iPad Mini

I was a pretty die-hard Apple fan up until a year or two ago. The treadmill of products has seemed to ramp up with fewer really revolutionary gains to show for it. Another row of apps and parlor tricks like Siri don't really do it for me.

Yeah, Guru's got it right. If you're interested in gaming, don't buy a $1500 iMac, buy a $1K gaming PC and a $500 Mac Mini. It won't have the cool form factor, but it will play games so, SO much better, and then all the Mac software will run beautifully on a Mini. There are keyboard- and mouse-sharing programs that will let you just flip inputs on the monitor, and then use the same keyboard and mouse on the other computer, without having to do any re-plugging or KVM switching. Stardock has one. I haven't actually used it, but I haven't seen any complaints about it. (You'd likely want to plug the inputs into the Windows machine, and then run the software translation over to the Mac.)

The iMac is beautifully designed, but it's badly compromised in terms of gaming performance. It's using a mobile graphics chip to drive a big screen, which means it's weak to begin with, and then is starved on video memory, to boot. Plus, Apple's Windows drivers tend to suck. I suspect they don't really want you running Windows, they want you in OS X. They certainly don't seem to go much out of their way to make sure Windows works well on their hardware. And gaming in OS X is weaker than on Windows; the Apple drivers are typically written for correctness, not speed. This makes it very stable, and a good platform for many things, but the extra overhead on already-slow video hardware is painful.

Oh, and on the fast product cycle on the iPad, I think the people who are kind of upset have a right to be. It shows very poor planning on Apple's part to ship a product, and then effectively obsolete it just seven months later. It means they needed to wait longer before launching the original. The people that bought the interim product got screwed. They were taken advantage of, trusting that Apple was doing the best it could for them, when it clearly wasn't.

This should be the iPad 3, today. This is the first time it should have actually shipped.

Malor wrote:

Oh, and on the fast product cycle on the iPad, I think the people who are kind of upset have a right to be. It shows very poor planning on Apple's part to ship a product, and then effectively obsolete it just seven months later. It means they needed to wait longer before launching the original. The people that bought the interim product got screwed. They were taken advantage of, trusting that Apple was doing the best it could for them, when it clearly wasn't.

This should be the iPad 3, today. This is the first time it should have actually shipped.

I think that people have a right to be annoyed, but I think it's fair to keep the perspective that these upgrades aren't generally as large as most people think they are. Not from a day-to-day perspective.

I DO think that Apple is playing with fire. Not only do they risk annoying core fans, but they risk getting people in the mindset that they should keep waiting and waiting and waiting. The tricky part is that Apple is now a consumer electronics company. And consumer electronics get refreshed constantly. Just look at the Android phone of the month. I'm hearing grumbling that the phones aren't different enough, that some people were annoyed that the iPhone 5 wasn't different enough. They can't explain in which direction they want it to be different, but they just know that there are hundreds of configurations of Android phones. Some with keyboards, some with large screens, etc. I think this is the real danger, flooding the market with products that are largely identical in functionality and design and setting the expectation that something just like it but more powerful is always around the corner.

MrDeVil909 wrote:
Certis wrote:
So let's just stick to this: is 512 MB of VRAM a real deal-breaker? At 1080p, would 512 MB mean new releases are out of the question, or anything over medium settings is unrealistic, or what?

512MB of RAM on the video card will impact your gaming viability for playing a LOT of games in the next year or so. Considering you'd be buying a closed system with no upgrade potential it's a definite factor in the purchase decision.

Yeah, it's not haterade to say that at that resolution you're looking at Medium settings at best, probably low resolution textures and frame rates will be all over the place.

Look, it will probably work, but I can't imagine it being satisfying.

Okay, good to know. The last time I had a gaming PC, I had 64 MB of VRAM, so 512 MB sounded pretty reasonable for a low end.

So current games are not a reasonable expectation. I'm thinking it might still work for me personally though, since all I want to do is be able to play STALKER (my 9400M/256 is really not up to it). Not that I have $1500 - (current iMac resale) to spare. But then I'm primarily a console gamer, so being a few years behind on PC exclusives is fine. So that's partly why I hold to the idea of having only one computer, i.e. a dual-booting Mac.

Yeah, playing games is close to bottom of the list for me. But definitely a nice to have. And I dislike the Windows experience so I really don't want to own a windows box. Debugging my wife's laptop is enough.

But still, 512 of VRAM? Urg. I guess I'll read the reviews once they come out and see if the performance is likely to bother me greatly.

When you guys say that these new iMacs are all but useless for gaming, are you pretty much just referring to playing newly released games?

