, turn it on and never need to see windows again. No viruses (yet, i add), just as stable or more so, brilliant features that xp cannot match (expose, drag and drop intuitiveness, iMovie, iPhoto, Safari, iSync, Mail's junk filter), enough processing power (albeit without enough ram, dammit apple, don't you ever learn?) to cover everything that over 90% of consumers use their computer for.

The Mac mini is a slam dunk for apple. It is your parent's new computer. After all, their idea of a media center is a VCR and a DVD player. It is your neighbour's new computer, who really can't be bothered with all the spam filters, anti-virus software and updating, security updates, updated drivers, fiddling with network settings etc. They just want a web portal, word processor, speadsheet, simple photo and video editing that works well, and well together.

Phro

James Fee
01-25-2005, 12:48 AM
http://www.mfli.net/blog/2005_01_01_blog.html#110660239229680686

Here is a comparison of building a Shuttle MCE PC with building a Mac Mini Media Center. Conclusion is that the Shuttle is $860 and the Mac is $1400.

James Fee
01-25-2005, 12:52 AM
http://mrzippy.org.uk/macmediacenter/

The Mac Media Center Project is now open for business... :lol:

Jason Dunn
01-25-2005, 01:26 AM
I don't think it is a fact of Apple not seeing the potential - it is the classic question what to do when and how much?

I never said it was a matter of Apple not seeing the potential - I was pointing out that I felt Cringely was wrong in his assessment.

You're REALLY touchy about people criticizing the Apple Mini - you know that, right? 8O

Jason Dunn
01-25-2005, 01:30 AM
How much processing power does a HD stream need? Just asking out of curiousity.

Tough to say. Regular HD is MPEG2, which I think the Mac Mini would be able to handle. But HD wrapped up in a tightly compressed shell, like WMV, requires major muscle:

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/content_provider/film/ContentShowcase.aspx

(scroll to the bottom)

Without hardware assistance from a GPU, it takes huge horsepower to decode WMV HD.

Quicktime HD would likely have similar requirements - anything that has much smaller file sizes that MPEG2 HD should also require more muscle to decode.

Macguy59
01-25-2005, 01:41 AM
I would have to see the logic board before I could dismiss the idea out of hand. The HD and video are easily upgradable in the current form factor.

Macguy59
01-25-2005, 01:43 AM
How much processing power does a HD stream need? Just asking out of curiousity.

Tough to say. Regular HD is MPEG2, which I think the Mac Mini would be able to handle. But HD wrapped up in a tightly compressed shell, like WMV, requires major muscle:

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/content_provider/film/ContentShowcase.aspx

(scroll to the bottom)

Without hardware assistance from a GPU, it takes huge horsepower to decode WMV HD.

Quicktime HD would likely have similar requirements - anything that has much smaller file sizes that MPEG2 HD should also require more muscle to decode.

Sounds like a good reason not use WMV HD then :wink:

Jason Dunn
01-25-2005, 02:03 AM
I would have to see the logic board before I could dismiss the idea out of hand. The HD and video are easily upgradable in the current form factor.

I'm not so sure about that...2.5" drives are at 100 GB currently, and they're pretty pricey at that size. Video? It's going to be integrated into the motherboard, not a card that you can swap out. Combine that with the fact that the case isn't designed to be user-serviceable, and you have a machine that isn't meant to be upgraded. Maybe a future version of the Mac Mini will have more high-end components, but given the size, I doubt it.

Jason Dunn
01-25-2005, 02:04 AM
Sounds like a good reason not use WMV HD then :wink:

I'm no codec engineer, but I think you'll find that all highly compressed video formats need more horsepower to decode - this isn't something that's specific to WMV. And MPEG2 HD would take up even more space and take FOREVER to stream down...which is the basis of the original article.

Macguy59
01-25-2005, 02:20 AM
I would have to see the logic board before I could dismiss the idea out of hand. The HD and video are easily upgradable in the current form factor.

I'm not so sure about that...2.5" drives are at 100 GB currently, and they're pretty pricey at that size. Video? It's going to be integrated into the motherboard, not a card that you can swap out. Combine that with the fact that the case isn't designed to be user-serviceable, and you have a machine that isn't meant to be upgraded. Maybe a future version of the Mac Mini will have more high-end components, but given the size, I doubt it.

I didn't say user-upgradable. I think if Apple chose to make this a media hub they could do so in the current form factor. From the video I've seen of it being cracked open, it sure looks to me like it could handle a regular half-height drive. They could also incorporate higher end video. All of this at a higher price of course but still coming in at less then the typical media center PC.

klinux
01-25-2005, 03:24 AM
I don't think it is a fact of Apple not seeing the potential - it is the classic question what to do when and how much?

