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."

Comments

they don't market it for the movies.

[gl4ss]

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).

Re:they don't market it for the movies.

[dn15]

That may not be how it's marketed, but why would they do that if such a store doesn't exist (yet)? If someone wanted to use the Mac mini as part of a home entertainment system, its size (and presumably low noise level, though I've never seen one in person) make it perfect for such an application.

Re:they don't market it for the movies.

[Golias]

Let me give you an idea of how quiet this little sucker is...

Most of the time when it's in operation, the fan does not appear to run at all, meaning it's as silent as a laptop.

By way of comparison, the eMac has a big, slow-turning fan (about 4" wide) in order to ensure fairly quiet operation. It's quieter than some of the amps in my music studio... When the fan on the mini does engage, it's actually somehow quieter than the massive fan on the eMac.

The loudest component on the whole darn thing is the DVD drive, which is far from the loudest drive I've heard, but still about what you would expect from a slot-loading computer drive.

Re:they don't market it for the movies.

[freemacmini]

They pretty much had to make a product like this. You had mac cubes selling on ebay for four to five hundred dollars a piece. Obviously there was a pent up demand for a small, cheap mac with no monitor. It's actually the ideal home server.

Re:they don't market it for the movies.

[MightyMartian]

And the fact that you're part of yet another one of these sales schemes doesn't make a difference.

Uh huh. Sure thing dewd.

Re:they don't market it for the movies.

[jcr]

The fan in the mini is fairly large. That's why it can turn slowly, and make so little noise.

-jcr

Interesting Bio

[enoraM]

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 .
He seems to be at least somewhat close to Apple, HDTV and MPEG :-) and I just decided to buy this little thingy.

Re:Interesting Bio

[a-aiyar]

A little addendum to Cringely's bio:

In case the sentence, "... he taught for several years at Stanford University..." leads anyone to believe that Cringely was on the Stanford faculty.

Cringely was a graduate student at Stanford, during which time, he TA'ed a few classes. He never finished graduate school. Since then he has claimed (and then retracted) that he had a Ph.D. and had been an Assistant Professor at Stanford. When confronted, with the truth, he first opined that he thought being a TA was the same as being an Assistant Professor, and then removed the Assistant Professor and Ph.D. bit from his official bio.

Caused more than a little stir in academic circles in 1998. Here's the link from the Stanford Daily online from 1998.

Re:Interesting Bio

[BobPaul]

He never finished graduate school.

He has his masters degree (according to your link). Last time I checked that wasn't an undergrad degree.

But you're right to call him a sham. I still find him interesting and insightful, non-the-less. He's way better than Anchor Desk on ZDNet...

Apple need no R&D

[catwh0re]

All they need to do is just listen to the rumour mills and create the product that gets the most fan fare....

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.

Re:Apple need no R&D

[catwh0re]

a more serious side note:
the iPod was never marketed for the iTMS either. It was quite some time before iTMS came out.

Cringley = The Shotgun Approach

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Cringley = The Shotgun Approach

[Hynee]

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.

To be fair to him he makes fairly specific predictions, for a specific timeframes (although he clarified a few 2005 predictions because delays burnt predictions from 2004), and he sets out his reasoning for his speculation. His reasoning is sound, and his prediction definite, so-much-so that if there isn't a major announcement about Apple and streaming movies with Sony and Mini-Mac, in the next 3-12 months, he'll have to write this prediction off. That's pretty tough.

Could work well...

[kuwan]

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

Re:Could work well...

[opusman]

Another big problem is lack of a remote control. I guess you could get a USB solution but it seems like they would have built-in an infra-red port if they really wanted this to be part of a home theatre solution.

Dead on

[Golias]

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.

Mini's not for Movies

[the pickle]

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

Re:Mini's not for Movies

[mrchaotica]

If you're really a hardcore movie buff you could just get an Xserve RAID to go with it. : D

Re:Mini's not for Movies

[Rhys]

So what you're saying is that your internet pipe is faster than your hard drive? Tell you what I'll go buy you a nice 15k scsi disk, you buy me a new internet connection, k?

