Slashdot Mirror
Mac mini All About Movies?
bikerguy99 writes "Robert X. Cringely, who had a good nose for the Mac mini from the very beginning, has published another bit of his thoughts on PBS. This time he speculates that Mac mini is all about movies - his thoughts on the subject are quite logical and provide intriguing insights into Apple's interest in producing a cheap headless Mac in the first place."
and most won't even hear that marketing.
of normal joe's that is. for others it's a good start for a small computer if you either want it to be a mac or don't care about the os(but it's just a start still, if you just want to view movies on the tv you're better off buying a stand alone player or heck, even xbox.. and most people won't ever edit movies).
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
You COULD just buy her the Mac. Fuck, dude, let her have her way once in awhile. She'll think the world of you for it and learn a lesson in economics when next week she sees an ad for essentially the same thing (minus the Apple Logo Tax) for half the price and twice the features.
When my wife asks for the "cute little MAC", what PC can I buy instead?
A DIY shuttle-like PC would crush the mac mini in ever respect.
But if it REALLY must be mini, you can probably find a suitable mini-itx system somewhere. Just google for it.
The unofficial
There's an interesting Bio of Robert X. Cringely on the conferencing page of the Broadcast Engineering Conference 2003. http://www.chiariglione.org/leonardo/conferences/p rograms/nab2003.htm . :-) and I just decided to buy this little thingy.
He seems to be at least somewhat close to Apple, HDTV and MPEG
Apple employee: They seem to want the mini to act like a video iPod
Jobs: But that's just stupid, the drive it's so tiny!
Apple employee: They think that once the movies are compressed for downloading in AVC that they'll be both high quality and small file size..
Jobs: Excellent, I'm a genius. We'll release in Spring, now sue think secret for springing the idea early, we don't want anyone copying our genius today.
www.apple.com/trailers works fine... I don't know what he's talking about.
Quid festinatio swallonis est aetherfuga inonusti?
Africus aut Europaeus?
... one word iDonut maker !
Ah, it seems introductions are in order: Smashtheqube this is Michael. Michael, Smashtheqube.
So there are two possible solutions:
1) TS files - mpeg2 hd files which tend to be quite large
but play on slower machines. Movies tend to run 11-20 gigs 2) Mpeg4 - Much smaller. Much more cpu needed. 4-8 gigs
Video is very cycle intensive. Look at the amd and intel benchmarks for video. Intel always wins because their clockspeed is faster.The 1.25 ghz mac mini isnt going to cut it.
How is mac going to deliver gigs of content to all of these people in a speedy way? OC-192? Even if they got something even faster, people's connections would bottleneck the process. These things also dont have huge hard drives so it shouldn't be expected that they can store many movies at once.
Oh and guess what? Most people dont have HDTV and they arent going to run out and buy one that has a DVI connector(extra $$$) so they can plug their mac mini into it. The mac mini is simply what they state it is, nothing more.
NJ Local Music Scene
It must be nice to be cringely. Just make a different totally random prediction every week, and you'll be hailed as a visionary because just by the law of averages at least some of your predictions will turn out to be true, sort of, eventually.
But one of the problems is a lack of HDTV tuner. You could get Elgato's EyeTV 500 to make your Mini Mac into an HD PVR but you're still lacking 5.1 digital audio. I don't know what you could do about that. If you're spending the $$$ to get an HDTV then you probably already have, or would want to get a nice 5.1 or 7.1 sound system. You wouldn't want to be stuck with stereo from you Mini Mac.
I'm not sure Cringely's HD movie service would catch on either. It's an interesting idea, but I'm not sure it would be very successful. One thing is certain though, a lot of people are going to have a lot of fun and do some cool stuff with their Mini Macs.
--
Join the Pyramid - Free Mini Mac
infested with jello like fishes no melotron wishes
This is an incompetent big media CEO's wet dream.
This is one of Cringely's less-original flights of fancy, (lots of people have been suspecting that iTMS could expand to movies for some time now), but also one that seems to me to be very on-target.
My mini arrived at my office via FedEx on Thrusday, and I've been setting it up for exactly the same purpose as almost everybody else I've heard from who's buying one: It's going into the media room.
A $300 digital tuner called the EyeTV gives me PVR features, and a $60 USB break-out box gives me DTS sound for DVD's. (The G4 solution can't quite do 1080i in full-screen mode, but I only need 720p anyway...) The DVI port is compatible with the wide-screen projector I'm planning on buying next month. In spite of the relatively light-weight video card, it plays World of Warcraft nearly as well as my AMD Frankenstein box with a 256 MB GeForce card.
So this thing is already serving up movies, TV, music, and games, and will be just about the only media device in the room (I might consider moving the X-Box into whatever room my old TV goes to.)
However, like many geeks, I also sometimes watch downloaded materials. I'm not as big on bootleg DivX's as some folks, but the occasional anime "fan-sub" has found its way onto my HD, and there's also plenty of legit stuff out there, such as "Red vs. Blue."
If it was possible to click on a movie or classic TV show in the iTMS, and download it as an MPEG2 stream for a reasonable price, even if it took overnight to get it, I would probably snap it up.
I passed on the DVD burner option for the mini. I figure I can get a better & faster double-density burner sometime down the road as an external firewire option. If this movies-on-demand feature of iTMS actually comes to pass, I might find myself buying a burner sooner rather than later.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Did you totally ignore the "limited space" requirement of dude's already cramped breakfast bar?
Yes. Yes, you did.
---
Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
(I read with sigs off.)
At least, that hard drive in there isn't. It's a 4200 RPM laptop drive.
Also, maybe it's just me, but doesn't 40 GB or 80 GB seem awfully small for the storage of feature-length HD video? We're talking what, 10-20 movies at best?
For there to be a true digital DVD library device, hard disk storage prices are going to have to come down to a fraction of what they are now. Time will provide this, but right now, it doesn't seem like the hardcore movie buffs -- who seem like the target market for something like a digital DVD library -- would be satisfied with the comparatively tiny amount of storage available in the 2.5" hard disk form factor. A Mini with an external terabyte of storage would be better, but that's going to more than double its price.
Maybe I'm just not getting it, but I really think Cringely missed the boat on this one.
p
In Korea, long hair is for old people!
if by "crush" you mean it would have run anti-spy-ad-thing-a-jig daily as opposed to the mini. then yes. it would "crush" the mini.
If you want a nice machine to run an HD recorder, look elsewhere.
I suspect a lot of peoople who are recommending PC alternatives aren't paying for the OS or the S/W, if you DIY a system you pay way over the odds for these compared to what a reseller adds to a bundled price (eg Dell).
Then there is support, do you want to do this or would you like help with it.
Ease of use. If you want a Nix then the Mac is something you can use and the wife. Can't say that of many.
Then there is size. It seems pretty hard to beat on the size front.
The Dell for instance will be large and noisy in comparison.
Oh my God, Slashdot is duping comments now? Taco, is that you?
Oh, and just buy the damn Mac mini already.
And that ad would be selling...what, exactly?
Oh, that's right, nothing. Because no product exists that matches the description you just gave.
Small, feature-laden, inexpensive.
Pick any two.
p
In Korea, long hair is for old people!
It's a very interesting article and it seems very plausible that this is the direction Apple is heading. I guess we'll just have to wait and see how it plays out.
The download time for an HD movie (at least 30 gigabytes) on a standard DSL connection is still going to be 47.9 hours. This is not going to happen until more than 3 people in the US have residential fiber optic connections.
Not only does it seem great to be a media PC (Just run linux on it and MythTV and that's some hotness right there.), but it also seems like it would be good for movie distribution, as the author suggests.
Here's another couple movie related things w/ the Mini I can think of:
A quick-edit station, something to have in the back of your car if you're a wedding videographer or similar video person who may have to make quick edits for show.
To be IN movies. I mean, you guys have seen how powerbooks turn up in movies like independance day; This little thing is practically begging to be used by Hollywood in movies. It's small, it's cute, it's exactly what you'd imagine a hot girl using when.. (sorry mind is running away with me).
Ideas, comments?
Except that PCs can't run OS X, and a mini-itx will be crushed by it rather than the other way around, and even a DIY shuttle-like PC is likely to cost at least as much, if not more...
...but aside from all that, then yeah, your suggestion would work just fine.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
This comment seems unnecessary and strangely placed. FTA:
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've got to wonder if it was even mentioned because of the whole Think Secret lawsuit. Are people who are spouting idle rumors and speculation going to feel the pressure to issue out-of-the-blue disclaimers? Sigh. The overly litigious benchmark has long since been exceeded.
It CAN be connected to a television with that DVI to S-Video or Composite adapter.
Couple a Mini hooked up to a nice television and a wireless keyboard and mouse setup, and it would make a nice living room entertainment computer.
"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"
Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
Just look at the Accessories page, for the M-Audio-Transit AC3/DTS TOSlink adaptor.
And, it's also an input!
I was confused by that exclusion as well. But I really think they were just trying to make the box as cheaply as possible and realized most users would not need 5.1, so they could let it be a separate device.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Second, the movies have to be purchased ($10 per download, for example) and stored on the HDD. The HDD is either 40 or 80 GB, making it capable of storing anywhere from 20 to 60 movies. What the customer should do after the disk is full?
There are solutions to both problems, though. The bandwidth can be spread between users using BitTorrent, and the customer can be allowed to re-download the same movie at a later time, as long as he presents the same key to the web store.
But for an average user a DVD player and a DVD store and/or rental place work just as well, and with much less hassle. iTunes works because it is easy. But downloading of a movie is anything but easy, at least so far.
Possibly, though, Apple looks far ahead. But if they just wanted to set up a video distribution business they could have released some iFlicks software for Windows, this results in an instantaneous user base, no need to wait for anything built or sold, and they can have the video store running within days.
Does anyone know yet? I've read lots of "insightful reviews" but nothing actually spelling out what a 1.2/1.4ghz Mac will actually run like.
I haven't used a Mac since the Mac Classic came out so I've got no idea what sort of grunt they need these days. I wouldn't mind a cheap one to play with but if it's gonna bug the hell out of me because it's so slow then I need to know that before I shell out for it.
Good one . I noticed last week i couldn't download quicktime just by itself. I had to download Itunes also.
it was interesting to see a representative from Sony with Steve Jobs at Mac World. the two companies have cooperated together in the past (the first powerbook, i think) this makes more sense as both companies seem to converge towards the same goal. that is, domination of home electronics.
now if the next Mac Mini comes with a Cell Processor, you can easly distribute alot of High Definition stuff. Mac Mini Cells, that your PS3 can play with
cool
Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
Last i checked, Win XP Pro runs almost half the price of the mini. That doesn't include half the stuff that iLife does.
Dont forget that apple are bundling a solid OS and a decent set of software in with that $499 price.
I think linux is great, and i use it everyday, but i know it's not for everyone.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
They could include a link to the Keyspan Express Remote on the Accessories page for the Mac mini.
I would rather it be some kind of RF remote though.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The processing power for playing back those touted AVC H.264 movies should be borderline on the Mac Mini as this advanced media format is quite processor intensive. MPEG/ITU-T marketing papers have indicated that AVC/H.264 roughly takes 4x the decoding power for real time playback as MPEG-2 and AVC/H.264 offers the same quality at half the bitrate as MPEG-2. Using new builds of mplayer that support AVC/H.264 playback take up 70% of my G5's processor time at 420p, although other implementations take up less time as Apple claims 1080p is capable on a dual 2GHz PowerMac G5. It's hit or miss on a G4, depending on the extent of optimizations used and the bitrate of the encoding.
Apple has used a bitrate of 7.5mbps on their WWDC showcase of the 720p Troy trailer in H.264 and this quite a hefty amount of data to store locally and transfer over the internet as this article makes clear that "this is the year of HD." Doing the math, a 90 minute HD movie encoded at 7.5mbps should take roughly 5GB and on a 40GB drive you can store around 5 movies, 10 if you have an 80GB drive. These drives seem to be lacking in this department. As for internet transmission, if you were lucky enough, you'd have Optimum Online's 10mpbs download and a clear unobstructed path between the two endpoints you may be able to watch this in real time as if this is a variable bitrate encode, action scenes will require considerably more bandwidth to download in real time. I doubt the national average for broadband is near what Optimum Online provides.
An online store with HD H.264 movies may be wishful thinking for those with a Mac Mini, although my one problem with the Mac Mini as a media center is the lack of digital audio output. An M-Audio Sonica should take care of that...
I am itching to see what Jobs & Co make of this.
Follow the link in my original post to the Elgato EyeTV 500 product page. It's a Firewire HDTV tuner that now works with HDTV over the air as well as over Cable. I've also heard that most and possibly all HDTV tuners or cable boxes have a Firewire port out. If that is the case then you can just plug it into your Mac's Firewire port and view and record the HDTV content. You can't change the channels through your Mac though.
--
Join the Pyramid - Free Mini Mac
infested with jello like fishes no melotron wishes
The playback software for Elgato takes no advantage of any hardware acceleration.
So, it may be possible to play back content with better accelerated players...
A friend has been forwarding me results of a test someone is doing with the EyeTV 500 and Powerbook 1.25GHz (roughly the same specs, probably a fair amount of memory). At first he was able to get just shoppy playback, but after some tweaking (forget what that was) was able to get stable playback, of at least a SDTV feed (not quite full HDTV). So there is some hope.
For normal TV devices that convert video to DV firewire feeds should work really well, I was editing movies easily a few years ago on my 667MHz Powerbook.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
is coming up!!! You haven't made up your mind yet? Is this a joke? Look buy the mini if you are actually want a mini computer for a breakfast bar. Come to think of it, breakfast bar?!?! What the fuck are you talking about?! What is a breakfast bar?! Why does it need a computer in it? Who are you- Jimmy Dean? Look whatever floats your boat! (weirdo) Here, if its got to be small and not an Apple, get a cheap laptop from some no name vendor or go on ebay for one. Be a dumb ass and take a chance!!! Its your dollar, spend the extra money. get what you want!!!. But stop asking the same stupid ass question!!!
Disclaimer: Sorry for the moment of instability. I am usually a decent guy but redundancy really ticks me off. You should see me moderate
Oh, your wife thinks its cute and you not getting it. Boy are you dumb. I can imagine the look on her face when you bring home some clunky ugly ass X86 PC shit instead of a Mac Mini and say, "Here, honey. Its better than the Mac Mini. It runs Linux!!" You dork, hope your hand doesn't have arthitis!!
I've always heard that online movies are compressed down to pretty low quality. How big would a two hour full HD movie be? Lots bigger than your typical DivX I bet. Your typical home broadband system would be hard put to download it in less than a day.
Now I'm as guilty as the rest, but has anyone stopped to consider that the mini is just a low-cost, small-footprint Mac aimed at potential switchers?
I suspect that deep down, we know that's all the mini is, but we're just trying to find some kind of rationalization for buying one. (I'll admit it: I've been wanting to get one to act as a dedicated server for my iTunes Library, a function I think it'd perform quite well.)
why is it that every time I get mod points there's nothing like this around?
The support comment alone is truly insightful.
Notes From Under *nix: blas.phemo.us
For most people living in urban areas, video stores are all over the place. It's no more than a 15 minute trip the nearest Blockbuster, and I could walk down the street to the local place quicker than that. Even at a generously small estimate of a 1G download for a full length, full res HDTV over the average 1.5mb line is about an hour and a half. It's perhaps tolerable but it's not that near to the instant gratification of popping down to the shop to watch it "right now".
When I first saw the mini I thought that it had tons of potential as a HTPC as well, but then you realize that it only has a headphone out port by default and nothing like RCA out. No built in surround sound? They had to cut costs somewhere, but this would have been a great inclusion. Also, it's true that HDTV is great, but most of us out there are still using regular TVs with RCA inputs.
The where is the remote control? I know you can buy stuff aftermarket, but any serious media center would require a remote control like 99.99% of the rest of the serious market.
Take it for what it is, Apple is trying to take a stab back into the heart of the PC market with cheap and reliable machine for the masses. Is it a mystery to Mac fans why large institutions started dumping them in the 90's?
It's about the money, plain and simple. I bought my Powerbook because it was relatively inexpensive and extremely high quality notebook when you consider all the other machines with Linux/UNIX on them will cost you an arm and a leg one way or another.
It just doesn't seem likely to me. First off, the hard drive is tiny for HD (which has been noted). And second, there's no bluetooth. I think bluetooth would be essential for a remote control, and if it's designed to play video, they wouldn't have people buy a USB bluetooth adaptor. I suppose they could sell infrared receptors so that your regular remote works with it... Still, it just doesn't seem likely at all. They would have released it with HDMI, not DVI.
Well if you really want my opinion...
I like x86 and PPC about equally, but I like AMD64 even more. To me AMD64 is the future and since x86 happens to be compatible with it and also much more widespread, I see PPC as having nothing to offer the modern world. Sure there is PPC64... but the package selection shall remain absolutely horrendous for the forseable future. AMD64 has like one thousand times more packages in gentoo than PPC64 does, and also happens to be much cheaper.