My iMac is a 2007, I believe it has an ATI Radeon HD2600 video card in it. Mostly I play TF2 on it, but also stuff like Europa Universalis, Unity of Command and some other older stuff from Steam. Anything I might want to play that is new (XCOM for example) I just play on the PS3.

I'm not yet ready to think about upgrading, but when I do I assume anything I get will still be a big step up from where I'm at now, no? Even if it's one of these new "underpowered" machines I should be able to add some newer games to my steam list I would think. Heck, I'd be happy if I could just play TF2 on high settings.

fleabagmatt wrote:

When you guys say that these new iMacs are all but useless for gaming, are you pretty much just referring to playing newly released games?

My iMac is a 2007, I believe it has an ATI Radeon HD2600 video card in it. Mostly I play TF2 on it, but also stuff like Europa Universalis, Unity of Command and some other older stuff from Steam. Anything I might want to play that is new (XCOM for example) I just play on the PS3.

I'm not yet ready to think about upgrading, but when I do I assume anything I get will still be a big step up from where I'm at now, no? Even if it's one of these new "underpowered" machines I should be able to add some newer games to my steam list I would think. Heck, I'd be happy if I could just play TF2 on high settings. :D

From the looks of it, you're primarily a console gamer and not a PC gamer. When they talk about "if you want to play games, get a PC" they are talking to PC gamers.

fleabagmatt wrote:

Heck, I'd be happy if I could just play TF2 on high settings. :D

I have a late 2007 iMac, and I can play TF2 on high settings! It's the most recent game I can play well. (Technically, I mean. Not strategically. No way.)

Gravey wrote:
fleabagmatt wrote:

Heck, I'd be happy if I could just play TF2 on high settings. :D

I have a late 2007 iMac, and I can play TF2 on high settings! It's the most recent game I can play well. (Technically, I mean. Not strategically. No way.)

Another data point, for whatever it's worth: I have a 2009 Mac Pro with a 512MB HD4870 card. I haven't played TF2, but HL2E2 and Portal 2 both run smoothly with all the graphics options maxed out. Guild Wars 2 with max graphics is playable but choppy at times (I normally turn the options down a bit), with frame rates from 10-15 (LA at rush hour) to 40-50 (sparsely populated wilderness).

(Those are all using the Mac clients, not running Windows. I don't know how much difference that might make or in which direction.)

Gravey wrote:
fleabagmatt wrote:

Heck, I'd be happy if I could just play TF2 on high settings. :D

I have a late 2007 iMac, and I can play TF2 on high settings! It's the most recent game I can play well. (Technically, I mean. Not strategically. No way.)

What resolution? That's where memory matters. I thought those were maybe 1680x1050? Going to the higher res is where you start to push memory limits.

Not saying it that TF2 wouldn't run on the new stuff, but it's not exactly the same if other variables like resolution don't match up to your setup.

I love how the iPad Mini was the focus going into the event and has turned out to be the least impressive and interesting piece of hardware shown off.

trueheart78 wrote:

I love how the iPad Mini was the focus going into the event and has turned out to be the least impressive and interesting piece of hardware shown off.

I think that's more about the price than the tech. I think people would have been much more excited about it had it been sub $300.

MannishBoy wrote:
trueheart78 wrote:

I love how the iPad Mini was the focus going into the event and has turned out to be the least impressive and interesting piece of hardware shown off.

I think that's more about the price than the tech. I think people would have been much more excited about it had it been sub $300.

I was expecting a 32gig model for the $330.

I was expecting a better than 1024 x 768 screen on that thing.

I mean... seriously?

trueheart78 wrote:

I was expecting a better than 1024 x 768 screen on that thing.

I mean... seriously?

My guess is they did that to avoid having to add support for another new display resolution to iOS. Except that they didn't mind giving the iPhone 5 a new resolution, and 1024 x 768 is just bizarrely low compared to everything else they currently sell.

The iPad Mini display size is small because they're working on another model with higher resolution display which they'll announce in 6 months. (said firmly tongue in cheek)

trueheart78 wrote:

I was expecting a better than 1024 x 768 screen on that thing.

I mean... seriously?

In six months to a year they're going to announce iPad Mini with Retina Display. I think they'll also kill off iPad 2 by then.

MannishBoy wrote:
Gravey wrote:
fleabagmatt wrote:

Heck, I'd be happy if I could just play TF2 on high settings. :D

I have a late 2007 2009 iMac, and I can play TF2 on high settings! It's the most recent game I can play well. (Technically, I mean. Not strategically. No way.)

What resolution? That's where memory matters. I thought those were maybe 1680x1050? Going to the higher res is where you start to push memory limits.

Not saying it that TF2 wouldn't run on the new stuff, but it's not exactly the same if other variables like resolution don't match up to your setup.