On the other hand, if you assume Cringely is right and that it's for downloads AND that those downloads will be faster than going to the rental store, you're left with only a couple obvious things:

1) Streaming. You'd be buffering for the 15 minutes of going-to-store then play and rely on the buffer.

2) You'll need a big pipe. The rate of 3-10Mbps for a dvd video (dunno about HD video) isn't likely to go down too much more with other compression. On the other hand, with cable companies talking about upping their service to 4Mbps or 6Mbps, and baby bells trialing FTTP that's approaching feasibility.

I'd mark it as more a 2k6 thing than 2k5 but who knows maybe it'll take off as a driving force behind FTTP. I'm sure I could figure something to use my bandwidth there for since I'm not a huge movie watcher.

Re:Mini's not for Movies

[dmarx]

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?

If the MPAA gets its way, you'll be renting these movies, not buying them.

Re:Mini's not for Movies

[the pickle]

I dunno about you, but I'd like to keep these videos around longer than 48 hours. I don't "rent" songs on the iTMS, and I wouldn't want to be "renting" movies on the iMVS, either, unless it were a LOT cheaper.

Streaming is fine for the latter, but we already have infrastructure for this. It's called your pay-per-view channel, and it's available in HD. (It's too bad the Onion doesn't have old archives on-line any more, or I'd take this opportunity to link to their classic "Gateway Introduces $5000 Computer That Plays Real-Time TV Broadcasts" article.) Remember, just because you CAN figure out a way to use a computer to do something doesn't mean that doing it that way is better.

You make an excellent point about Internet access speeds; downloading one of these is NOT going to be trivial in terms of time. The comment about the hard disk was targeted more at local playback. I'm assuming the end user wants to view the video more than once, which means it needs to be stored. Music playback from an iPod hard disk is not entirely skip-free, and playback of a movie from a 4200 RPM laptop hard disk won't be, either. My DVD player doesn't skip. My VCR doesn't skip. Cable or satellite TV doesn't skip. The consumer is NOT going to accept a video playback device that skips occasionally when skip-free alternatives are already out there.

p

Re:Mini's not for Movies

[n8_f]

Sorry, the hard disk concerns are crap. The 4200 RPM drives Apple is using can sustain aroun 15 MB per second. In comparison, HDTV has a maximum data rate of 2.4MBps (19.2Mbps) and Blu-ray has a maximum data rate of 4.5MBps (36Mbps). The hard drives won't be a problem.

I've never had music skip on my iPod mini and the issue wouldn't be the speed of the hard drive, which on any iPod is at least 3MB per second (do you have any MP3s encoded at 3145728-bit? Mine generally max out at 320). Instead, it would be some heavy jostling preventing reads from the HD while either running out the RAM cache or skipping to new songs not in the RAM cache (which doesn't happen to me even when I go jogging), or possibly a decoding error (although far more likely an encoding error).

Will not be able to record HDTV

[mboverload]

For a computer to encode HDTV video to disk requires at least a 2.4ghz machine, and, I assure you, a Mini does not have a 2.4ghz processor.

If you want a nice machine to run an HD recorder, look elsewhere.

Re:Will not be able to record HDTV

[NotoriousQ]

HDTV encoding is done at the source. If you have an HDTV tuner then what you get is the raw MPEG-2 stream that the station sends -- no need to encode. The camcorders do their own encoding right before they write down the stream, otherwise there would just be no space.

So you do not need a faster processor, just a bus and HD fast enough to get the stream. Playback of HDTV on the other hand may take some juice, but should be easily handled by most modern processors including the mini.

Re:Will not be able to record HDTV

[Gob Blesh It]

I wonder if you know that MHz means jack shit, especially when comparing across architectures as different as x86 and PowerPC. How can you hang out around Slashdot and not know about the megahertz myth? It's practically gospel. It also happens to be true.

However, I agree that the Mac mini would find it difficult to encode HD video in anything approaching realtime, not least because of its 4200 RPM laptop hard drive.