The unofficial
Reasons why Cringely is wrong:
... to me this is not even close to being a sufficient foundation to support his claims.
1. both models of the mac mini are currently shipping without support for either HD-DVD or Blu-Ray. Cringely glosses over this stating that the mini will exclusively be for delivering online HD content.
2. there is no IR/remote support on the mac mini, so no remote control. this is kind of a big and small deal at the same time. it would not have cost much for them to add support for this, yet it is a feature essential to media centers.
3. the current mac mini models are simply not powerful enough to decode HD video compressed with modern MPEG-4, WMA9-level codecs.
4. no component video out on the mini. Cringely once again glosses over this, stating that DVI is sufficient. while DVI does seem to generally work on DVI/HDMI and DVI/HDCP televisions, there are cases where it does not, and it is certainly not officially supported by most vendors. remember this is Apple, they're not going to push technologies that aren't officially supported. there is no evidence of HDMI/HDCP support on the mac mini.
A lot of these could be fixed in the future, with an "upgraded" mac mini. but i just don't think it adds up. the mini doesn't even look like a home theater component. Cringely seems to be basing his entire theory on the Quicktime trailers site being down for an evening
I do hope one day Apple releases a media center solution. They are one company who could really shake things up and bring some attention to the media center concept, which I am totally into after installing Xbox Media Center (http://www.xboxmediacenter.com) on my modded Xbox. I just don't see this happening anytime soon, and in particular not with the mac mini. I sure hope I'm wrong!
They do include a Superdrive as an option, so possibly you could burn DVD's...
But then again, would studios allow that? I suppose possibly Apple could cast a spell on them and allow the same kind of lenient DRM that ITMS enjoys.
It does seem unlikely but the presence of the president of Sony makes you wonder. All it takes is for HIM to get the importance of such an idea and be OK with relaxed DRM and the company will follow in line (after bitter internal complaints).
We often think of companies as giant brainless entities intent on a mindless unalterable quest for whatever, but we often forget there can be just one or two guys at the top that can really change things, if they want to. Sony is one of those companies that I do not think is as answerable to shareholders or boards as other companies might be... I could be wrong about that though as I've never bothered to really look at Sony's structure much.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Hmm, lets look at this again:
Mac mini, explicitly stated by Apple that it is supposed to entice low-end (and cheap) pc users into trying a mac. It specifically targets those people who like the iPod and are tired of dealing with spyware/virii/ms junk/pop-ups/windows etc. A lot of people are like that out there and they have $500 to throw down and 'give the mac a chance'.
They don't care if its expandable or has the latest tech. They want it to work and they will toss in in the trash after two years and hopefully buy an iMac or something better. This is what 90% of the public expects from computers, to get a use out of them for a few years and then get a new one.
The mac mini is not designed to take the pvr/media center market by storm, you may be able to hack it, add tuners etc. but that is not what it was DESIGNED to do.
Complaining about this makes about as much sense as saying a screwdriver makes a poor hammer.
No digital out for audio, which is found even on the cheapest dvd/divx players and digital tv boxes. SCART missing as well.
Hardly anyone in the market for a $500 device for video is going to buy MiniMac.
Oh and his wise suggestion to Apple to sell the Mini for $249 each and incur $1 billion in losses was just amazing! Amazingly stupid. Like Wall Street really rewards companies that burn up cash by selling products at a loss.
Yes, you are precisely correct. Under FCC regulations, every cable system that provides HDTV is required to provide their customers with a firewire-enabled decoder. All you have to do is ask for it.
0 40 426151111599
http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=20
This means anyone can get HDTV recording capability for free with any Mac. It takes tons of disk space, but it's already encoded so it shouldn't take huge amounts of processing power. The Mac Mini is just the machine for this job.
Right, that's why I (and the Elgato webpage) said HDTV playback at full resolution. I never said it couldn't play regular TV.
As far as using hardware acceleration... can Radeon 9200s do MPEG2 decoding?
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
I had not found any reviews of the device so I'm glad to hear it works well.
The great part is for DVD playback it should really just be a passthrough for the audio stream, so no CPU is needed (or just CPU enough to keep it streaming with the video).
If nothing else for me the Mac mini should be a nice DVD player replacement as I just have a projector I use for home theater I can tie it into.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
This guy has it all wrong. The Mini-Mac is for movies but not for downloading movies, it's for home movies.
I am very happy with my current computer set up but if I wanted to start editing mini-DV footage and wanted to start making my own videos I would consider just buying the Mini-Mac. Currently I would have to buy video editing software, DVD creation software, and a firewire card or capture card or something. How much do those cost? Or I could just pick up a Mini-Mac, hook it up and plug the camera into it. It has I-Movie and I-DVD included doesn't it?
If Apple really does tie the Mac Mini to online movies, how long do you really think it will take before
a)Dell, Gateway, et al sell tiny PCs
and
b)Walmart et al offer Microsoft DRMed movies for download?
Apple may become the major player set-top/computer market, like it is in the MP3 player market, but it won't be the only player by any stretch of the imagination.
"Do I dare disturb the universe?"
I have Dish and was wondering if they have similar requirements with having to provide a firewire output of the HDTV stream.
As much as I dislike Comcast, if I could use the mini in conjunction with that and not Dish I think I would switch.
I would have switched to Voom but it seems they are not long for this earth with EchoStar (dish) trying to buy one of their satellites...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I posted this in another message, but thought I might as well let you know before you rushed off to order anything - they also have on that same accessory page a link for a Keyspan Remote, which is a USB device with an IR receiver and small remote. By default it can control iTunes and also the DVD player.
I've not used it but seen great reviews.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I shouldn't say this cuz I might be right but... my theory is:
;-)
Asteroid was it? Some kind of firewire breakout box? Big time secret... for just a firewire audio recorder? Woohoo.
I think it's actually a multi-channel output box with a dedicated HD playback chip on it. The 1.25GHz G4 in the Mac mini can't handle it in software. It's either this OR... the reason Apple hasn't released the hardware assisted DVD API is that it's still in the works and will allow slower G4's to playback HD movies.
Anyways... can anyone tell me what the 20 something channels of audio the new QT 7 supports are for? Just planning for the future with expandability? Or to hook up THREE 6.1 stereo systems to a single computer, Left Right and Rear with 7 channels each?
-Don.
Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
If he is right, Apple should hire him to shut him up. There are reasons ambush's are ambush's.
If he is wrong, Apple should hire him to come up with strategies like this.
"A man is but the product of his thoughts what he thinks, he becomes." -Mahatma Gandhi
Cringley is a self serving hack.
I was trying to think of an excuse to buy a Mini. I've been asking my mother if she would use it. The problem was where to put it. After reading this artical it became obvious. I have a fairly new WEGA 20" Sony Flatscreen TV. If I get the wireless mouse/keyboard she can just use it with the TV. Does anyone know if three is an adapter to use a Mini with your TV? Does that require DVI?
Right, that's why I (and the Elgato webpage) said HDTV playback at full resolution. I never said it couldn't play regular TV.
:-)
I didn't say that you didn't say what I couldn't say... or something like that.
What I was saying is that a Powerbook 1.25 can seemingly playback an 720P signal with no dropped frames. Unknown yet if a full HDTV signal would work, but it's very promising given that using the Elgato software the video for that same 720p is an unwatchable mess, and the higher end Mac mini is 1.42 GHz.
I'm just saying there is actually a lot of hope for getting playback to work, and if it is possibly you know that Elgato is not stupid and would do everything it can to support hardware accelleration for the Mac mini, given that it could be a killer app for the product they sell (which otherwise I do not see many Mac owners buying).
Elgato had these devices out long before the mini, I think they just stumbled into a really successful market if they play the cards right.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
AMD64 is an architecture, dipshit. Also known as "x86_64" and called "EMT64" or "ia-32e" by Intel.
AMD *invented* it, and AMD64 just happens to be the name I and a few others such as Linus like to use. It has nothing to do with brand loyalty.
I use Gentoo on three AMD64 machines (a server and desktop at home, and a workstation at my job) and the price/performance value is truly wonderful.
Apple can't hold a candle to it; the only good thing they've got going for them is their OSX software. If they ported OSX to AMD64 I know I would use it on at least one of my machines. But alas, Apple likes to do hardware the Apple and IBM way... non-standard and expensive.
The unofficial
"What real computers are currently on the market to compete with this? When my wife asks for the "cute little MAC", what PC can I buy instead?"
Out of curiosity, why wouldn't a Mac mini be a 'real computer'? If your wife (a 'real' computer user...?) can do what she wants on it, what's not 'real' about it? I mean, if she wants to play a bunch of games.. well okay. But.. is she a programmer? 3D artist maybe? What is a 'real computer'? Is it something where the keyboard only has a 1 and a 0?
"Derp de derp."
OK, so everybody seems in agreement that the Mini would be a nice media system in the living-room: nice form factor + DVD player + iTunes juke-box + web browser + maybe a few games. Not to mention potential PVR capability via that EyeTV thing everybody is talking about.
But how do you drive that baby? With a wireless keyboard? Isn't that a bit clunky for the living-room?
The iPod Shuffle's form factor sure would be suitable for a remote... Extend it for the next generation with blue-tooth and the proper firmware, et voila! And when you're done watching TV, just plug the Shuffle back in the Mini for a battery and music recharge. Am I missing something here? What else would be needed?
Please be nice: being no hardware techie, I might be way off the mark here.
"In our tactical decisions, we are operating contrary to our strategic interest."
I imagine that buying movies online you'd be able to buy more highly compressed versions using that new Pixlet (see sidebar in link) codec, just like you can buy compressed AAC files from the store instead of full uncomressed CDs. Here's what Apple has to say about Pixlet:
Pixlet is the first studio-grade codec for filmmakers. Pixlet provides 20-25:1 compression, allowing a 75MB/sec series of frames to be delivered in a 3MB/sec movie, similar to DV data rates. Or a series of frames that are over 6GB in size can be contained within a 250MB movie. Pixlet lets high-end digital film frames play in real time with any 1GHz G4 or faster Panther Mac, without investing in costly, proprietary hardware.
Yes, it's heavy on the marketing. But one interesting thing to note (apart from the estimate of 6GB going to 250MB) is that it's targeted as - a 1GHz G4! That processor performance target is much more interesting now. And it is meant explicitly for movies.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
if by "crush" you mean it would have run anti-spy-ad-thing-a-jig daily as opposed to the mini. then yes. it would "crush" the mini.
Strange, I just ran a spyware checker on my sole XP machine for the first time in 3 months and didn't find anything but a few cookies.
Perhaps it is because I use decent browsers ?
The unofficial
Does the Mini have enough CPU grunt to do HD playback ?
Broadband technology is not ready for HD content delivery. The fastest systems could just barely deliver 640x480 in real time. That means you could download HD in 1/4 time (approximately). Care to wait 12 hours to download The Return of the King? Jobs knows better than to bring a product to market before it is ready. The only way this could work is with higher compression, or some kind of groundbreaking broadband technology.
Though I do agree that there is more to the Mac Mini than Jobs is letting on.
The Apple Product Life Cycle, which a Mac developer friend told me about.
I was talkin about the article... it makes no sense...
I saw a pundit somewhere -- might have been Cringely -- refer to an iMovie Video Store, like the iTMS for video. Cringely, among others, seems pretty set on the idea that it'll happen.
... check. ... uh, definitely not. ... if the movie studios allow it to be. ... only if you're planning to take the video with you somewhere, which I don't see becoming particularly commonplace until those cool little LCD "VR" goggles come down to headphone prices, and ... ... absolutely not. I already own enough DVDs -- and I don't own all that many compared to most of my friends -- to fill a decent-sized hard disk. Portable video? Fuhgeddaboutit, at least until someone can make an iPod-sized device that holds at least 10 whole DVDs AND doesn't cost more than $600. Music CDs cost about $30/gig. DVDs cost about $4/gig. Hard disk space costs about $1/GB for fairly large SATA drives. It's going to need to come down to about $0.15/GB before storing DVD content on a hard drive becomes as viable as storing CD content has.
I'm not buying it.
Look at what makes the iTMS, and downloadable music in general, so great:
1) more convenient than buying a CD
2) downloads in less time than it takes to buy a CD
3) cheaper (in many cases) than buying a CD
4) saves the additional step of ripping a CD to a compressed, portable format
5) even the most extreme music collections will fit on $300-400 worth of hard drive space
Now, how would an iMVS stack up?
1) more convenient
2) faster purchase
3) cheaper
4) saves a step
5) stores cheaply
An iMovie Video Store is not going to be a practical reality until problems 2 and 5 are solved. Number 5 might happen within the next two years. Number 2 very likely won't. Remember, the driving force behind the iTMS is the proliferation of broadband Internet access. Consumer bandwidth needs *at least* to increase by an order of magnitude to make downloaded movies practical. This simply isn't going to happen in the US without an overhaul of existing telecom infrastructure. Fiber would be a good start.
p
In Korea, long hair is for old people!
That's how "psychics" do it!
1) I think it's premature to call out lack of support for blu-ray when there are hardly any players anywhere yet! I think Apple did announce support in Tiger. Already the Superdrive is BTO, probably a blu-ray drive could be added later as needed and become another BTO option.
2) There is IR support, Keyspan USB remote which is an IR remote with a USB/IR receiver. Works by default with iTunes and the movie player. Is linked to from Mac mini Accessories page in Apple store.
3) Check out the specs for Pixlet which lets you play back "movie quality frames" on a 1GHz G4. But really the video card in the mini is powerful enough to do the job for HDTV, you just need players than make use of it.
4) Could use S-Video, though most real video people would cringe. I agree that is the major stickling point, I am OK as I have a projector but I have also heard of problems connecting computers to HDTV sets with DVi inputs. Perhaps Tiger will help in this regard.
I think it's very usable now, but I tend to agree they may well release an updated version later with a little more bundling (like 5.1 built in instead of requiring a seperate adaptor).
Sorry I didn't include more links to things but I've already done a bunch of responses, check those for more links.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
They do have a USB IR remote, but I would much rather see a bluetooth remote used as you describe.
Then you could also have a bluetooth keyboard and mouse tucked away for light browsing, but mainly just a nice remote.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Coming from x86, they will seem remarkably fast at some stuff, and kinda pokey at others. I have a 1.33 in my laptop and it's quite tollerable. I think the processor speeds are a comfortable fit for the hardware. If you're thinking net-appliance or a casual workstation, it's cool. Get a lot of RAM.
He only needs a devices that "crushes the Mac MINI" in terms of price. That is what he was looking for.
If you have the magical formula for how to make your "Crushing" shuttle-like PC cost less than the Mac mini, by all means give us the list of parts and prices or point us to where we can find such a list.
I was also looking at mini-ITX cases and the Mac mini is a very compelling option - on price alone! And the performance is more than good enough for an HTPC.
Plus it is the only HTPC that can act as an iTunes server for sharing music to other macs. Not a thing to sneeze at.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
When will people stop referring to Apple computer company as "MAC"?
Not only does MAC not make the Mac Mini (Apple does), MAC is an acronym, not to be confused with Mac(intosh).
I don't know *why* this bothers me so much, but it does.
*** For a better tommorow, change your life today ***
Apple makes a snazzy bluetooth keyboard and mouse. To connect to your TV, you should get a DVI to Component cable or adapter. Something like these:
Adapter
Cable (I would get this)
I can already edit video pretty well with my Powerbook 667... so I think for video editing on the fly laptops would still hold sway...
EXCEPT that if you already had a compact LCD monitor, and just needed to use a computer at generally fixed locations with power (like weddings) the Mac mini would be a lot cheaper than a laptop. Even an old one! So it could be a really nice device for fixed-location editing of video or photos (like a sports shooter at an arena or a wedding phtoographer/vidographer, as you noted).
I also agree it's probably going to show up in a lot of movies.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Get that Cappuccino, the new system is $455 (BYO HD) and the refurb is $379 (BYO HD). If you want the refurb with 20GB 2.5" Ultra DMA 33/66 4200RPM Hard Drive, it's $478. Both these prices include a "dos system", meaning "Install your own OS".
And stop duping comments (thanks typhoonius).
Roland Piquepaille and slashd
In some aspects perhaps. But on the other hand:
- The Shuttle would propably be noisier
- It would consume more space
- It doesn't look as good (matter of taste though)
- You can't run OS X on it
- With similar specs it would propably cost the same or more than the Mini
Those would be of similar size and they would be as silent as the Mini is. OTOH:
- Their performance sucks (VIA solutions) or
- They are really expensive (Pentium-M solutions)
Via solution would give you more or less similar price as the Mini (although you might have to resort to crappier case) but with sucky performance. Pentium-M would give you better performance (by a narrow margin) but it would cost alot more.
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
"When my wife asks for the "cute little MAC", what PC can I buy instead?"
You're not planning to stay married for very long, are you? I know when my wife asks for something specific, it's generally not a good idea to go against her wishes and arrogantly substitute some other item.