I never said it was a matter of Apple not seeing the potential

It's a shame Apple didn't see the potential.

Hmm, Jason, I think we may have our wires crossed. When I said it was not a matter of Apple not seeing the potential, I was responding to PJE's statement, not yours.

*******************
I was pointing out that I felt Cringely was wrong in his assessment.

Actually, I agree with you here since post #1 in this thread. My posts, if they were to be interpereted as the way they were intended, have always been that Mini and HD do not mix.

*******************
You're REALLY touchy about people criticizing the Apple Mini - you know that, right? 8O

I think perhaps we are just interpereting each other's thoughts wrong here. I do not think the Mini is above criticism. It is definitely the wrong machine for many people here on DMT. There are better systems out there (on Apple or x86) if you need a full system.

No harm no foul, OK? :wink:

klinux
01-25-2005, 03:42 AM
How much processing power does a HD stream need? Just asking out of curiousity.

Jason has already answered this question but one thing to add is that Apple' has not made available or clear its API to utilize the GPU to decode the HD content to third party developers. As a result, high CPU requirements are needed for HD playback (either MPEG-2 or MPEG-4 variants) and thus making the Mini unsuitable.

Recording of HD stream is not processor intensive as it is simply writing data to HD.

I can understand it not being HD, but not being able to output music to an amp via an optical cable is a little stingy.

Agreed. Apple has been often criticized for this along with its one button mouse. All Macs really should have ditched the modem and gone with a digital out.

klinux
01-25-2005, 03:50 AM
http://www.mfli.net/blog/2005_01_01_blog.html#110660239229680686

Here is a comparison of building a Shuttle MCE PC with building a Mac Mini Media Center. Conclusion is that the Shuttle is $860 and the Mac is $1400.

I think this falls under another one of those how we can soup up Mini exercises. To his credit, the author did put in the following disclaimer: "Draw whatever conclusions you want. Granted that putting all the components together yourself may take a lot of work and tech know-how, but also know that while there are a lot of $2000-$3000 MS media center PCs out there, there are also ones that sell for under $1000."

I (and Jason) have put together SFFs before, while it is fun and educational and all that, ultimately my time turns out to be more vauable than building a DIY system.

But it is interesting you pointed this out. Someone also did this a couple of weeks ago but not from the media center perspective. Check out http://www.systemshootouts.org/shootouts/desktop/2005/0111_sff0600.html.

James Fee
01-25-2005, 05:08 AM
I think this falls under another one of those how we can soup up Mini exercises.
Well if one hopes to use it as a media center, you'll have to "soup it up". *shrug* I had thought this was the topic of this thread.

I think we need to put a moratorium on Mac mini talk here because some people are just a little touchy on the subject. :roll:

klinux
01-25-2005, 08:37 AM
Actually, James, I am mostly in agreement with you here, believe it or not!

The iMac Mini cannot decode HD, so this rules it out as a HD media machine. For a number of reasons other people have mentioned, it would probably not be a good idea of it to be a regular video media machine either.

However, I think it has a potential to be a good audio media machine which communicates seamlessly with iPod. But there is one last media often mentioned here at DMT that is not mentioned here - I think the Mini would be a great photography media server.

So, Mini is good as audio and photo media center and there is no need to soup it up to max for that. Mini is not a good fit for video media center and a very bad idea for HD video media center.

Lee Yuan Sheng
01-25-2005, 10:25 AM
Well, you can always wait for the Mac Mini 2. Or for the taiwanese to follow suit. Mmmm, dreaming of Barton cored CPUs on these things, yea!

treo007
01-25-2005, 09:14 PM
Well, it sounds like it's being done already:

http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000057028826/

Tom W.M.
01-30-2005, 06:50 AM
I can decode 960x528 Xvid video (with 6-channel AC3 audio) on my 900 mhz. Duron machine. This machine has ~384 MB RAM (PC100) and an ATI Rage 128 graphics card with 16MB of RAM. The video is encoded at 2053 kbps and the audio at 384 kbps, and at almost 40 minutes long comes to 699MB. The player is Video LAN Client. (The fastest video player. Period.)

If, on such a slow machine, I can decode such an HD stream, surely a (far faster) Mac Mini would be able to do so.