Re:Will not be able to record HDTV

[10Ghz]

2.4GHz eh? So it doesn't matter if it's 2.4GHz Celeron, 2.4Ghz Athlon64 or 2.4GHz 8088?

Seriously, staring that the MHz is completely pointless. You simply can't compare different CPU-families based on their clock-speed. P4 clocks alot higher than Athlon64 does, yet Athlon 64 mops the floor with the P4. How can that be? Or do you suggest that 2.4GHz Celeron is faster than my 2.2GHz Athlon64?

Re:Will not be able to record HDTV

[thehink]

so I'm wondering if anyone knows what exactly is the requirement to write an HDTV encoded stream? Lets say I have an HDTV tuner, so CPU is not a factor. What sort of disk throughput needs to go down for this to happen?

Re:PC competition for the Mini-MAC?

[wildBoar]

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.

Re:What?

[the pickle]

In addition, I do believe that you can no longer download a stand-along quicktime from apple, that it only exists as part of the current release of itunes.

Took about three seconds on Apple's site to shoot a big hole in THAT theory:

http://www.apple.com/quicktime/products/qt/

QuickTime 6.5.2 download, or standalone installer. Take your pick.

p

Here's the 5.1 part

[SuperKendall]

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.

May be not for movies

[tftp]

First, an average movie would be about 1-2 GB if compressed really well. An average broadband user has probably 100-200 kBps download speed on average. This amounts to 3 hours of downloading per movie, at least. Non-geeks probably will be displeased.

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.

Re:May be not for movies

[MojoStan]

First, an average movie would be about 1-2 GB if compressed really well.

I think it would be even worse (bigger) than that. According to Apple's H.264 web page:

H.264 can create great-looking 3G mobile content at 50-160 Kbps, excellent Standard Definition (SD) video at 800-1500 Kbps, beautiful HD video (1280x720, 24p) at 5-7 Mbps and full HD video (1920x1080, 24p) at 7-9 Mbps.

So at the lowest HD bitrate for 720p (5 Mbps), 2 hours of video would be about 4.5 GB. I think 6 CD's worth of data is more than people want to download for a movie. One-ninth of a 40GB hard drive is a lot of space for one movie.

Also, I cannot find clear system requirements for playing back HD H.264 video (especially for 720p), but I believe it's a heck of a lot more than the Mac mini's G4 processor. 1080p seems to require a dual G5.

Apple's H.265 page also says:

Full HD H.264/AVC video plays back on today's desktop computers. With a Cinema HD Display and a dual-processor Power Mac G5, the home office becomes home theatre.

Apple's H.264 FAQ says:

Does H.264 require special hardware?

While H.264 is a computationally advanced codec, it runs on today's shipping computers with no additional hardware required. For example, a full HD movie (1920x1080, 8 Mbps, 24 fps) encoded with H.264 plays back beautifully on a dual Power Mac G5.

Processing power, storage space and download time

[LordRPI]

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.

Re:Unlikely

[nzkbuk]

You're talking about a completely different architecture.
I have a I have a 800mhz G4 with 1gb ram and the same video card.
It plays all file formats at full screen quite happily while doing a bunch of things in the background. A mplayer playing a mpg stretched to full screen is only 25% cpu usage. An Avi about 30%, A WMV is about 35%. The worst seems to be a real player (.rm) video which can be up to 45%-50% (but how many of them would you play).

In short I agree the spec's are lower than x86, but it's certainly NOT bad.
Get one of these put a larger disk and more memory in it and you'd have quite a serviceable desktop (with screen keyboard etc.

Yes it could do with 5.1 sound, and a better video card.
Alternatively at 6.5" square and 2" high you could fit a bunch of these in 1U of colo space.

Re:Unlikely

[killjoe]

With dedicated hardware like the pvr-350 card from hauppauge the CPU issue goes away. What I would forsee would be an external device like the Plextor ConvertX PVR PX-TV402U but with decoding as well as encoding. Perhaps it could attach to the side of the unit forming something that is about the size of a vcr. It would connect to the mac via firewire in the back so the front would look sleek, or it could be built into a next generation mini mac.