#DeleteChrome
They make a ton in USB and Firewire interfaces. The Firewire Audiophile springs to mind. Just a couple of hundred dollars on some sites. Probably even cheaper cards out there dedicated solely to surround out (Audiophile is mainly for recording and has MIDI capability).
why is it that every time I get mod points there's nothing like this around?
Seriously, I just use all my mod points modding down other people with "get a free mac mini" sigs.
They were messing around with some open codec at one of the keynotes (I think it was the one where they first showed Tiger). Looked like it would be cool for streaming. Same quality as divx at half the size? Something like that?
No.
P-m giving you better performance by a narrow margin? Have you looked at the P-M lately, its ipc is so high it makes me want to wet myself.
Viral software licensing is not freedom, it is in fact GNU/Socialism.
I'm also amused by the "what is it for" crowd.
I think it is aimed at exactly the sort of people who claim to know what it is for. It's a computer, so of course there are a bunch of things it could be used for, and the small form-factor gives you the all of the usual non-desktop options that SFF systems are used in. All of these people who are saying "it's for $foo" are really just projecting their own ideas, and will likely go out and buy one and use it for $foo. Those who are saying "oh wait, it can't actually be used for $foo, because it lacks $bar" will probably go out and buy one anyway, and buy the add-on required for $bar.
The "it's for $foo" people must be working out great for Apple, as free advertising. All of the pundits out there (including Cringely) are collectively declaring more uses for the Mac Mini than Apple's marketing department could ever dream up, and spreading the word more widely than Apple's advertising budget could ever afford.
Your rock of choice is this thing you mentioned called "AMD64." (No idea what that is. Never heard of it. I'm taking your word for it that it's a real thing.)
Never heard of AMD64? He's talking about the AMD chips (Athlon and Opteron) that are 100% compatible with x86 (think "Pentium") but are faster in just about every regard, no more expensive (sometimes cheaper), and also happen to run 64-bit code if you have any (think: more than 4 GB of RAM).
I'm sorry, but being excited about AMD64 is not a leet fanboy thing. They really are awesome processors, and they're beating the socks off of anything from Intel these days for the vast majority of high-end computing users.
The Mac mini does seem to do the job getting at least a little into each category. It's cheap, not bad on features, and it's small.
"Your effort to remain what you are is what limits you."
Hey, we're back to this again. Another Mac-related story, another "why don't they port it to my favorite irrelevancy" whine.
Your opinion. The point is that there is at least SOME market for OSX on other architectures (including myself), and that we can recognize good (OSX) and bad (PPC) things when we see them. Feel free to turn a blind eye to how much PPC sucks compared to AMD64, but don't blame us for your ignorance.
You have a very curious definition of "price/performance value." You seem to think that something you get for free that desperately, desperately sucks is better than something wonderful sold for a reasonable price. I think there's a "division by zero" error in your arithmetic somewhere.
I believe he was aggregating the cost of hardware+software. But FWIW, I paid for it, and am glad to have done so.
Um. You see the irony, right? "[Brand] invented [Brand], so [Brand] and I call [Brand] [Brand]."
Way to prove the point.
I'm addressing this last because it is the least relevant issue... look dude, it's just an architecture name. Our operating system happens to call it AMD64, so that is what I choose to call it as well. I actually just read up on the subject and it seems Linus has established "x86-64" as the official kernel name. EMT64 and ia-32e of course are names that _ONLY_ Intel uses, for purely PR reasons.
I do not have brand loyalty to AMD either but I too am definately a fan of the new architecture.
Karma: bad (mostly unaffected by funny mods)
A DIY shuttle-like PC would crush the mac mini in ever respect.
Except size (the Mac Mini is actually significantly smaller than mini-ITX, believe it or not, and WAY smaller than a Shuttle), noise level (the Mac Mini is practically silent), and video/3D performance (the Mac Mini has a respectable 3D graphics card with its own video RAM; any Shuttle that's anywhere close to the Mac Mini's price range uses onboard video).
Given that a pyramid scheme is mathematically guaranteed to screw over the majority of the people who get sucked into it, even in the best case, what makes you special? What makes you lucky enough to have a good chance of succeeding?
Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
I can picture a nice aftermarket (or Apple) docking station for the mini. All the plugs are there, slide the Mini in, and for about double the space, add a firewire harddrive, all the digital audio and composite video outputs, a couple front mounted USB & firewire ports, maybe a IR receiver. All that cool jazz. It should fit perfectly in my entertainment center.
OK Belkin, Griffin, whoever. Build me one. It should sell for no more than $149, and have an empty drive bay, 2 if possible.
For $199, include wifi and bluetooth.
I can't wait, the MacMini accessories cometh!
Wake up.
When I read your post, the results startled me. Most of the word configurations I had seen elsewhere.
In Soviet America the banks rob you!
Mac Mini + Apple 23" LCD + FireWire DTB Decoder + USB/IR Remote Control + Bluetooth Kbd/Mouse
This will _nearly_ give you _true_ HDTV.
The 23" Cinema Display can display true HD resolution content, not the 1280x768 that most LCD TVs can display - the only problem is the FireWire decoders I've seen only do HD content on a Dual G5, as (I assume) they use the host CPU to decode the content...
So near, yet so far...
Specialist Mac support for creative pros, Melbourne
This is a simple question, but since I am completely Apple-illiterate I'd like to know for sure. Can I plug a nice USB audio card on the mini? Will it work? An Audigy NX would be a nice choice for games, a firewire m-audio would be nice for recording. Generally speaking, do PC USB peripherals work with apple computers or do I need "special" expensive Mac versions?
P.
Wanting to buy/build a small computer for my already cramped breakfast bar
I've heard this so many times over and over. Perhaps I'm not nerdy enough, but what do you do with a computer in your breakfast bar? Or kitchen for that matter.. I understand the looking up recipies thing, but other than that?
if by "crush" you mean it would have run anti-spy-ad-thing-a-jig daily as opposed to the mini. then yes. it would "crush" the mini.
I think by crush he was speaking in terms of decibels. I'm picky when it comes to computer noise (think, Zalman) so when I sit down next to one of those Shuttle cubes all I think of is freight trains.
What is a 'real computer'?
Real computers use punch-cards, you insensitive clod!
I'm not sure that the Mac Mini is Apple's Set-top box. I reckon there's more to come in that department.
:))
However..
Everyone seems to be assuming that for an iTunes Movie store to work the movies would have to be downloaded in their entirety.
However, the new codec is also ideal for high quality streaming - select your movie and a time for delivery, fill the cache, and away you go. Pauseable movies delivered to your home. Maybe not HDTV but surely near DVD quality..
(of course if they start with something already low qauality eg TV shows, they will have a breathing space until the hardware and brodband connections catch up to HDTV standards. Although I admit that's not very Apple
Streaming into a proprietry iTunes player negates the worry of movies being burned to disk.
Am I missing something?
From TFA: "Like the iPod, it will be a simple device"
This is a full desktop-style PC running a full unix-style operating
system - this is not simple in the same sense as the iPod. It has
massive capability (and complexity) that a dedicated device like the
iPod doesn't have and it doesn't have a simple play/stop/next type of
interface. It doesn't even have anything like the specs of a "media"
PC (no remote, no on box LCD disply, no on box controls - volume,
play/stop, etc).
I see it as the new cube - cute but not particularly exciting.
Interjection verb noun adjective adjective noun explitive verb noun adjective adjective expletive expletive expletive!
If there were 2 unopened PCs side by side, and only one was an AMD64, how could you tell without looking at booting screens or system info utilities?
If the answer is speed*. Will you shift your fandom to the next Intel or PowerPC architecture that performs better on your chosen benchmark?
*I neither know nor care whether AMD64 is fastest in some sense at the moment.
The form factor of the Mac mini seems to invite the idea of producing matching, perhaps stackable, peripherals (with the Mac at the top of the stack, naturally). I can imagine several - An AV receiver that raises the stack height to a cube with matching cube speakers; a pvr/tuner; hard disk and dvd burner; musician's breakout box (Asteroid?)... So far, so ordinary - what else could be made that is perhaps not so obvious? An espresso machine? Bagel toaster? Or perhaps a scientific data acquisition module? Photo printer? But it's very clear to me that this is all part of the marketing plan - this thing is deliberately made to a spec and style that will help to creat an eco-system in the exact way the iPod did. I think this is a genuine tipping point - the first real mass-market consumer's computer that goes some way towards the 'it just works' philosophy of consumer goods. Don't be surprised if Apple owns the living room space in a few years.
--- Yx3 = Delilah ---
Why should I care? How would it affect my everyday computing experience?
"A DIY shuttle-like PC would crush the mac mini in ever respect."
It certainly would in terms of work and disappointment. Sourcing all those components, and fitting them into the box, then hoping it all works, and then finding it didn't run OS X.
Dude, be happy. She's probably just trying to tell you it's okay, she LIKES things in small packages. Take the hint and get rid of that vacuum pump.
So there are two possible solutions:
Nope, try again: "the proprietary content will be video encoded in AVC H.264, which will be supported first in OS X 10.4" (from the article)
"Look at the amd and intel benchmarks for video."
Well, Apple doesn't use any of those architectures ...
And there was me thinking it was in size and weight...
Here are some reasons why I am a fan of AMD64:
- Natively address over 4gb of memory. This is already important for servers, and shall become important for desktops in the not-so-far future.
- fully backwards compatible with x86!
- able to run x86 at native speeds!
- roughly 15% performance benefit from porting an average x86 program to AMD64 (this is easy for me to do, since I primarily use Gentoo)
- future-proof investment (x86 is now by any reasonable definition a 'legacy' architecture)
- MEMORY CONTROLLER INTEGRATED INTO THE CPU. No more northbridge middleman introducing needless latency bottlnecks. This, I should point out, is not "x86-64" specific, but rather specific to AMD's implementation. So in this small sense I _am_ a fan of AMD's chips. I can only hope Intel sees the light in time, because as things stand their offerings simply don't stack up.
As for "shifting my fandom" to the next Intel or PPC, let us examine each case seperately. The last Intel chip I was a fan of was the 800mhz FSB P4 Northwood, which I currently use as a WinXP gaming machine. It simply trounced the later (think 2800+) Athlon XPs in everything except a handful of games and office applications.
But a new PPC would have to perform _very_ well and be _very_ cheap by comparrison to outweigh it's inability to run x86 code. Given their commitment to PPC64, I seriously doubt IBM will come close to fulfiling either criteria anytime within the next 8 years, if ever.
Karma: bad (mostly unaffected by funny mods)
and then finding it didn't run OS X.
:)
In case you missed the original question...
When my wife asks for the "cute little MAC", what PC can I buy instead?
As for the DIY aspect, this is SLASHDOT. If you aren't geek enough to enjoy putting cool hardware together... you really shouldn't be here
The unofficial
They'll download the first 20 minutes or so of the movie to the disk so you'll have something to watch while the mini buffers data from their server. That way you can pick the movie you want to watch and just go. Also I wouldn't be too surprised if they built airport extreme functionality in to the software for the mini, so you can stream music from your computer to your entertainment system in a similar way.
Don't forget to mention the 8 additional registers. That's 2x more than x86, fixing one of it's biggest weaknesses.
The unofficial
Lol, the shuttle would cost you way more, remember those shuttle need a lot of thing to be added and they already are pretty expensive barebone... and everyone of their lookalike too, cube box in the PC world are worth money, lots of it,
I'm writting this from my PC btw, I'm no mac fanboy but your affirmation is such an exageration that I had to react!
http://www.i-flix.com/l oads/macosx/video/iflix. html
http://www.apple.com/down
Does this imply anything of significance?
Red.
Yes, so wifey will be disappointed when she can't run OSX. And as for putting "cool" hardware together, slotting a PC together got boring about 1995. There's nothing "cool" about it.
Kind of renders (sorry about the pun) antialiasing and anisotropic filtering unnecessary, no?
Yes, so wifey will be disappointed when she can't run OSX
. . . If you are going to build a PC for your "wifey", it is assumed you will take into account OS needs and preferences.
And as for putting "cool" hardware together, slotting a PC together got boring about 1995. There's nothing "cool" about it.
You are truly fortunate, sir, to have had access to Shuttle-like hardware in 1995!
The unofficial
You might as well choose which car you drive based on the carburetor it uses, rather than whether it's a sports car or an SUV.
I'll take the much nicer to use computer that I don't have to bother building any day.
Presumably it would be selling a Nano-ITX based PC, running some non-Apple operating system. He did say "next week", you'll note, and I am anxiously awaiting the form factor's availability.
Postage stamp sized mobo + x86 architecture = small, feature-laden, and inexpensive. Sadly, only available next week... but early adopting fools have long been the financiers of my "digital life".
Excuse me, but do you honestly believe one should take into account the "day to day running of a computer" when discussing the relative merits of processor architectures?
Here's a clue: asside from general software availability (something PPC and most especially PPC64 fall painfully short in), price/performance considerations are the ONLY relevant way to compare architectures.
As for the operating system, that's getting off-topic but since you are walking right into this one...
> You might as well choose which car you drive based on the carburetor it uses, rather than whether it's a sports car or an SUV.
Nope. Not if that "carburetor" makes that "sports car or SUV" only work on 5% of the roads.
It is humorous how clearly your posts evince the shallow thinking of a typical Mac enthusiast.
The unofficial
I'll take the much nicer to use computer that I don't have to bother building any day.
/me looks up from tweaking the placement of his hard drives in a new server tower
Alright dude. I think this is where we say "to each his own" and part ways.
The unofficial
In my mind, there is a major flaw in this argument. The lack of a digital audio out port.
Sure, most people could probably live without digital audio out. But who would *want* to?
sig not found
Mac hardware is standard, dipshit. It's simply a PowerPC system using CHRP and Apple Open Firmware. And if you're talking about connections, those are all standard too(PCI-X(not to be confused with Pci Express)/PCI/PCMCIA,DDR RAM, SATA hard drives, USB/1394/1394b). So, I don't know where you've been but Mac hardware is pretty standard.
Wow! You've completely confused yourself here. The question is about choosing a computer to use in a domestic environment. It's not a thread about processor architectures. The very point is that your jabber about processor architectures is ridiculous in this context.
Typical PC user behavior to miss the obvious.
> It would be more standard and less expensive if schmucks like you bought it.
By analogy, English Customary Units would be more standard and less difficult to deal with if schmucks in the rest of the world used them (as opposed to only the USA).
The unofficial
The unofficial
But why? I really don't understand the draw of the mac as a server. The things people claim macs are good about have to do with intuitive gui, clean gui, conducive to productivity. These are not really important for servers. On a server you want stablility, which OSX has but so do all the free unicies. All the fancy gui stuff would just go to waste sitting there headless.
This post written under Gentoo-linux with an SCO IP license.
Eh, no one is claiming the 970fx CPUs are not competent. Just outrageously expensive and hyped (in the case of the G5, anyway).
The unofficial
> You might as well choose which car you drive based on the carburetor it uses, rather than whether it's a sports car or an SUV.
Nope. Not if that "carburetor" makes that "sports car or SUV" only work on 5% of the roads.
Two points I'd like to clarify here:
Now, if you want to use the "Gee, x86s run all the software I want on the operating system I want!"-argument, that's fine, but realize that Linux blossomed as it has because people enjoyed writing code and tinkering with the internals. If you really want to see a package run on PPC Linux, the source code is out there... get it and compile it.
That said, if you aren't a tinkerer, why are you in a Mac mini thread talking about Linux?
And only 0.5x the number of general purpose registers that the PPC has. I thought you were trying to prove that the "AMD64" was better.
Excuse me, but the sub thread starting here is about processor architectures. Someone asked why I don't like PPC, and I answered.
Please take your "domestic environment" stuff elsewhere. Or if you insist on staying, at least acknowledge that your car analogy fails miserably.
The unofficial
the mini will serve up movies...from the new iFlicks in hd. The mini will sit as is...but plug into new Sony HDTVs that will have firewire inputs (and of course the DVI) The firewire from the mini is to output the sound to the sony TV's component and digital outputs as well as allow the sony remote to control the mac mini. iPhoto, iFlicks, iTunes....tv stuff is handled on the new sony box. its a merger requiring two items for a true HD media center.
No, in a land of .Net and the SUV, the mini is a lesson on thinking small that we need in a large way.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
For a number of reasons:
1. Apple is the first company I know of that has really popularized legal downloads of multimedia on a truly large and profitable scale.
2. Steve Jobs is well-liked among people in the entertainment industry, so Jobs could convince the Hollywood movie/TV studios to create a system of legal video downloads.
3. Thanks to the increasing proliferation of broadband here in the USA, there are enough customers to justify such a service even though videos downloaded through the "iVideo" store would require about 100-200 MB of disk space per hour for good quality video.
4. Hard drives of high capacity (120 GB and above) are so cheap nowadays that customers could now store potentially hundreds of hours of videos with a decent compression codec.