Jason Dunn
01-30-2005, 07:39 AM
I can decode 960x528 Xvid video (with 6-channel AC3 audio) on my 900 mhz. Duron machine. This machine has ~384 MB RAM (PC100) and an ATI Rage 128 graphics card with 16MB of RAM. The video is encoded at 2053 kbps and the audio at 384 kbps, and at almost 40 minutes long comes to 699MB...If, on such a slow machine, I can decode such an HD stream, surely a (far faster) Mac Mini would be able to do so.

Umm...no. I hate to break it to you, but that's not HD video. The lowest spec for HD is 720p, which is 1280 x 720. That's 921,600 pixels per frame. 960 x 528 is almost half that. The bit rate of WMV HD is around 8.5 mbps, almost quadruple what you're playing at.

Go here and download a HD WMV file:

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/content_provider/film/ContentShowcase.aspx

See how your system does at it. I just tried on my wife's computer, a 1.6 Ghz P4 with 512 MB RAM and a RAGE 128 Pro video card and it was a freakin' slideshow - completely useless for HD. I suspect your machine will fare about the same, if not worse.

Now it may be that the Mac Mini CPU can do some things this P4 can't, or it may be that Apple's Quicktime 7.0 HD will magically be easy to play on Macs, but those are a lot of maybe's...

Real HD video is hard on a machine and takes some serious power to decode.

Jason Dunn
01-30-2005, 07:43 AM
Well, it sounds like it's being done already...

Did you read the article?

"In fact, you only need a 500Mhz processor for recording, because it’s the breakout box itself that does the heavy lifting, and not your Mac. The bad news is, you’ll need either a digital TV with a DVI connector, or a serious horsepower Mac to play back your recorded MPEG-2 content over component HD cabling, because in the reverse process, the Mac’s CPU has to bear the burden...If you are stuck in this boat with us, and you happen to be lucky enough to have a dual processor G5 just lying around collecting dust that you can dedicate to the front end of your media center..."

So you need an external box to do the encoding because the Mac Mini CPU can't handle it, AND you need a burly box to do the decoding because the Mac Mini can't do that either. Ummm, hello? Smoke and mirrors anyone? This is ridiculous...! :roll:

treo007
01-31-2005, 06:47 PM
Well, it sounds like it's being done already...

Did you read the article?

"In fact, you only need a 500Mhz processor for recording, because it’s the breakout box itself that does the heavy lifting, and not your Mac. The bad news is, you’ll need either a digital TV with a DVI connector, or a serious horsepower Mac to play back your recorded MPEG-2 content over component HD cabling, because in the reverse process, the Mac’s CPU has to bear the burden...If you are stuck in this boat with us, and you happen to be lucky enough to have a dual processor G5 just lying around collecting dust that you can dedicate to the front end of your media center..."

So you need an external box to do the encoding because the Mac Mini CPU can't handle it, AND you need a burly box to do the decoding because the Mac Mini can't do that either. Ummm, hello? Smoke and mirrors anyone? This is ridiculous...! :roll:

Yes, I read the article and I didn't say one way or the other as to whether I liked the implementation (but you've got to start somewhere).

What does intrigue me (and I think the reason for all the hype) however is that it's done utilizing OS X. I want a home media center setup, I just don't want to use a Microsoft OS to do it. Maybe Tivo will get there? I read today that they're releasing a development kit that will allow anyone to create applications and web services for their box:

http://tivohme.sourceforge.net/

Tom W.M.
02-01-2005, 12:03 AM
Umm...no. I hate to break it to you, but that's not HD video. The lowest spec for HD is 720p, which is 1280 x 720. That's 921,600 pixels per frame. 960 x 528 is almost half that. The bit rate of WMV HD is around 8.5 mbps, almost quadruple what you're playing at.
Ach, I feel stupid. I confused horizontal and vertical measurements. This makes me wonder why the video was representend as HD when I downloaded it. I'm confused :?.

Incidentaly, I downloaded an HD WMV demo some time ago on another computer--like you said, slideshow. In this instance I assumed that the difference was due to Video LAN Client, which has consistently produced miracles with playback of hefty files.

Jason Dunn
02-01-2005, 12:33 AM
Ach, I feel stupid. I confused horizontal and vertical measurements. This makes me wonder why the video was representend as HD when I downloaded it. I'm confused :?.

No worries, there's a lot to learn in this field. :-) Some people assume that anything above 720 x 480 is HD, but that's not always the case of course.

Incidentaly, I downloaded an HD WMV demo some time ago on another computer--like you said, slideshow. In this instance I assumed that the difference was due to Video LAN Client, which has consistently produced miracles with playback of hefty files.

Highly compressed HD video takes more cycles to decompress - you pay for the smaller file size by needing more CPU/GPU power to decode it.