Woah, I meant 2009, not 2007! (Just to reiterate: 9400M and 256 MB of shared VRAM, OS X and XP SP3.)

Native res (1920x1080) in OS X. CS:Source plays that well too. Mind you these games came out two years before my model of iMac did.

L4D2 runs at half-res with effects off in OS X if I want an acceptable framerate; in XP I can turn the effects on, but the rest stays the same.

STALKER and Far Cry 2 in XP (obv) at half-res on low/medium run at <20 fps, so effectively unplayable. But they were Steam sale buys, so I can wait for my next machine.

Here's how the resolution stacks up, if you wanted a visual aide.

IMAGE(http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/183991cuqns7qjpg/original.jpg)

I heard that if you take a screen shot of the iPad home screen, then rotate the iPad while viewing the image, that's almost exactly the screen size of the iPad mini. Also, if it's the iPad 2 it will also be the same resolution.

Did anyone order one?

I'm thinking about getting the iPad 4 but that's about it.

I have thought about getting rid of my iPad 1 and getting one but I'm in no hurry to do so. More interested in the Windows RT tablets.

I've got an iPad 3 refurb sitting at home waiting for me. Got a pretty nice deal on it from Apple! Not much more than a new mini.

Coincidently, my 2008 work MacBook unibody has been chugging so I decided to get an upgrade. After researching, decided to go with a 13" retina MacBook. Stuck with the i5 but upped the HD to 256GB. Should have it early November.

I was seriously considering Windows 8 laptops, but decided I'd just dual boot Windows 8 onto the MacBook.

In a stunning twist of events, Gizmodo turns off the Apple-Love-Fest for 5 minutes:

http://gizmodo.com/5955054/tim-cook-...

http://gizmodo.com/5954863/the-ipad-...

http://gizmodo.com/5954269/the-ipad-...

Gizmodo's kind of been swinging the pendulum to MS cheerleading the last few months. Although they gave Surface RT a bad review, they've been pretty positive about Win Phone and Win 8's design ideas for awhile.

So I don't think they're necessarily an Apple shill site. Most of the big gadget sites aren't, although you'll have voices at those sites that might be strongly leaning to one ecosystem/company or another. The three big gadget blogs (Verge, Gizmodo, and Engadget) seem to be OK to me.

CaptainCrowbar wrote:
Gravey wrote:
fleabagmatt wrote:

Heck, I'd be happy if I could just play TF2 on high settings. :D

I have a late 2007 iMac, and I can play TF2 on high settings! It's the most recent game I can play well. (Technically, I mean. Not strategically. No way.)

Another data point, for whatever it's worth: I have a 2009 Mac Pro with a 512MB HD4870 card. I haven't played TF2, but HL2E2 and Portal 2 both run smoothly with all the graphics options maxed out. Guild Wars 2 with max graphics is playable but choppy at times (I normally turn the options down a bit), with frame rates from 10-15 (LA at rush hour) to 40-50 (sparsely populated wilderness).

(Those are all using the Mac clients, not running Windows. I don't know how much difference that might make or in which direction.)

I'm running a 2009 24" iMac (1920x1200, Radeon HD 4850 with 512MB) and am still surprised at the games I have no problems running at native res. All 3 Mass Effect games ran great on it at native res with everything maxed out (had to turn down some options on ME 3, but it still looked great). I get ~45 FPS running Skyrim at a mix of medium and high settings with a few mods installed. XCom looks fantastic.

On the Mac side, the two most demanding games I play are probably Civ V and CK2. I have to decrease the res of Civ V and it still starts to chug in the end game. It runs much better in Bootcamp, but I don't have it installed there. CK2 runs nearly as well on OSX as it did in Bootcamp when it was first released.

Granted, I'm generally not playing graphically demanding FPSs or anything. I don't know - maybe my standards are low.

I don't think the question at hand is "can you do decent gaming on a Mac" but "can you do decent gaming on that Mac with that chipset". And the answer, at least going off specs and review sites, seems to be "depends on the game". It looks like it meets a lot of minimum system requirements but falls short of most recommended requirements. And if my experience lately with minimum system requirements is anything to go by, minimum specs aren't really what you want to be looking at for a satisfying experience in most cases.

(That's not even taking into account the resolution that mobile chipset is expected to be pushing.)

Historically, 'minimum' system requirements have been laughably underpowered for most games, because the marketroids usually come up with them, and their job is to increase sales. So they err on the side of ridiculous optimism. The game doesn't have to be fun, it just has to run.

Typically, 'recommended' requirements should be treated as the minimum. Often, you want even more.

I've also come to the conclusion that most peoples definition of "runs and looks great" is nowhere near my own..