5. Devices such as Sony's PlayStation Portable point the way of portable video playback devices viewing video programming downloaded legally from "iVideo." While the PSP is technologically not perfect (too small hard drive and too limited battery life), by this time next year the technology may be there for a PSP-sized device from Apple using a hard drive designed for the iPod of 120 GB capacity and with higher-capacity batteries. Such a device will likely connect with the computer where the videos are stored using IEEE-1394 or USB 2.0 connections.
As for tweaking Linux for PPC, I am all for it. Not because I like PPC, but because I think it is important to keep the code portable... and simultaneously supporing a lot of different architectures tends to do that rather well
The unofficial
Pixlet is lossless, and the file sizes show it. It's meant for clips to be stored on the backend, as opposed to the delivery to consumers.
No, what Apple will deliver the content in is h.264, an open standard the allows HD at the same quality and the same bitrate as current codecs with normal-def.
I've got more mod points and GMail invi
Steve Jobs, is that you?
You do realize that the AMD64 arch. is the direct competition to the G5, right? Despite what Jobs about the G5 being the first 64-Bit workstation on the market - it wasn't AMD64 based systems were shipping before the G5s.
So, are you saying you don't give a shit about 64-Bit computing at all?
Definitely some interesting speculation by Cringely, but I don't think it will happen for one reason and one reason only: 5.1 Optical Output... The Mac mini has none. On the new iMac, they included an audio out that doubles as stereo analog or 5.1 Optical with the purchase of an adapter. They could have included this new type of output on the Mac mini, but obviously chose not to, probably for cost reasons. If the Mac mini was really intended to be a media box they would have included a digital surround sound output. Who wants to watch HiDef movies with crappy Dolby ProLogic surround?
Now, perhaps a rev. B of the Mac mini will be released when Tiger comes out that will have optical out, perhaps a component out dongle, Blu-Ray burner, and be called the Mac movie, but I wouldn't count on it.
That's one thing about Cringely. He makes some great predictions like "yeah, wouldn't that be cool if Apple released the Mac mini for $249..." Yeah, Robert, that would be really cool, but you know what? Apple is in business to make money, not to cater to all of the Mac fanboys out there.
Don't get me wrong, I love my G4 AlBook, but this prediction doesn't sound too realistic right now.
"When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." - Richard M. Nixon
DVD movies are around 4 gigs each, ignoring all the bonus material. Even if the HD content somehow stays the same size, it'd still take days to download the movie you wanted.
And more and more broadband companies are imposing limits to how much you can download. One movie would easily wipe out most users entire monthly allotment.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
Blu-ray PVR recorders have been out in Japan for months. I can walk down to the electronics store right now and buy one, and the media.
Ain't no myth. They are alive.
I was pointing out how it fixed one of legacy x86's failings, which is admirable.
It's nice that PPC has a lot of registers, but I could just as soon say Intel has a lot of "Ghz".
Playing the numbers game with an individual spec when comparing two vastly dissimilar architectures (PPC and any flavor of x86) is not relevant. Doing so between two very similar architectures (x86 and AMD64, the later being a superset of the former) is not only valid, it's the main way to differentiate them!
Anyone with half a brain can see I was responding to testing124's post which was comparing x86 to AMD64 directly.
PPC cannot be compared in such a direct manner. We must fall back to more general price/performance comparisons for that.
The unofficial
It makes my job as a computer technician very likely never to go away when more and more of you decide to remain ignorant brand-loyal asses about anything having to do with computers.
While you are at it you should not care about VOIP, OLED displays, HDTV or any other emerging tech that is better than the aging standard.
It's IPC is very high when compared to P4. And G4 has very high IPC when compared to P4. Clock for clock, G4 and P4-M are more or less equal. G4 in the Mini is either 1.25 or 1.42GHz. P4-M mini-ITX MoBo's I have seen seem to top out at about 1.6Ghz. So yes, it would beat the Mini by a narrow margin. 1.42Ghz vs. 1.6GHz with similar IPC's.
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
More than just a comment.
Anyone found a FireWire drive that would sit nicely under a Mini?
Or a case they I can put my own ATA drive in? With a 250 or 400 GB drive sitting under it, the Mini could make a rather excellent home server.
> So PPC Linux is primarily a no-go for you because of lack of software?
:-)
:(
It is half the reason, yes.
> Funny, I notice people saying the same thing when thinking about switching from Windows to Linux on x86.
Of course, but the other half of my reason is that PPC is inferior in terms of price/performance and hardware compatibility.
I acknowledge that the reasons to switch from $OTHER_OS to OSX can be just as compeling as those to switch from $OTHER_OS to Linux. But at least switching to Linux significantly broadens your horizons in terms of architectural hardware compatibility, whereas switching to OSX locks you down tight
The unofficial
Socket 370 Celeron or Pentium III?
Max 256 Megs of Ram?
No available DVD-RW?
4 MB Shared Memory Video?
No Hard drive included?
At that price, you might as well buy the Mac Mini. Expecially when you tack on the price of a windows OS. Or even the cost of Linux. What? You haven't supported you favourite Linux distro yet? Stop being so cheap.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
> > What real computers are currently on the market to compete with this?"
> Out of curiosity, why wouldn't a Mac mini be a 'real computer'?"
Sorry, but I can't let that go. You seem to be attacking parent for implying that the Mac Mini is not a "real computer". Clearly by asking for real computers which compete with it parent is explicitly implying that the Mac Mini is in the same category of competition with these "real computers". Instead of attacking his verbiage, why not answer his question?
SpeedBump
Ah, only specific comparisons where it favours your pet architecture. I see.
BTW, have you noticed how all of the games consoles manufacturers are moving to PowerPC derived processors. Guess why?
Eventually, you grow up, usually move on to a better job, and realise that computers are just tools for getting a job done. The user interface is far more important that what goes on inside the box. A low hastle, low maintainance, easy to use, reliable system is what makes a good system.
It's not ignorant brand loyalty that makes people buy Macs. It's brand loyalty that has been earned by delivering the best computing experience to people over the years.
I want to have an HTPC to integrate with my system, but it must have:
Ample CPU power to decode HD content and codecs. Currently these seem to use about 60% CPU on my 2GHz Athlon. Can't see the slow G4 rendering without hiccups.
Ample Disk space. The mini uses laptop drives. Very space limited. My Athlon has 400 Gigs online and I am always in Danger of running low, from all the TV shows I have online.
Sound: Spdif/out is a must as a standard feature for any media box. If this was the intended purpose they would have included digital audio out.
In short there is no eviddence that this is the intended purpose. Right after the news about the mini I sent email to apple suggesting the build a media box. It should have a bit more HP, take 3.5" drives and have digital audio out.
Your problem is that all you're looking at is the cost of the whole G5 machine, which includes other goodies like a liquid cooling system and SATA and FW800, etc.
All PPC's beat x86 architecture parts when it comes to price vs performance.
Actually there are no computers on the market to compete with this because while they may have X+(machine epsilon) features they all are wintel. And none are that cute either.
On another note, if the parent is not TROLL, I don't know what is...
There's no 'on' position on the Slacker switch!
> Ah, only specific comparisons where it favours your pet architecture. I see
Nope. Only specific when compareing related architectures. As I pointed out, your register comparison between PPC and x86 is just as irrelevant as a "Ghz" comparrison between an Intel and a PPC would be.
> BTW, have you noticed how all of the games consoles manufacturers are moving to PowerPC derived processors. Guess why?
Easy: to encourage sales by limiting consumer freedom.
If console games used an x86 architecture, it would be cake to write PC emulators for them and fewer people would buy real consoles. This is a textbook case of a non-standard architecture being advantageous to the company that both makes the hardware and licenses the software, but not advantageous to the consumer because it locks one down to a proprietary solution and limits what you can do with the software you buy.
In the case of Microsft's Xbox and Apple computers, using PPC deliberately limits one's freedom to use software on commodity hardware. Microsoft encourages the sale of video games and Xbox Live! (the real money makers) by selling the Xbox hardware cheaply at or below cost. In the case of Apple, they use the slick OSX interface to encourage the sale of overpriced, non-standard computers. In fact, to my knowledge this new Mac mini is the very first Apple product to not have a ridiculously expensive price/performance ratio.
Humorously, developers of Xbox games are forced to use Microsoft's Xbox SDK which requires an Apple machine.
The unofficial
Yeah, but click in my sig to get a free one for yourself!
And your only real reason is that it's not an x86, right? Or did I miss something?
Robert X. Cringely - "What is this thing for?"
Well Robert, I personally believe Apple is trying to help some of those "would-be" Mac users by offering a computer that does not force them to throw away their existing monitor, keyboard, and mouse. That is it - PLAIN and SIMPLE. The Mac Mini is a low-cost entry machine that is still feature-rich.
But heck, that is no where near as exciting as Robert's desprate article. He spends all that time writing about "what could be done with it". I am all for sharing folks, but use your own imagination. Buy it for what it is and keep in mind there are already hardware hack sites starting to crop up that will help you do other things with it.
Frankly, I think those people that are not using this device as Apple intended (desktop PPC), will very likely use this device like a net appliance and many other things we havent even thought of yet. Anyhow, I think Cringley needs to quit pontificating and ask more questions before writing an article like this. His supporting ideas are weak and full of holes! Terrible form, Robert.
> Hate to break it to you, but 970fx parts are roughly 1/3 the price of AMD64 parts.
Interesting. I must confess I had never heard of the term "970fx" before Alan posted.
So tell me, what exactly am I doing wrong?
The unofficial
Movies over broadband right now won't work. Apparently Apple's having trouble making money of iTunes downloads, and only really recouping the cost on selling hardware. Most people aren't going to download 3 gigs of content, and wait the required 2 days to get a movie. And if they want it to be HD, then the files are going to be big. Or won't look as good as a DVD, let alone those new HD Discs that they are going to be competing against. Plus ISPs are going to catch on. If everybody starts downloading HD movies all the time, broadband costs are going to skyrocket. Broadband is only cheap because 75% of users only use 5% of their allotted bandwidth.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
I have a few Macs, but mine have aged a bit. I program a bit. I'm an overall Mac Geek!
I also contribute to mozilla in my free time.
My main workstation these days is an IBM thinkpad... not my beloved Mac's. Because I need it for school, and for CPU (it's faster than my current Mac's)
I really want a Mac Mini so I can work with Mac OS X again. It's a cheap way for me to use my beloved Mac's on my tiny desk. Get a 17 inch display... perhaps upgrade the HD to a 120GB drive.
IMHO that is why this machine rocks. A simple way to get a decent Mac.
I'm drooling looking at it. The idea of having a sexy mac mini on my desk just makes me salivate.
s/x86/AMD64/ Then you will at least be stating his position accurately. Notice that he began by saying "I like x86 and PPC about equally, but I like AMD64 even more. To me AMD64 is the future..." As for it being the "only real reason", I would ask that you kindly point out which of the reasons discussed in the numerous child posts you don't believe to be "real".
Karma: bad (mostly unaffected by funny mods)
Excuse me but most people use PCs to do the following:
1. Browse on http
2. email, but many find MUAs too difficult (POP server config: witchcraft!) and stick to webmail.
3. Type crap on Word.
4. Occasionally tinker with cretinous software bundled with the new crackpipe-inkjet priner.
5. Indulge in CD/DVD duplication.
6. Games, but apart from computer literates & fanatics most don't care or prefer simple consoles.
All these activities have OsX equivalent programs that do the job with excellent quality. Not everybody enjoys spending the weekend trying shareware off a PC mag CD/DVD and most of the PC software "abundance" is better described as "redundance".
If your price/performance relevance was correct BeOS on PPC would be king by now. Instead people run crappy, cheap, loud and power hungry P4 with MS Winders; wasting half CPU on some McAfee UI nightmare, downloading definition updates and grinding the disk for the latest infections.
The best analogy would be: "Driving your shiny monster SUV right into a gridlock and sit there alone for 2 hours". Some enjoy it, others don't.
e
Mi domando chi à il mandante di tutte le cazzate che faccio - Altan
Current generation XBox uses X86. Where's your evidence?
Of course, there isn't any because it's bollocks. You don't need to go down the road of using a different processor architecture to defeat emulators. The use of encrypted signitures and the DMCA are each more powerful than a different processor. Note the existance of PSII emulators.
No, the fact is that Sony and Microsoft have joined with Nintendo in selecting the PowerPC because it gives far more bang for the buck than any other processor family. It's also believed to have more headroom than X86 compatible processors.
As to Apple, yes, they've never before had a product in the inexpensive end of the market. But they certainly have now. You won't be able to put together a bundle to compete on equal terms with the Mac mini for the price.
> all you're looking at is the cost of the whole G5 machine, which includes other goodies like a liquid cooling system and SATA and FW800, etc.
Hahaha, I cat get SATA and FW800 for much cheaper than a G5. And the AMD64 chips are quite cool running, so there is no need for watercooling unless one intends to overclock!
> All PPC's beat x86 architecture parts when it comes to price vs performance.
Name one such part costing around $150, and show me where I can buy one of them along with a compatible motherboard that has SATA and FW800.
Please.
Karma: bad (mostly unaffected by funny mods)
This makes me think that if Apple wants to get into this, they have to partner up with some important broadband ISPs. Then, though, the whole thing might rule.
> Current generation XBox uses X86. Where's your evidence?
...
... and that's good enough for me.
No, the fact is that Sony and Microsoft have joined with Nintendo
Well here's something for you to chew on.
I don't claim to be an expert on such things, though, so what I said was based on bits and pieces I've heard elsewhere.
I'm just not really a console guy, ya know? My computers can actually play an enormous selection of games already
> selecting the PowerPC because it gives far more bang for the buck than any other processor family.
Truly, I find this prospect fascinating. Perhaps you would deign to come and show us where to buy them?
Karma: bad (mostly unaffected by funny mods)
Nope: I don't give a damn about VOIP or OLED. I do, however, care about HDTV ...but I don't care what kind of MPEG decoder my TV has in it.
I care very much about the things that affect my life. What kind of new-fangled microprocessor somebody has dreamed up that won't run any decent software anyway is not a subject I spend a whole lot of time contemplating.
You do realize that the AMD64 arch. is the direct competition to the G5, right?
... no. I don't give a shit about 64-bit computing at all. There are practically no single-user applications that call for more than 2 GB of virtual memory-- there are some, yes, but the number is vanishingly small. And line-for-line, a 64-bit program is always slower than the same program compiled for 32-bit processing because you run out of cache lines faster.
Of course it's not. You can't run software compiled for the G5 on this "AMD64" blah-blah whatever, nor can you drop an AMD64 whoozit into place behind an Apple system controller. Saying the two compete is like saying that PAL competes with NTSC. The two things never intersect.
Despite what Jobs about the G5 being the first 64-Bit workstation on the market
He never said that. This is rapidly becoming an "Al Gore invented the Internet" thing. What he said was that the G5 was the first 64-bit personal computer, a statement which is entirely true.
So, are you saying you don't give a shit about 64-Bit computing at all?
I wrote software for the SGI Power Challenge back when having a 32-bit processor on your desk made you somebody special. Having done it for years I can say without reservation
So no. I do not give a shit about 64-bit computing. And neither do you, not really. You do, odds are, care about the latest buzzword. Just keep on sucking down that predigested marketing pap. It'll make you a better consumer.
I suppose I could go back and check, but his main valid complaint about the PPC was that it couldn't run x86 code. And that, I believe, is the crux of his objection to it. I sympathize with him, but I don't consider that a technical superiority of the AMD64 over the PPC.
Why does it need a 'special reason' to exist?
I'm going to buy it for some perfectly ordinary reasons: 1) it's a Mac 2) it is small and QUIET 3) it is cheaper than an emac or imac by a long shot.
People keep comparing it to cheap PC's. First, I don't want a cheap PC. I'm tired of windows (spam, viruses, spyware). and I'm tired of the noise that my linux box makes (3 fans in an AMD system)
But really, compare it to "cheap" PC's. If you buy a cheap PC you get pretty much the same keyboard, same case, same mouse, same monitor as in an expensive system. But on the inside you get cheap/noisy fans, and low cost LOW QUALITY motherboards and other internal components. On the mac mini, we're getting pretty much the SAME internal components as I already have in my Powerbook G4 (at work).
Is it FOR movies, or FOR media centers, or FOR ipod lovers? Dunno, I just think it is for regular folks.
We've had microprocessors that can operate with 64-bit pointers for more than ten years now. Has 64-bit computing taken the world by storm? No. Because the number of applications that require 64-bit processing is so tiny as to be hardly worth discussing in any broad context. Probably the most demanding desktop application right now, in terms of memory addressing, is HD video. Guess what? The industry-leading HD video editing application is, you guessed it, a 32-bit application. It's called Smoke and it's from a company called Discreet Logic. It costs a quarter of a million dollars, and it does things that no other piece of video editing software can do. All inside 32 bits.Sixty-four-bit computing has been in the "shall become important" category for years. And I think it always will be.
- fully backwards compatible with x86!
So? You can run the mountains of laughably bad software that's lying around rotting?
- able to run x86 at native speeds!
Oh, I see. You'll be able to run incredibly bad software
- roughly 15% performance benefit from porting an average x86 program to AMD64
Okay, we covered "do nothing faster" already. Move along, please.
- future-proof investment
Um. You're hoping that somebody will come along and write decent software someday, while ignoring the vast and growing body of good software that's been and is being written for the Mac today? That doesn't sound like a good investment to me. That sounds like a speculative investment.
- MEMORY CONTROLLER INTEGRATED INTO THE CPU
So? You think microsecond latencies between CPU and main memory, you know, affect your life somehow?
But a new PPC would have to perform _very_ well and be _very_ cheap by comparrison to outweigh it's inability to run x86 code.
LOL. You've got that completely backwards. The inability to run shitty software is a major advantage.
You know, I think I've got it figured out. You're a ricer, aren't you? Your computer probably has neon on it somewhere, and a custom paint job. "AMD64" is your version of VTEC.
And for the last one:Processor performance becomes more important, though certainly not as much as that of the video card.
The unofficial
What's this then?
I doubt that Apple has built this for movies. Maybe another machine will come around, but not the Mac Mini.
Excuse me, but do you honestly believe one should take into account the "day to day running of a computer" when discussing the relative merits of processor architectures?
...or even, in the case of editing HDV video, tasks that simply aren't possible on a PC at all. But the software that's available is nearly all top-quality stuff, as opposed to the mountains of trash that are available for the PC. And because a Mac isn't plagued by viruses, spy-ware and user-hostile software, you don't have to worry nearly as much about the reliability of your computer or the safety of the stuff on it.
... unless you're buying a mini, which feature-for-feature is the cheapest computer available anywhere.
I'm going to go way the fuck out on a limb here and say "yes." I'm going to say "yes," that verbally masturbating over the number of dizmos on the wizzle bus is mind-bogglingly stupid when the fundamental differences -- like what software runs on each --so galactically outweigh the kinds of angel-counting in which you're engaged.
As for the operating system, that's getting off-topic
Look up, you colossal dumbass.
Not if that "carburetor" makes that "sports car or SUV" only work on 5% of the roads.
That's depressingly typical. You make an analogy, but you never bother to think it through, so you don't see that it actually serves the other side of the argument.
You want an analogy? Let's make an analogy.
You can choose between two cars. One car runs on (just to pick a number) 95 percent of the roads, but the roads are all paved with gravel. For most destinations, there are many roads that lead there, but they're all long, circuitous and hazardous to both car and driver. They're jammed with traffic, choked with pollution and periodically targeted by wandering bands of roadside gangs that pull people out of their cars at random, mug them, shoot them in the leg and steal their cars.
The other car runs on only 5 percent of all roads, but those roads go to every destination in which you're interested, including some destinations that aren't accessible by the other 95 percent of all roads. And they're all twelve lanes wide with no speed limits and paved with concrete that's smooth as glass.
The first car is cheaper, sure. But if you spend a little more on the second car, you can get everywhere you want to go in speed, safety and luxurious comfort.
And just last week, the company that makes car #2 released a new car that sells for considerably less than the price of car #1.
There's your analogy. Yes, the Mac uses different software in many cases, but the software that's available lets you do the same tasks
Yes, it costs a little more
How do you like your analogy now?
After reading yesterday's article about the new 'Cell' processors that are being developed by Sony, Toshiba and IBM (The article mentioned that OS X was the best equipped consumer OS to be able to take advantage of the new 'Cells'). The presence of the Sony guy makes me think that Macs WILL be the first general purpose computers to feature the 'Cells'. And that Sony is interested in increasing Apple's marketshare so that they can sell more 'Cells' in the future. ( Just a theory )
You're essentially right, but you left out some important items.
7. Chat with friends and family via text, audio or audio and video.
8. Organize and listen to their music, and buy new music.
9. Store, organize and share their digital photos.
10. Store, organize, edit and share their home movies.
It's not 1999 any more. The scope of things that the typical home user either does or wishes he could do has expanded quite a bit. It's kind of silly not to acknowledge that we're not living in a "web/e-mail" world any more.
WRT the rest of your points, if you are starting from the premise that "all" or even "the majority" of x86 software is shitty, then sure, my previous post is bunk.
But good luck proving that assertion.
FWIW, I drive a simple moped and the only bright colors in my case come from motherboard status lights.
Karma: bad (mostly unaffected by funny mods)
Oh, modern codecs can do a LOT better than the MPEG-2 subset in DVD.
H.264, which will be supported on that box in QuickTime 7, is roughly 3x more efficient than MPEG-2. So DVD quality at around 2 Mbps. You could do great 1080 24p HD at around 8 Mbps with it. WMV9 Advanced Profile from Microsoft offers equivalent performance, although likely won't be on the miniMac in a high performance version for a while.
Not sure if the G4 will be able to do HD decode of H.264, though. Apple has only demoed full HD decode on dual G5. Maybe if they're able to do some video card offloading or something.
My video compression blog
In many parts of the country (such as Raleigh, NC) Netflix has a 2 day turn around, that mean that when I send back my three movies, I have three new ones two days later (three days if a sunday or holiday is in between). There's no way that I can download 3 full-length DVD movies in MPEG2 format (so I can encode into whatever I want with minimal loss) over my cable modem within 48 hours (we're looking at about 7GB/DVD). I'd say that video rental over the Internet, that is HD movie rental and such, is still a year or two away. More bandwidth is still needed. I am please at how TWC in my area has been steadily increasing the speeds, but I hope some competition (perhaps from Verizon FTTP or something) lights a fire under their monopolistic asses and gets us some real bandwidth that is competitive with the US mail system.
M-Audio-Transit [m-audio.com] AC3/DTS TOSlink adaptor.
Apple really should have just integrated this on the MB. My $20 sound card (Envy24 HT-S) does bit-perfect 48-192KHz 16/24/32-bit output on SPDIF or coax, using ASIO, up to 7.1 channels. If I could buy this card for $20 then Apple could get it as an IC for like $5.
Da Blog
If you want an inexpensive set top box for playing DVDs, Xvids, Mp3s, and even games, you are better off getting an Xbox for $99 to $150 and doing a software hack on it (no mod chip needed). Then run Xbox Media Center, which is free and open software. The Mac has no equivalent to XBMC. You can use a remote control to easily browse movies and music that you are sharing and streaming over home's wifi network, and it also supports web radio!
:)
With the Mac Mini you will pay nearly 5 times as much money, and then you will have to find a piece of software that is similar to XBMC. Considering that XBMC is based on mplayer, there is a chance that it could be ported to the Mac... but why wait? Save yourself some money and hack an Xbox.
Of course, if you want to do something other than set top movies, music, and games... choose something other than an Xbox. You know, its all about the right tool for the right job. Don't kid yourself, the Xbox is the king of set top boxes, assuming you hack it, of course
The lack of of a DVD HD or Blu-Ray drive is not a problem, if Apple is looking to make their money on content delivery. The unit already has a basic DVD drive so that it's a useful component in your living room, but Apple would make the money on the HD content.
I agree that the lack of an IR port is problematic. Other posters here are pointing out that an IR remote is available as an accessory, but come on. If Apple's strategy was to have a significant installed base of Mac Mini's for delivering HD content to the TV on the day that they roll it out, then they definitely dropped the ball by not having an IR port built-in. I have to buy an adapter to use a remote? Come on, Apple is a little more attentive to design issues than that. Jobs's vision has alway been to reduce the clutter coming out of the back of your computer. And it's going to discourage a lot of people from hooking it up to their TV if they have to have a keyboard and mouse attached. Huge oversight there. If Jobs had simply said that the IR port was for iTunes users, nobody would have questioned it since the Mini is aimed at iPod users, anyway.
I suppose Apple could just sell a Bluetooth remote, but they left Bluetooth as an option as well.
Lack of a decent audio out is the other real killer. Again, you have to buy a peripheral to get what should be basic functionality in a media center component.
Third problem is the lack of S-Video out and the narrow scope of Cringely's vision (yes, I know, buy another peripheral if you want S-Video!). This is supposed to be targeted towards HDTV owners, but is that a big enough market for Apple to make any money on? And if not, then they have to fall back on regular TV-owning slugs like myself.
So, for me to use this on my TV, I have to shell out another $115 in peripherals, not counting Bluetooth card and wireless keyboard and mouse, which would then bring it up to $225!
I will say, though, that it's interesting that the 5.1 sound M-Audio Transit is sold through M-Audio's site and not the Apple Store. They don't stock it but it was too important to leave off the page. That was no small decision by the Apple Store, to potentially disrupt the buying experience by having you go offsite.
Personally, I hope Cringely's right, but I just don't see the forethought there yet. Maybe reading his column will give Apple the idea. I'd hate for Microsoft to be the only player in the media pc space.
"> All PPC's beat x86 architecture parts when it comes to price vs performance.
Name one such part costing around $150, and show me where I can buy one of them along with a compatible motherboard that has SATA and FW800."
Dude, you can get a Gamecube for $99, and it's already got the PowerPC in. LOL!
It's not about what YOU as an individual can buy processors for, it's what they cost manufacturers who make computers and electronics. And they can certainly get more bang for the buck with PPC, which is why Sony and Microsoft are both joining Nintendo in using PPC for their next gen consoles.
I've answered your cheap processor question over there. Basically, it's not very significant whether you as a individual can't buy cheap PPCs. There's just not that many individuals doing home brew PPC projects. What's significant is that they are far cheaper for manufacturers to use.
The first wrong presumption in the article is that a new piece of hardware is needed in order for Apple to start selling movies online. What is needed for any company to succeed in that bussines are a lot of customers with faster internet than what is currently available in most areas. Untill fiberoptic networks like the one that Verison was building become the norm there is no way that people are ever going to wait for 1-2 hours in order to download a movie and still pay for the service. When you want to watch a movie you want to do it now or at least in the next 30 minutes. So all this crap with selling legal copies of movies online is most likelly not going to fly for some more time and Jobs knows that very well. Also even if there was a way for Apple to start making money selling movies online why would they need a new computer to do that? What's wrong with the currently available ones. The answer is absolutelly nothing. Oh yeah and a G5 is pretty damn quiet so I really don't care if the fan on the miniMac is audible or not. The case with the iPod was that when it was released it filled a void that still no other company can fill as well as Apple does. Plus music files take close to no time to download so it is actually faster than going to the store. In the case of the miniMac you have no such factors. The only reason why the miniMac came out is because there are a lot of iPod users that are starting to consider buying a Mac but are turned off by the really high price tag. If you spent $400 on an iPod what is $600 for a computer that can do all that the iPod can plus some ... And the reason why the miniMac has no monitore keyboard and mouse is because it was intender for use with a kvm switch. After all Jobs never even dreamed that Windows users are all of a sudden going to switch to full time Mac use. And who needs clutter arroud their desk anyway?
All this was a careful study of the market and the reasons why people are reluctant to switch form Windows to say linux and how exactly they do that. The truth is that almost all linux users have a dual boot machine with windows also installed (just in case). Well you can't do that with a Mac so hence the miniMac with it's low price tag. After all the miniMac is only a steping stone towards a *real* Mac computer (say a G5).
Oh wait... damn. You almost made me forget.
My friends live on the other 95% of the roads.
The unofficial
Wow, the suckiest nintendo console ever uses a PPC?
I might have known.
It's nice that large corporations like Sony, Microsoft, and Apple have such tremendous PPC buying power.
Because of course, x86 companies like Dell and HP do not.
Oh wait...
Karma: bad (mostly unaffected by funny mods)
The PS2 has been around longer... and people seem more interested in modding the xbox than emulating it, since it is so PC-compatible and thus can run cool stuff like Linux. Of course, having a hard drive helps.
> What's significant is that they are far cheaper for manufacturers to use.
Uh-huh. Where can I find a cheap manufacturer-built PPC system that would compare to one of my several $800 Athlon64 systems?
Karma: bad (mostly unaffected by funny mods)
/me waits for another mac fanatic to link back to the mini and point out that it costs less, when in reality that doesn't even come close to answering the question because an $800 desktop would eat its liver.
The unofficial
I tried and it didn't work.
It just occured to me that perhaps the true reason for download caps might not be stinginess on the part of cable companies at all. It certainly isn't a quality-of-service issue. Most broadband users can attest to unstable connections and awful customer service.
If you're downloading hundreds of gigabytes of data each month, what are you realistically downloading? Sorry, nobody really downloads more than a handful of different linux distros. Warez, perhaps, but over 50GB? And who's going to download over 50GB of music in a month in compressed form? That leaves porn and movies. Both of which are offered as pay services by cable companies. Let that sink in for a minute.
If the cable companies let you get hooked on free downloads of decent quality movies and porno rips now, it will be far more difficult for them to sell it to you later. They're simply trying to block a free (but almost always illegal) alternative to one of their paid services.
It's the same reason that snooty academics automatially assume someone who says "y'alls" is an utter moron. We associate certain types of languages with certain people. In my experience most folks who call Apple the company "MAC" are a certain unsavory type of computer-uneducated people who want to appear smart by proclaiming that the one bit of computing they DO know about is so superior to everything else - and often the same type of people who enjoy pissing people off for fun (trolls). So, you see "MAC" and subconciously expect the person to be an asshole.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Some people have style, some people don't.
Free Manning, jail Obama.
> Of course, but the other half of my reason is that PPC is inferior in terms of price/performance and hardware compatibility.
What fucking hardware compatibility? Everything is USB or Firewire these days and you know what: You can put the same PCI and PCMCIA cards into PCs and Macs.
You might miss a software driver, but guess what: Linux isn't there, yet, either.
By the way: This comes from a former Linux user who had Debian installed exclusively on my iBook 2.2 (arguably best Linux-supported PPC laptop) for more than 18 month until finally I gave up and dumped Linux for Mac OS X. Never looked back.
Free Manning, jail Obama.
the difference between workstationm and pc is either price or marketing. If it's marketing, apple was first. If it's price, I'm still waiting. I can build a[n ugly] PC with an Athlon 64 for what a mac mini costs, so I don't think a 64 bit mini is too much to ask - unless you want it at a low price.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Let's not forget that once you move to linux you've given up the greatest strength of the macintosh platform: OS X.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I am using my new Mac Mini (Picked it up at the Apple store this morning), and it is an awesome machine for the price. First Macintosh I have owned. Love it, love it, love it. Can't wait until my shuffle ships from the online store. :-)
I want my rights back. I was actually using them when our government stole them after 9/11.
It wouldn't you know. Your Athlon doesn't have OSX.
Yeah, perhaps in the US, over here in Italy '99 era web use is 'leet. Very few AV chat and when they do it's the 10€ webcam with MSN Messenger and that means crappy codecs, small windows and less than 1 fps. Music & digital photo organization doesn't require anything that you can't get for dirt cheap. Actually, lack of computationally intesive usage patterns in the recent years is what gave MS, Intel & Dell the chance to keep bundling one shoddy product after another.
The only real progress happenend because of 3D games basically building a "console" subsystem within the computer case.
In the '90, computers were severely underpowered for such basic tasks like wordprocessing. Component evolution was driven by very essential requirements and stagnated until Quake came. 3D became the next big thing but still quite irrelevant for most computer uses (IE, non entertainment).
I'd be very happy to see a new cycle in computer usage dissemination, but not everybody is willing or able to become a multimedia content producer... at most they'll keep ammassing divx with better codecs. I guess it'll make Intel & Microsoft happy... after all, adding new & exciting skins to trite programs is an easy buck.
Mi domando chi à il mandante di tutte le cazzate che faccio - Altan
Why would anyone want to spend $800 on an Athlon to run Windows or Linux when you can get a Mac mini running OSX for $499? :-)
I like RXC, I find him to be on top of things and a hell of a Mac Pundit, but I have to say this: WE ALL KNOW THAT IT'S A MEDIA SERVER - if you don't see that, you're blind.
And I also will mention that it's a hell of a product, some stats from a guy who knows a guy:
Initial 50,000 were sold on day one. Of those 50,000 over 45% were switchers. So tell Dell to get off of Apple's nuts, we know it was a strong business move, and presumably, it's working.
You obviously haven't read much Cringely - he's good deal more insightful than your AC post! And he's been doing it for like 15+ years?
Big Daddy, Johnny, Burp, Aunt Zelda, Scott, Slurp, Big Momma
The OS has no bearing on my question.
If it helps you comprehend the situation, lets just assume I'm going to put YellowDog on this hypothetical PPC system.
Now, where can I find something that compares to my $800 Athlon?
Karma: bad (mostly unaffected by funny mods)
However, the mini-Mac is not a cpu, and doesn't use a G5. But from recent testing, it's close enuf for mundane purposes.
The weakest links I see are the notebook hard drive (I'm guessing the Cube fiasco prevented them (politically) from a slightly different form factor with a "real" HD), and they could have spent the extra buck and added a second Firewire port.
Looking at the mini-Mac as a computer system, rather than as a cpu, I'm hard pressed to come up with a single comparable product (and yes, I include the operating system in the context of "computer system") anywhere else in the marketplace, While it would be nice to see an x86 "Cube" with a more substantial 3.5" HD quietly sporting an AMD64 cpu, Firewire (USB2 has about half the throughput for sustained data transfer), USB2, and 802.11_+Bluetooth capability, it ain't gonna happen -- except as some bizarre sort of artificial fireplace log, merrily heating the room.
Due to the "small AND quiet" constraints I have imposed on my definition of this market niche, you're going to be looking at an Intel-based cpu, probably the recently announced Sonoma Centrino, which has a couple of low-power variants (low power means less heat to dissipate) of adequate performance.
If Intel would mass-market a Sonoma set-top box with 802.11_, Firewire (connect to camcorders and external HDs), a BT keyboard+mouse/trackball, BT media remote, component video, DVI, and HD tuner + disc player (HD disk burning is not really necessary for the consumer market, IMHO), THEN there would be some SIGNIFICANT competition in this (very large) market niche.
But I don't see this happening anytime soon for two reasons:
Intel's pathological fear of Firewire will make it push USB2 and miss the camcorder video crowd
Where are they gonna get software to match OS X and iLife? From Microsoft (and still be cheap)? Linux-based OS and GUI solutions are feasible, but where are the INTEGRATED, easy-to-use consumer apps for Linux?
So, basically, your argument is either or both:
1) I need an x86 compatible computer, because otherwise I can't make unauthorized copies of my friend's software.
or
2) I'm so incredibly insecure that I conform to whatever my friends are using. I just pray they never decide to all jump off a cliff together, because I would invariably go with them.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
No, it would have caught on earlier had it been as affordable and backwards compatible as it is now.
There's no technological challenge to 64-bit computing. It's not hard to build 64-bit processors. As I pointed out, we've had them for a decade now. Even on the desktop. Remember the Indigo2 IMPACT 10000? Well, probably not, but I mention it anyway for the amusement of the other old-timers out there.
The reason why 64-bit processors were expensive compared to 32-bit processors had to do with the economy of scale. The first unit of any microprocessor is expensive. The 10,000th unit is cheaper, and the 100,000th unit costs pennies. So if the MIPS R10000 (just to pick an example) would have been produced on a massive scale, it would have been cheap. And, of course, the R10000 was fully backwards-compatible with earlier MIPS instruction sets.
So why didn't MIPS churn out R10000s by the millions? Because there wasn't that kind of demand for them.
See how it works? No demand means no supply, which means high prices. High demand means high supply, which means low prices.
Did Apple produce the G5 because their customers were clamoring for a 64-bit computer? No, of course not. They produced it because they could, leveraging IBM's work on the POWER architecture. This satisfies a tiny, tiny number of customers as a side-effect, but has the primary effect of making faster, cheaper 32-bit processors available to Apple's customers. The 64-bit thing is just not important.
if you are starting from the premise that "all" or even "the majority" of x86 software is shitty, then sure, my previous post is bunk.
By George, I think he's got it.
My friends live on the other 95% of the roads.
...you're saying what, that Macs can't exchange e-mail with PCs? You're fucking up the analogy --destinations are tasks, not people --so it's really unclear what you mean by this. You seem to be saying that you need to own a PC because your friends own PCs. Since PCs and Macs are completely interoperable, the only thing I can figure is that you're citing (a) peer pressure, or (b) your desire to make illegal copies of your friends' software.
So
Neither of those is a good reason to do anything, you know?
Any number of good reasons, but that's not the point of the $800 question. The point is, can these manufacturers with all this purchasing clout you speak of hope to match the price/performance vaule of a complete $800 system using, say, an $130 Athlon chip?
From what I understand, the answer is no. If price/performance + compatibility are the main concerns (and not some quasi-religious fascination with OSX), PPCs are hopelessly inferior to the AMD64 lineup when comparing apples to apples.
End of story.
The unofficial
the difference between workstationm and pc is either price or marketing.
It's neither. It's the intent with which it was designed.
Way to totally miss the point. What's so standard about propriety cases with propriety motherboards that take propriety chips and are powered by propriety power supplies? If you want to see standard try here.
Sure, you can connect standard USB and firewire devices to your Mac, and even throw in a PCI card too (except on the Mini). Yeah, I can do that to my pile of crap, non-standard Dell too. But upgrade the motherboard? Replace a broken power supply with an off-the-shelf part? Forget about it!
Of course it's not. You can't run software compiled for the G5 on this "AMD64" blah-blah whatever, nor can you drop an AMD64 whoozit into place behind an Apple system controller. Saying the two compete is like saying that PAL competes with NTSC. The two things never intersect.
By your logic, I guess you would say that the Gamecube does not compete with the PS2 which does not compete with the X-Box? Of course they compete with each other!
A microprocessor is not the same as an entire appliance. Your analogy is bogus.
Meanwhile I have some IBM PCs in the house made of heavier steel and plastic than the dell.
The difference between a pc and a workstation is how it is marketed. That has never been more true than it is today, and at times it has been far less true, like when there WERE no x86 workstations, and all the workstation-class machines were very different from PCs. Now, there is no difference.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
player, not the storage.
SO you have your 'normal' computer, and when you want to watch a movie, it loads up onto the mac mini.
Hmm I like that concept. This way you can keep your work horse out of the living room, and still get your digital content.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
The technical superiority would come in the area price/performance... as mentioned many times in this thread.
The unofficial
Don't get me wrong -- I've got a Samsung 46" LCD TV with 1920x1080p "resolution", but I know that the best signal I can feed it is really 1920x1080i if it's coming over-the-air.
Why on earth would you want to put Yellow dog on it when it already has OS X? That would be a silly downgrade.
Now, the Mac mini is $499. Your suggested system is $800. As I say, you get more bang for the buck with a PPC.
You can buy smaller Windows and Linux machines. You can buy cheaper Windows machines from all the big brands.
Objection! Irrelevant!
The Mac... mini, maxi, or midi... can't be compared on a hardware feature for feature basis to a PC... headless, diskless, or fanless... running Linux or Windows. Not if you want to figure out what the Mac (mini or not) is all about.
Even throwing in the cost of Windows XP Pro, a Mac
Mini costs more than the equivalent hardware you could toss together in a Shuttle case. Yeh, it's small, but that's not the trick. If it was a slab with as much free space as a Mini-ITX stereo-rack box it'd still sell for more... and justifiably so.
Because no matter what you do with your Windows box or your Linux box, it's not running OS X. OS X has a user-friendly environemnt that puts Windows to shame (and makes Linux look like it was just dug from a crypt), a hacker friendly environment that's almost the equal of any other open-source OS... without the driver support pains, and more than enough actual commercial software that ordinary people (as opposed to geeks or gamers) actually want to use to get by.
It's not as good a game machine as Windows. It doesn't have as much commercial software as Windows, but all the hot niches are filled well enough (no Open Office for Mac native? Aww, gee, we'll have to put up with Appleworks, Office X, and iWork). If you're looking for a PC to do PC stuff, the Mac'll scratch your itch.
It doesn't have all the server hots of traditional UNIX, yet. Tape support sucks, for example. But it's more than good enough to get by. If you're looking for a UNIX box or a Linux open-source hacker platform, the Mac'll scratch your itch.
It's a land-bridge between two hostile continents, and it's a clean, comfortable, safe place to live.
Over in Windows land, crime's pretty bad, the police are on the take, and you're never quite sure that the private guard you hired from Symantec or Macafee is entirely safe to keep around. But the food's great, and more than makes up for having to rebuild your house (but always to the exact same plan) after it falls down every few months.
Over in Linux land, the police are unobtrusive and honest and you don't need many anyway because your buddies look out for you. You get used to eating rice every day, and if you want to rebuild your house the way you want nobody's going to stop you.
In Macland, we have honest police *and* houses that don't fall down. The food's plain but varied... and always good. And this is the amazng new feature... you can actually afford to live here! Isn't that revolutionary enough? Why do yuo have to come up with theories about hidden agendas, comrade?
I'm sorry, I see what the problem is now. I thought you might have know what you were talking about, but were just confused.
I see now that you are just an ignorant old luddite passing himself off as a knowledgeable technocrat.
From apple's website:
:)
Densely-packed Power
Squeezed in under the cover of the Mac mini lies a G4 processor, room for up to 1GB PC2700 main memory, a Radeon 9200 graphics chip, and a large enough hard drive -- up to 80GB -- to store today's digital media.
that is all
You like your new Mac more than you like me, don't you, Dave? Dave? I asked...She said Yes.
Oh, I don't argue with that at all. My issues is with the zealots, on both sides, that can't seem to understand that there are better options (it may be CPU, OS/GUI, etc) on both sides that if combines could create an all around excellent product.
For example, if Apple had AMD create and exclusive chip based on the AMD64-Chipset for Apple's new machines. It quite obvious that IBM can't, or isn't willing, to scale the G5.
Why do so many people insist on referring to the Mac Mini as headless? A headless computer is one that has no graphical console or graphical capabilities (has no head.) My Sun servers are headless in they do not have framebuffers, and therefore no graphical console. The Mac Mini, however, has an integrated ATI graphics chipset; the fact that it does not have an integrated monitor does not make it a headless machine, just as the Power Mac G5, with no attached monitor, is not referred to as headless.
-- Never hit a man with glasses. Hit him with a baseball bat.
Well, there may be room for heroic optimization yet, but there aren't any G4 machines that can decode 1080i MPEG-2 in real-time. Not a problem on my dual G5, certainly.
Maybe they're limited by the limited FSB on the G4?
My video compression blog
I wasn't asking about anything related to your definition of `usability'.
I was asking about comparable price/performance to an $800 system. This is not equivalent to your vague notion of "bang for the buck". It is a question of mathematics.
Go ahead and continue to refuse to address the issue at hand; I shan't respond again until you choose to do so.
The unofficial
More so given that Apple is growing it's marketshare these days (which implies PC marketshare is decreasing). Only slowly mind you, but it certainly adds to the unlikelyhood of abandoning the PPC line.
What do you use your $800 Athlon computer for?
The OS has no bearing on my question.
Yes. It does.
You seem to be having a problem with your brain today.
If it helps you comprehend the situation, lets just assume I'm going to put YellowDog on this hypothetical PPC system.
Maybe it's not just today.
Speed at which a Power Mac G3 from five years ago can run Mac OS X applications: some.
...zero.
Speed at which a G4 from two years ago can run Mac OS X applications: more.
Speed at which a G5 can run Mac OS X application: most.
Speed at which "Gherald's" pet computer of the week can run Mac OS X applications: um
Seems like the price/performance question is pretty simple, doesn't it? Your horse loses to five-year-old Apple hardware, and it wasn't even close.
Mac minis are darn small, and sooner than later someone will come along and compile a kernel for mac os X, patched for openmosix. Imagine: a cluster of 7 mac minis taking up the space of one normal pc. Thats what id use a mac mini for. Fill my closet with those macs, add a couple of hubs and some power bars....
my karma ran over your dogma
The Mac Mini's problem is that it can't decode AND push out the video at that resolution because of the processor.
y et v500_faq#faq12
Apple's DVD player has no special advantage at 1080, because it is not ever decoding 1080, it's decoding a DVD, which is 720. So the only reason why they put this in the FAQ is because somebody was comparing HDTV MPEG to DVD MPEG, which is not an equal comparison. EyeTV is HDTV only, so this should have been obvious to the technical user, perhaps not to the unskilled.
http://www.elgato.com/index.php?file=products_e
The "funky calls" are called optimizations. If you read the second part of their answer (#13) you'll see:
"... and they have various DVD-specific limitations that make them unsuitable for EyeTV."
Which means, even if they were available, they couldn't use them anyway. It's not like these things are hidden in the video cards and are mandated by Apple to be included in the silicon. They're just pieces of software that offload DVD-related tasks to the GPU. They still run in the CPU.
If someone wanting to compete with the Apple DVD decoder on processor requirements, all they would need to do is write similar routines to offload tasks to the GPU. No need to reverse engineer anything, just use the programming interface to the video card.
But you know what, none of that matters to Elgato because like they said: the hidden routines are "unsuitable for EyeTV." So it doesn't matter that Apple's DVD player has lower requirements, because it only plays DVDs and EyeTV does more than that.
1080i (1920x1080) is more than double the pixels of 720p (1280x720). This would naturally require more power out of the processor. In order to make sure there's enough horsepower for recording, viewing, and decoding, I think it's a natural choice to suggest a dual G5 when a 1.25 G4 may be barely adequate.
It's not a some evil conspiracy, really. HDTV just requires more.
*sigh.. I don't see how what I personally do with my system is going to be relevant for the general case, but I'll indulge you nonetheless:
I have about 331gb of used hard drive space on one of my workstations. I rip and transcode at least four DVDs a week,and also play a bit of UT2004 when I have the extra free time.
As far as real work goes, it's the usual internet/email/office stuff along with some occasional at home postgresql development for my job as a sort of one man Database+Network admin for a local healthcare business.
For my academic CS coursework, I mostly code in C, Python, or Java, with a lot of extra C on the side since i'm trying to get a feal for the layout of the kernel. I'll occasionally change small things here and there and recompile and run to see what happens.
I should note that my total system price was more on the order of $1100, but I could have easily gotten a slightly slower processor, less memory et.al.for this system and only spent around $800, as testing124 suggests.
The unofficial
I agree they are not targeting the box at this market exactly... the difference is that I do believe it's suitable to it.
I am with others in wondering why they couldn't include the same combo plug they have on the airport express, but it seems so obvious to do so you have to think there was some reason (howveer slight) it was not done.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
a price/comparrison between a "platform OSX runs on"
and "a platform OSX does not run on" will necessarily not involve any applications that _only_ run on OSX. Or at least, it will only involve OSX-specific applications in the event that a suitable substitute can be agreed upon for the platform OSX does not run on.
the logic here is elementary
The unofficial
Way to totally miss the point. What's so standard about propriety cases with propriety motherboards that take propriety chips and are powered by propriety power supplies? If you want to see standard try here.
Since when is a PowerPC 970 propriety? It's made by IBM, and follows all PowerPC standards that I know of. For that matter, what does propriety mean? You misspelled it . There are few standards for motherboards; the chipset is usually specified by the manufacturer of the chip. All chipsets and CPUs are proprietary. There are just more chipsets for x86. But the motherboard interfaces are still non-standard. A motherboard maker who wants their own chipset still has to get the specs from Intel or AMD. There is very little that is not standards compliant in a Mac(the formfactor and PSU is basically all).
Sure, you can connect standard USB and firewire devices to your Mac, and even throw in a PCI card too (except on the Mini). Yeah, I can do that to my pile of crap, non-standard Dell too. But upgrade the motherboard? Replace a broken power supply with an off-the-shelf part? Forget about it!
Who cares? The whole concept of the Mac is that you don't need to upgrade the motherboard. Why, for that matter, do you want to upgrade a PC motherboard? If you bought the right one to start with you shouldn't need a new one (until you get a new system). By the time a new technology(for example PCI Express) comes out you'll need a new system to take advantage of it anyway(Unless you were stupid and bought a motherboard without PCI Express after PCI Express was announced and then found out you really needed it). And if Apple came out with complete standards-compliant hardware(ATX mobo/PSU) what would you do with it? Apple would still be the only ones making motherboards. About the only extra thing you could do would be switch cases or upgrade the PSU. Admittedly useful for some but not the Mac's target audience or for that matter 99% of users.
I was thinking that if the Mac Mini does come with a slow laptop hard-drive, that I could upgrade it. However, does the Mac Mini come with install disks for the latest Mac OS? Or would I have to shell out another $100+ on top of the cost of a hard-drive to upgrade?
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
And Amazon? They lost money hand of fist for years. It wasn't Wall Street that killed those charlatans. It was the VCs and anyone with common sense.
Yeah, remember how we used to order books online? Man, those were the days. Whatever happened to that Amazon guy anyway? George Bozos, I think his name was. Didn't he die a pauper after Amazon failed so badly?
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Most "geek" types prefer keep a big collection of movies around, but you're forgetting that the majority of "normal" people out there can't be bothered to sit and manage and share private illegal movie collections (easily running into TBytes as we know!) ... now, while an mp3 on an iPod is something you want to listen to over and over, movies are not generally watched over and over, and most people think of them in terms of "renting for a day" or a few days, perhaps for private, social or family viewing. Like renting a movie, they'll just want to download it, watch it, and delete it. So most people wouldn't need/want space for more than a few movies at most at any one time. 40GB/80GB seems perfect. Most people really do have 'better things to do' than sit and collect movies.
Get home from work - ask girlfriend which movie she wants to watch this evening (or let her pick). Go for run and clean up. 1 hr. Have nice relaxing dinner. 1hr. Have nice relaxing shag after dinner (1 hr) instead of driving to blockbuster (15min), picking movie and waiting in line (30 min) and driving home (15min). Watch movie.
Remote for Mac Mini is HERE AND NOW. Our 1st Mac Mini arrived with bluetooth, and shortly after it was out of the box, my son was controlling it from his Cell Phone (Sony Erikkson 68i) to select iTunes songs from a playlist he copied to the Mac Mini to play off hid stereo system. It even works downstairs.
Next he's connecting the DVI to his TV. Skeptics are often proven wrong and seem to have little faith in man's ingenuity to come up with novel solutions. THINK DIFFERENT!
(By the way, my son has never taken a computer course - nowadays, he claims, you can find most of what you need to knoww about computers and electronics on the Web)
What's past is NOT ALWAYS prologue for the future!
I may have been miscorrect in quoting SDTV, but I know for sure I read of smooth 720P playback.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I actually was thinking about h.264 with what I wrote, but I could not remember the exact numbers and for some reason got it in my head that Pixlet was another name for the same technology (even though I knoew the name Pixlet came before h.264)...
Thanks for the correction.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
the logic here is elementary
I'm glad you feel so good about your logic, because apparently grammar and punctuation have eluded you.
Item the first: Mac OS X only runs on Macs. There's no need to go on, because this halts all discussion of other platforms, but because you seem so bafflingly ignorant, I'll keep going.
iMovie HD: only on the Mac.
iPhoto: only on the Mac.
iDVD: only on the Mac.
iChat: only on the Mac.
GarageBand: only on the Mac.
Final Cut Express HD: only on the Mac.
Keynote: only on the Mac.
Pages: only on the Mac.
Creative professional? Final Cut Pro HD, Logic and Motion are also only found on the Mac.
You find me just one non-silly alternative to any of those programs, and I will eat my hat.
Note that they sell other companies accesories on thier own site, and in the stores. They have found with the iPod great success in accessory sales to enhance a product in small ways (like remote, or jacket, or photo-storage add-on...)
The photo storage add-on in particular is a good exampple of how Apple will work with a partner (in this case Belkin) to produce something the market might want but Apple doesn't yet want to provide itself. It's a smart strategy to not spread yourself too thin and let third parties take some risks for you.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Do you have evidence otherwise that Sony does not do as the president likes? He might give free reign to departments but could act as an overriding force.
But as I said I'm not sure how Sony is structured, if you know differently please point us to some information.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I read a report from the expo that Elgato plans to shut down production of the EyeTV 500 some time this spring. This is due to the dung infested legacy of retiring FCC chairman Michael Powell and his infernal Broadcast Flag. Since there is no practical way to implement it in a computer device
I was thinking along the same lines (buy the device before the gradfather date).
However in a recent review I could have sworn it says it already supports the broadcast flag! That would mean they could keep selling it, but also that there would be no rush to buy one as you'd still have the same limitations.
I really hope the EFF challege wins out, it can't hurt that Powell will be out as well (easier for a new guy to back out of even if he would otherwise support it). I did donate money to them this past year (well really I give them money every year) and that is one of the reasons.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Your post is exactly why I try to always name the thing I am point at rather than just providing a link... now sadly none will ever know what product you were asking about!
I think the chances are yes, but we'll never know.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
While you may have an otherwise reasonable point, I was refuting the parent poster's statement that Bluray is a myth, while in fact, it is selling in electronics stores as a consumer product right this very second, and has been for months.
They'll have to do a second version with the video and audio stuff built-in.
You could make it work with external interfaces, as many suggest, but it would fail in the marketplace. The extra mess of cords alone would kill it.
It has to be one piece.
September 2011: Looking for Cocoa/iOS work in Boston area Cocoa Programmer Quincy, MA
I think they'll give QuickTime an iTunes-like interface, with a library and sharing, and they'll use it for a QuickTime Movie Store. That way they won't clutter up iTunes' interface and turn it into Windows Media Player.
Using the QuickTime name would get QuickTime lots of free press, and bolster their format against Real and Windows Media, and encourage media outlets to switch to QuickTime streams. It might also help promote Apple's video editing software, and the use of Macs for video editing.
Using QuickTime.app instead of rolling it into iTunes would also let Apple chalk up another, distinct success, in addition to iTunes and the iPod. If a movie store is as big of a success as iTunes Music Store has been, it would be better if it were counted separately and not blurred into one big iTunes success.
(When you're at 2% marketshare, you need all the wins you can get. Separating the movie store would give Apple three wins, instead of just two.)
You already need QuickTime to use iTunes, so they wouldn't have to worry about people not having the program. They'd just slip it a QuickTime update with an iTunes update, like they already do.
Moving people from one app to the other would be simple enough. There could be special links, like those to the iTunes store, which cause QuickTime to open up. Those could be used to scoot users from a page in the iTunes store to QuickTime's store. Doing this, it wouldn't take long to introduce enough people for a QTMovieStore to reach the tipping point of word-of-mouth.
It would be easy to put add movies to iTunes, but I don't think that would be the best move strategically.
September 2011: Looking for Cocoa/iOS work in Boston area Cocoa Programmer Quincy, MA
Consider a QuickTime Video Store, where the "CDs" are actually things like "The Simpsons: Season One".
The tracks would be episodes. Instead of downloading a 2-hour movie, you'd be downloading a 24 minute episode.
If you had the patience and a good connection, you might go for an episode of a 1-hour show, or, what, 48 minutes of video?.
There's a whole lot of old TV that could be sold that way online. And new TV, too. It'd be a coup if Apple convinced someone to put new shows up on there immediately after the first broadcast.
Full-length movies could be sold as DRM'd Quicktime-format movies on data DVDs, mailed to the buyer and copied onto the hard disk. (The DVD wouldn't work in a DVD player, however.)
As bandwidth rises, longer videos could be downloaded online.
September 2011: Looking for Cocoa/iOS work in Boston area Cocoa Programmer Quincy, MA
none of which has anything to do with the hardware
but thanks anyway
The unofficial
So an episode of The Simpsons (25 minutes) would be about 1.4GB, but could actually be less because HD would probably be overkill, and who knows, maybe it'd compress well.
An episode of Buffy (44 minutes) would be about 2.5 GB.
How much could be saved by clipping the opening/closing credits (where possible) and converting them to still frames rather than video? For a 24/25 minute sitcom, that might be worthwhile.
September 2011: Looking for Cocoa/iOS work in Boston area Cocoa Programmer Quincy, MA
There's no point in talking about Mac hardware in the absense of the operating system. People buy Macs because of Mac OS. They don't choose between Macs and PCs on the basis of what processor they use. That would be silly - as indeed are our 2 AMD64 fanboys.
Then you're not in the market for a $500 computer of any description. I honestly don't understand why the $800 question was relevent. Unless of course the answer is that you can't buy an AMD64 system for $500 that is anything like comparable to a Mac mini.
The $800 question is relevant because there is no PPC system availeable near that price that would even come close in terms of performance. You would pretty much have to spend at least $1500 on a low-end G5, and even the $800 AMD64 hardware would still best it.
The unofficial
You seem to thing that the concept of "best" is to be found in benchmarks. It's not. If you want to do particular processor intensive operations, then the fastest processor might help you. But most of the time the processor in any computer is idling. The power of software to perform a particular human centered task is what's important. And generally speaking Macs enable real human centered tasks to be done quicker.
BTW, have you seen the Cell article yet. You might find it interesting.
the OS is not part of the hardware
Then what's the hardware for? Paperweight? Expensive art piece?
Software counts. Software is, in fact, vastly more important than hardware.
If anyone was wondering where the phrase "quasi-religious fascination with OSX" came from, this is precisely the sort of attitude it refers to.
The unofficial
I'm pretty sure nobody was wondering that, but it's ever so nice of you to chip in like that.
...except maybe yourself. Maybe you plan to collect them and show them as objects of art or something. You certainly won't be doing anything useful or productive with them.
I'm sorry that you're so upset over the fact that people care about what their computers can be used for rather than about how many bits can dance on the head of a pin. A computer that does not run useful software has absolutely no practical use, and is of no value to anybody.
Well
FYI, there is a lot of "non-PC and non-Mac specific software" via which *DIRECT* performance comparisons can be made. That is why I mentioned YellowDog, so you could get it through your thick skull that I wanted an apples to apples performance comparison (no pun intended).
As I have made clear earlier, I think the concept of "best" entails not only benchmarks (that is to say, direct price/performance comparisons), but also weighs the ability to make use of a larger variety of commodity hardware and software.
I saw that Cell article, and this comment sums up my reaction.
In particular, I refuse to give any credence to anything that mentiones the G5/970fx by name and implies they are better than anything x86 has to offer, while refusing to consider the direct competition: AMD64.
It would be like me comparing an old G4 Mac to an AMD64 hot off the line and completely ignoring the G5.t
The unofficial
here is an example of someone who may have been wondering. But even if he wasn't, I just wanted to make it clear to everyone that you are a particularly good embodiment of the phrase.
I am *not* upset over the fact that people care about what their computers can be used for rather than about how many bits can dance on the head of a pin.
I *am* upset over the fact that people like you seem to think OSX is A Divine Gift To All Mankind, whle classifying all x86 software as being "shitty".
Tell me, is iTunes "shitty" simply because it runs on x86?
(well actually, it *is* "shitty", but for another reason: Apple has no experience in how to write a proper x86 program. Not that I would have expected them to... quicktime for x86 has always been "shitty" as hell)
As for me doing useful or productive things, here is a short description of the kind of stuff I do with my hellspawn, non-Apple computer.
The unofficial
Since you actually have one, maybe you can comment on the amount of noise it makes. I have heard comments that it is essentially silent. This is another reason that it would be good in the media room.
What is your impression?
My impression?
It is essentially silent.
The fan usually doesn't run, and when it does, you probably won't hear it. The "whisper quiet" fans on most video projectors are louder.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
I *am* upset over the fact that people like you seem to think OSX is A Divine Gift To All Mankind, whle classifying all x86 software as being "shitty".
Robbed of sarcasm, you said that you are unhappy that I think Mac OS X is good and that other operating systems are bad.
Poor thing.
Apple has no experience in how to write a proper x86 program.
What would be "a proper x86 program?" I haven't the foggiest idea what that expression is intended to mean.
here is a short description of the kind of stuff I do
All I got out of that is that you're a college kid who thinks that the number of hard drives attached to his computer is going to impress somebody. You really are living in your own world. Which is fine and all. It's just kind of a shame that it's about ten years behind the rest of us.
> Robbed of sarcasm, you said that you are unhappy that I think Mac OS X is good and that other operating systems are bad.
No, robbed of sarcasm I am upset that you classify all x86 software as "shitty".
> What would be "a proper x86 program?" I haven't the foggiest idea what that expression is intended to mean.
One that isn't "shitty."
> You really are living in your own world.
I believe that particular phrase would be better applied to Macs users, who as you well know constitute ~5% of the market.
> Which is fine and all. It's just kind of a shame that it's about ten years behind the rest of us.
The rest of us? How the hell does ~5% of computer users even begin to qualify as "the rest of us" ?
> All I got out of that is that you're a college kid who thinks that the number of hard drives attached to his computer is going to impress somebody.
My hard drives are not meant to impress anybody, I was just pointing out that you can't get a similarly configured PPC machine for anywhere near that low of a pricetag!
Moreover, the only reason I made that post was because Basil asked what I do with my computers. And the only reason I linked to it here is because you said:
> You certainly won't be doing anything useful or productive with [your computers]."
which is categorically false.
The unofficial
Cringely is absolutely right, and I know that he is right because I figured out the exact same thing, but couldn't see the forest for the trees. I think that's Cringely's greatest ability -- to step back and see the big picture.
I recently bought an El Gato Eyehome. It's a $200 (now $150) device that grabs pictures, music and movies from Mac over ethernet. I loved my Eyehome, until the Mac mini was announced. At that point, I realized that I gave up the beautiful UI for something that was merely functional. Of course $200 vs a budget price Mac was too great a price difference last fall. Now, however, I'd certainly go to $500 for a living room computer.
What never occurred to me, but did occur to Cringely, is that I'm not the only one who feels that way. Millions of others will too. Bring on the iTunes Movie Store! For a preview, check out some of the music videos on the iTMS and pretend that they are movies you want to see!
Mike van Lammeren
It will challenge your head, your brain, and your mind.
if your wife asks for a Mac mini, you get her one. end of story.
if she asks for a Prada bag, you don't go to the chinese import shop and buy something that looks "almost the same" and has "the same usability, anyway". or do you?
I am upset that you classify all x86 software as "shitty".
Please feel free to try to convince me otherwise. I have never seen a piece of software for the PC --I'm not sure where this "x86" business came from; probably the same place that brought us "AMD64" --that could be classified as anything other than a massive train wreck.
How the hell does ~5% of computer users even begin to qualify as "the rest of us" ?
You're trying to say that you think PCs are good because they're popular? How often, in your experience, is the popular thing also the best thing?
I'd very much like to hear about something productive that you do with your worse-than-useless computers and your terrible software. Thus far all I've heard is "I have this many gigabytes of storage" and "I am going to school to learn to write terrible software of my very own."
> I'm not sure where this "x86" business came from.
Well then why am I sure where this "PPC" business came from, if it is only on ~5% of all machines? Maybe you should educate yourself!
> You're trying to say that you think PCs are good because they're popular?
No, I am trying to say that your use of that quantifier was incorrect in context. Mac users are "the few of us".
> How often, in your experience, is the popular thing also the best thing?
Often enough for the burden of proof to lie on that which is not popular. I find myself wondering if you really understand how capitalism works. Do you understand "survival of the fittest" ?
How many times has Apple *almost* gone bankrupt. Didn't they get bailed out by Microsoft on at least one occasion? If Apple's products were that great, they wouldn't be having so much trouble. Or maybe it's that Apples products are great, they're just too expensive and incompatible to really catch on? Maybe they are finally beginning to learn their lesson... OSX was a huge break, and the the Mac Mini certainly seems like a step in the right direction. But they obviously cannot compete when it comes to producing a full desktop machine cheaply.
> Thus far all I've heard is "I have this many gigabytes of storage" and "I am going to school to learn to write terrible software of my very own."
You forgot inexpensive gigabytes of storage. My point is that no Mac offers anything remotely similar for the price.
Yeah, right.. the linux kernel is terrible, terrible software. Here is a hint: OS X would be based on the Linux kernel if it weren't for the GPL. But no, Apple turned to BSD code for salvation because that is the only way they could freeload from OSS and not have to fully open source the internals of OS X. Just like Microsoft copying the BSD TCP/IP stack, really.
> I'd very much like to hear about something productive that you do with your worse-than-useless computers and your terrible software.
Worse-than-useless? I'm posting here, at least. Not exactly "useless". I gave you a good idea of what I do, and I hardly think a jury of peers would classify it as being useless ad unproductive. Terrible.. well, now you are getting subjective. Not that I would expect a zealot like you to be capable of much else.
But how about we switch roles for a change. Since you are, after all, clearly in the minority, how about you share with "the rest of us"* a few "productive" and "useful" things you can do with your aerodynamic hardware, that I cannot do on my worse-than-useless computer?
*here I am using that quantifier in the correct context. Just an FYI, you know, in case you failed English.
The unofficial
Well then why am I sure where this "PPC" business came from
... for a tidy profit, amusingly enough.
And we're defining "PPC" as what, exactly? Is it like "AMD64?"
Mac users are "the few of us".
"Rest" means "remainder," or "that part left over." Which has nothing to do with "many" or "few."
I find myself wondering if you really understand how capitalism works. Do you understand "survival of the fittest" ?
I certainly do. I also know that the first thing has nothing at all to do with the second. See, the cliché "survival of the fittest" presupposed an understanding of the notion of fitness. That is to say, to be fittest is not necessarily to be good by any objective measure, but rather simply to be better suited toward success in a given environment.
Which is why, in a market environment, the popular thing is practically never the best thing. There are exceptions, of course, achieved through careful manipulation of the market to alter its shape to favor a given product -- the iPod, for instance. We all remember how that was received, don't we? It was derided, much as you're deriding the Mac now, for reasons that were utterly irrelevant to its eventual domination of the market. But events transpired in that way because Apple carefully manipulated the market for their product through marketing, branding and, eventually, creating an entirely new business model for content delivery. So it's the exception that proves the rule, see.
How many times has Apple *almost* gone bankrupt.
Zero. The company has always had extremely deep cash reserves, dating back to the industry-defining success of the Apple II. The company has never been anywhere near bankruptcy. Maybe you're thinking of those days in the mid-1990s when Apple's long-term product strategy was a mess and their prospects for growth were shallow. But even then, the company was quite successful.
Didn't they get bailed out by Microsoft on at least one occasion?
No, but I know where you got that idea. Microsoft bought $150 million in non-voting stock from Apple as part of a business deal. The sum was far less than Apple's quarterly earnings at the time, not even a drop in the bucket really. And the shares were long since sold off by Microsoft
If Apple's products were that great, they wouldn't be having so much trouble.
Apple recently announced that their earnings for the quarter ending 12/25/04 were four times higher than their earnings in the same quarter in 2003. The company's stock is trading above $70, and analysts recently increased their estimates to a share price of $85. The company is wildly outperforming the industry.
Or maybe it's that Apples products are great, they're just too expensive and incompatible to really catch on?
Yes, Macs have traditionally been too expensive to be wildly popular. But if they were not expensive, Apple would not have had big cash reserves to throw at product development, and their products coincidentally would not have been very good. They would have been a Gateway, in other words.
Incompatible? I think maybe you're talking out your ass again. Interoperability has always been one of Apple's biggest selling points.
But they obviously cannot compete when it comes to producing a full desktop machine cheaply.
Four hundred and ninety-nine dollars isn't cheap? That's including $200 worth of top-quality software, too, so the actual price of the computer alone--if you could buy it that way --would be about $300. That's pretty darned cheap by anybody's estimation.
But of course this is a new development. It's only reasonable that you haven't wrapped your head around it yet. Paradigm-changing ideas are hard to absorb all at once. So let's take the Mac mini out of it. Apple is making money hand over fist by selling exceptional products at high prices. Explain to me, please, what's wrong with that bus
> You really are living in your own world. Which is fine and all. It's just kind of a shame that it's about ten years behind the rest of us.
Now I don't know about where you come from, but around here "in your own world" implies that one is living in an imaginative world inside their mind, and of their own devising. So from where I'm sitting, you were saying that I am a delusional x86 user, whereas "the rest of us" (that other 99.99999999999% of humanity) are somehow in the know about how kewl Apple is.
Back to business:
OSS stands for Open Source Software, as any
Lets also clear up architecture nomanclature as you seem to be confused:
x86 is analogous to PPC.
AMD64 is a superset of x86
PPC64 is a superset of PPC
So AMD64 is to x86 as PPC64 is to PPC.
A Mac-centric explanation of what this means in the real world is:
x86 chips such as the Pentium 4 are analogous to PPC chips like the G4, only faster and cheaper.
and
AMD64 chips such as the Athlon64 are analogous to PPC64 chips like the G5, only faster and cheaper.
Get it? I hope so. Consult wikipedia and some hardware sites if you are still unclear on this.
Now let's look at how you decide to conveniently introduce the Mac Mini under the guise of a "full desktop machine", and just as conveniently stop talking about it when it comes to discussing storage:
Think about this, please. Be objective. I'm sure even an Apple-centric fan like you can figure it out if you think long and hard enough.
But I will restate my point lest you choose to get sidetracked again: You simply cannot purchase nor assemble a similarly priced PPC-based hardware that will compete favorably with the suggested $800 AMD64.
> But of course this is a new development. It's only reasonable that you haven't wrapped your head around it yet. Paradigm-changing ideas are hard to absorb all at once. So let's take the Mac mini out of it. Apple is making money hand over fist by selling exceptional products at high prices. Explain to me, please, what's wrong with that business model?
It is wrong because it vendor-locks you to expensive, proprietary hardware. In particular, it fails miserably when pitted against the competition on an $800 budget. Or more generally speaking: on a $700-$1400 budget. But lets not go there just yet.
My bad. I must have been imagining things
> That is to say, to be fittest is not necessarily to be good by
The unofficial
i'll be buying a mac mini to use as a pvr amongst other things, but i don't think apple had movies (htpc) in mind. however, the mac mini does have characteristics desireable in a htpc. this is apple's foot in your door. apple wants mindshare before releasing a product for your living room (besides as the maker of ipod). also, i'm sure apple is very interested in how these mac mini's are used. with the right feedback & demand, who knows what this will lead to... apple will be (is?) poised to offer something for the living room, but it's not the current mac mini. in the future there will be a htpc mac (designed with htpc in mind, or specifically for htpc). but, apple movie store?! got bandwidth?
I see his points head on. I feel we have been foretold the future here. No amount of words matter. We shall see all in due time.
I'll tell you what the point is: No amount of slick interfacing will compensate for slow performance on the dollar.
For those of us who know what we are doing, the later is much bigger drawback than the former would be advantageous.
But go ahead, pay twice the money* for your pretty colors and dumbed-down, single-button, drag-n-drop, one-size-fits-all goodness-ness.
*this of course is in reference to full desktop systems. If the Mac Mini fits your needs then great. As you well pointed out yourself, it doesn't fit mine. And no Apple system under ~$2000 really does. But I only payed ~$1000.
The unofficial
Oh? And what would software be without hardware?
A printout of 1s and 0s ?
Hardware counts. Hardware is, in fact, just as important as Software.
You just have to consider the two as seperate, distinct, modular components... which is difficult for macheads to do since they're so used to being vendor-locked into the one-company-and-size-fits-all mentality.
The unofficial
Good user interface design certainly does more than compensate for small differences in performance. And I certainly know what I'm doing. I've worked in IT for 21 years, first as a techie, and the last 9 as a programmer. I use a PC for work and an iMac at home. I do actually know the difference. I don't think you do. You think a good UI is "slick, pretty colors and dumbed-down". You are so incredibly misinformed it's funny. A good UI is FAST. Fast where it counts. Fast in producing a good result quickly. There is nothing on the PC that compares, neither Windows, nor Linux.
You want to make this about speed? Awesome, now we can use real numbers. But before we begin...
Are you suggesting OS X on a Mac Mini would be faster than $OTHER_OS on an AMD64? Or that you'd need G5?
The unofficial
Lets also clear up architecture nomanclature
...you enjoy pain? My Xserve, which I use as the central automation for an office of about 50 people, is a file server, print server, Open Directory server (which means it stores user account information and home directories), Web server, FTP server, VPN server, database server (though FileMaker Pro) and scheduling server (through Meeting Maker). In its spare time (since, with dual G5 processors, it has lots) it runs Adobe Distiller for rendering the PostScript files my graphics department generates into PDF for our press. I'd love to find more things for it to do, but right at this moment it's doing everything we need it to do.
Thanks, but it was kind of a waste of time. We're not going to be talking about any of those things. Because they're irrelevant, you see. It's all about the software.
You simply cannot purchase nor assemble a similarly priced PPC-based hardware that will compete favorably with the suggested $800 AMD64.
You have that backwards, and a little sideways. You cannot purchase nor assemble a non-Mac computer at any price that can do what a Mac can do for $499. Why? Because of the software.
It is wrong because it vendor-locks you to expensive, proprietary hardware.
Please explain why inexpensive, multi-sourced hardware that can't do anything useful is superior to expensive (at $499), single-sourced hardware that does do useful things.
My bad. I must have been imagining things
No, just failing to understand what you read.
At last I've gotten you to admit the implication that x86 hardware is better suited towards success in a "given environment".
I think it's a little deceptive to say that you've done anything of the kind "at last," because it's never come up before my last message. But of course PCs are better suited toward success in a marketplace where people like to buy cheap, poorly made computers that can't be used for anything useful. This surprises no one.
Careful manipulation such as supporting PC hardware.
I'm lost. What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
Just like there is a lot of good PC gaming software available.
An absurd comparison, and you know it. You would seriously sit there and put computer software that lets freelancers create beautiful things (my things are merely pretty, but I aspire to beauty someday) and make money like it's going out of style on the same plane as arcade games? Once again, friend, I think you're not understanding the distinction between a tool with practical uses and a glorified Nintendo.
There is some overlap though, in that I rip DVDs
Sigh. Piracy is not a legitimate use of one's time or one's tools.
Give me the specs, and I'll show you an x86 analog that is comparable in terms of hardware
Of course you will not, because others before you have tried and failed. The Xserve RAID is the best storage system in its class, and also happens to be the least expensive.
You want "specs?" I guess your Web browsing finger is broken or something, but let me give you some bullet points to contemplate: Seven 400 GB hard drives in a RAID-5 6+1 configuration, plus seven empty bays for more drives that I haven't needed to fill yet. Dual battery-backed caches. Dual, redundant, hot-swappable power supplies and fan modules. Dual, redundant, hot-swappable RAID controllers with 2 Gbps Fibre Channel host-bus interfaces. Dual, redundant out-of-band management coprocessors. Stunningly easy-to-use management software that makes expanding existing RAID sets and setting up new sets a task for mere mortals. And three full years of 24/7 service and support. For a retail price of slightly under $8,000.
I would choose Linux for my servers any day.
Because
And I -- not some high-priced IT staff, not some vendor technician, but I myself --had it out of
You just have to consider the two as seperate, distinct, modular components
Why? What's the benefit of drawing an arbitrary and artificial line and saying that this part of the computer is separate from that part of the computer?
> Thanks, but it was kind of a waste of time. We're not going to be talking about any of those things. Because they're irrelevant, you see. It's all about the software.
The software is not relevant to the fact that you cannot buy similarly priced PPC-based hardware that will compete favorably with the suggested $800 AMD64.
The software is only relevant to the fact that you are unwilling to use anything else. I place no such restrictions on myself, and neither do 95% of computer users.
> You have that backwards, and a little sideways. You cannot purchase nor assemble a non-Mac computer at any price that can do what a Mac can do for $499. Why? Because of the software.
As has been discussed, a Mac mini does not fit my needs. In fact, no Apple computer -- costing less than twice as much as my AMD64 -- really would.
> Please explain why inexpensive, multi-sourced hardware that can't do anything useful is superior to expensive (at $499), single-sourced hardware that does do useful things.
What I would do with an $800 system, the Mac Mini cannot do. The fact that it costs $300 less is of zero relevance, because it does not fit my needs.
> No, just failing to understand what you read.
Maybe you can help me with this. I said:
"OS X would be based on the Linux kernel if it weren't for the GPL. But no, Apple turned to BSD code"
Apple.com said:
> The BSD portion of the Mac OS X kernel is derived primarily from FreeBSD, a version of 4.4BSD that offers advanced networking, performance, security, and compatibility features. BSD variants in general are derived (sometimes indirectly) from 4.4BSD-Lite Release 2 from the Computer Systems Research Group (CSRG) at the University of California at Berkeley. BSD provides many advanced features, including the following:
Sure sounds like BSD code to me.
> I think it's a little deceptive to say that you've done anything of the kind "at last," because it's never come up before my last message. But of course PCs are better suited toward success in a marketplace where people like to buy cheap, poorly made computers that can't be used for anything useful. This surprises no one.
You got the cheap part right, at least. As in less expensive. My poorly made computer runs just fine, and is faster than any Apple machine you can buy in its price range.
> I'm lost. What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
What I meant was painfully obvious, but I can go on paraphrasing myself indefinately if it will help: The iPod was only successful because it works with PCs. If it had only worked with Macs, it wouldn't have been successful.
> An absurd comparison, and you know it. You would seriously sit there and put computer software that lets freelancers create beautiful things (my things are merely pretty, but I aspire to beauty someday) and make money like it's going out of style on the same plane as arcade games? Once again, friend, I think you're not understanding the distinction between a tool with practical uses and a glorified Nintendo.
I see you are incapable of understanding that entertainment is a practical use. And that I have no interest in creating movies, thus my AMD64 system fits my needs like a glove (as well as many others' disparate needs). As no Mac would.
> Sigh. Piracy is not a legitimate use of one's time or one's tools.
Yeah. Fair use is such a bitch.
> Of course you will not, because others before you have tried and failed. The Xserve RAID is the best storage system in its class, and also happens to be the least expensive.
You want "specs?" I guess your Web browsing finger is broken or something, but let me give you some bullet points to contemplate: Seven 400 GB hard drives in a RAID-5 6+1 configuration, plus seven empty bays for more drives that I haven't needed to fill yet. Dual battery-back
The unofficial
Did that make a whistling noise as it passed over your head?
The software is not relevant to the fact that you cannot buy similarly priced PPC-based hardware that will compete favorably with the suggested $800 AMD64.
If we can't judge by use, how, then, are we supposed to judge? Mass? Volume? It's certainly true that you can buy a heavier PC for $499.
As has been discussed, a Mac mini does not fit my needs.
Actually, that has not been discussed. Seeing as how all you seem to do with your computer is write programs and commit acts of petty theft, I'd say that a Mac would be more than enough for you. In fact, considering that you can write more kinds of computer programs on the Mac than any other platform, I'd say that a Mac would be a far better choice for you than anything else.
Sure sounds like BSD code to me.
Yeah, like I said: You read something without understanding it. I'd suggest you go further to educate yourself before speaking on this topic again. In particular, you need to learn about the modular architecture of Mach, which was the basis for XNU.
My poorly made computer runs just fine, and is faster than any Apple machine you can buy in its price range.
Faster in terms of what? It doesn't do anything.
The iPod was only successful because it works with PCs.
The iPod was a phenomenal commercial success before Apple released the first Windows-compatible model. It held something on the order of 60% of sales in units and 75% of sales in dollars among players that include a hard drive before the first Windows-compatible model was shipped.
I see you are incapable of understanding that entertainment is a practical use.
Correct. Playing games is not a practical use. It's not productive, it creates nothing, it can't be used to make money. It's a waste of time. If you find it entertaining that's fine, but it's still not a productive use of time.
Mm, so you have 1 Xserve and 1 Xserve RAID attached via fibre channel? Is that how those pricey mofos work?
For now. My production manager is pushing me to buy Xsan. I'm thinking about it for next quarter.
Perhaps you neglected to include the part of the comment where you promised to describe something that would work just as well but would cost less. I didn't find that part in your comment.
How much RAM, number of CPUs, etc?
Two CPUs and two gigabytes of RAM.
A Linux system can do all of that just fine.
No, it can't. Let me count the ways.
It can't be a file server for Macs, so we'd have to use Windows file sharing or NFS, neither of which are as good as AppleShare. (I know from my brief and disastrous experience with trying to use it as such that there is a piece of software that attempts to emulate AppleShare. It doesn't work. It can't handle files with resource forks correctly [such as fonts], it gets confused on long file names, and it incorrectly maps UNIX file attributes to AppleShare attributes.)
It can't act as a print server for the Macs without an assload of configuration on each desktop, because it doesn't include Rendezvous support.
It can't be an Open Directory server at all.
It might be possible for it to be a VPN server. My unlamented IT expert couldn't get it to work.
It can't run FileMaker Pro.
It can't run Meeting Maker.
It can't run Adobe Distiller.
So no, it can't "do all that just fine."
Maybe you're too stuck-up to RTFM, but I am not.
You didn't answer the question. Why would you do it the hard, expensive way when you can do it the cheap, easy way? My Xserve RAID was considerably less expensive than a RAID from another vendor, and my Xserve cost about $2,000 plus 30 minutes of my time. I saved four times the cost of the whole package --including a bunch of iMacs for my staff -- by firing my IT guy. So my way was both easier and cheaper than what you're advocating (unless you plan to work for free, in whi
The mini is no good for serious gaming, it won't compile things quickly enough, and it doesn't have enough storage. I shan't elaborate, however, since I got Basil to admit that the Mini doesn't fit my needs and I don't feel like rehashing the same argument with you.
> Perhaps you neglected to include the part of the comment where you promised to describe something that would work just as well but would cost less. I didn't find that part in your comment.
Now that I understand how the Xserve works, I could describe an AMD64 system that costs less and outclasses the Xserve in terms of hardware, but it is really not worth the trouble if you require your server to run Open Directory, Filemaker, Meeting Maker, etc. I see now that it doesn't make sense for a primarily OS X shop to have a Linux server to quite the same extent as it does for a primarily Windows shop to have Linux servers (such as were I work). You see, a lot of effort has been put into making Linux servers useful on Windows networks, but no one has bothered to do as much for OS X because it's fairly irrelevant in the large scheme of things (think of the 95% figure, if you're lost).
But it is these kind of mindless statements:
> a front-end application on Windows or Linux would not, by definition, be useful
> A "free operating system" which cannot run any useful software. Absurd.
> Writing software for anything other than a Mac is an exercise in nostalgia. It's a waste of time.
..that net you a spot on my foes list. You may have raised a few interesting points earlier in our discussion, but I refuse to speak with anyone that incapable of objective thought.
Enjoy *your* world.
The unofficial
You'll have to excuse me if I am no longer pay close attention to thise thread.
Now are you going to answer my questions or not?
The unofficial
The mini is no good for serious gaming
...running home to momma?
Talk about your contradictions in terms.
it won't compile things quickly enough
Demonstrably false. You're not writing million-line projects. The difference between a ten-second compile and a twelve-second compile is a flimsy excuse, not a good reason.
it doesn't have enough storage
It's got practically infinite storage capacity through FireWire.
Now that I understand how the Xserve works, I could describe an AMD64 system that costs less and outclasses the Xserve in terms of hardware
No, you could not. You keep saying that you could, but (1) I know for a fact that you can't, and (2) you never actually bother to do so.
I refuse to speak with anyone that incapable of objective thought.
Hm. How is this different from, you know
ASSide?
Let's just wait until a AMD64 cluster hits http://top500.org/ before we start saying things like "AMD64 is obviously better then the PPC chip"
Yeah. Kind of similar to ASide, only mispelt.
The unofficial
Since when does having three of the top 20 spots: the Shanghai Supercomputer Center's Dawning 4000A at #10, the Los Alamos National Laboratory's Lightning at #11 and the Grid Technology Research Center's Super Cluster P-32 at #19 not qualify as hitting the top500 list ?
The unofficial
LOL. You misspelt misspelt.