I still don't know what they would do about the drive although many people seem to be just fine with a 40 gig tivo.

Anyway Jobs doesn't seem too interested in television. Music?, movies? yes! TV? not so much.

I find it amusing...

[bubba451]

I find it amusing that pretty much everyone is trying to push functionality onto the Mac mini.

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.)

I don't think so ...

[x mani x]

Reasons why Cringely is wrong:

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 ... to me this is not even close to being a sufficient foundation to support his claims.

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!

Re:I don't think so ...

[Leo McGarry]

1. HD-DVD and "Blu-Ray" are myths right now. They don't exist as commercial products.

2. Bluetooth.

3. Wrongo. My Mac is only a 1 GHz G4, slower than a mini, and it plays back AVC-encoded HD content just fine with the Tiger developer preview. (WMA-9? Silly rabbit. It's not 1999 any more. The world has moved on.)

4. Yeah, there is. It's called DVI-I. DVI-I to component analog adapters are about $40.

Of course the mini is not a "media center solution" (whatever the fuck that's supposed to mean). It's a computer. But your objections are still just a lot of hot air.

Re:I don't think so ...

[complete loony]

Lets have a look on the accessories page.
1) well, are there any actual disks shipping yet? Besides, I don't see DVD's dying anytime soon.
2) remote, yep there it is.
3) probably not, but I'd love to see a mac mini running a mythtv front end, with a big file server hiding somewhere else out of earshot.
4) component video, yep there it is.
And you can even get 5.1 or DTS to your receiver.

Re:I don't think so ...

[Yaztromo]

I generally agree that Apple isn't going to be targeting the Mac mini at home video playback for the masses (at least not anytime soon), but I do have to correct a few things in your post none-the-less:

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. But the Mac mini does have a Bluetooth option, and Bluetooth is arguably a much better technology than IR is for a remote control solution (as you don't have to point the remote at the device to use it). There are a number of different Bluetooth remote solutions out there (including Sailing Clicker, which allows you to use a Bluetooth-enabled cell phone as a remote control on a Bluetooth enabled Mac). IR is so last century. Get in the now! :) the current mac mini models are simply not powerful enough to decode HD video compressed with modern MPEG-4, WMA9-level codecs. While I agree with this statement, I doubt if this is the biggest barrier to providing HD content. A much bigger barrier is available bandwidth to transfer HD content over the Internet. Apple doesn't even have a SD download service -- I'd think that if they were to offer an "iMVS", they'd start with SD content, and work their way up.

One thing I think some people may not be considering, however, is that while movies may not be the ideal media for a hypothetical "iMVS" service, SD TV shows are a completely different matter. Due to their relativive lengths (20 - 40 minutes in North American once you remove all the commercials) and the low relative definition, an "iTV" service is quite possible for a device like the Mac mini.

Yaz.

Not what I was saying

[SuperKendall]

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.

Re:Not what I was saying

[steve_bryan]

"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."

Since I don't know this first hand, take it with a grain or two of salt. 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, Elgato faces the prospect of selling an illegal device when the BF regulation goes into effect this summer. Rather than fight that battle it seems that Elgato will simply discontinue selling its HDTV device.

So the practical advice seems to be that you need to buy them before the feds make it illegal to sell them. The EFF has brought a lawsuit challenging the authority of the FCC to regulate the design of computer devices but who knows how soon that will provide a result or if it will be a favorable result.

Re:PC competition for the Mini-MAC?

[Gherald]

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.

Re:PC competition for the Mini-MAC?

[NanoGator]

"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?

Probably more compressed though

[SuperKendall]

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.

Re:PC competition for the Mini-MAC?

[Gherald]

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 ?

Hence the Apple Product Life Cycle :)

[mr_tenor]

The Apple Product Life Cycle, which a Mac developer friend told me about.

Corrections

[SuperKendall]

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.

Re:Corrections

[MojoStan]

3) Check out the specs for Pixlet which lets you play back "movie quality frames" on a 1GHz G4.

Pixlet is a very high-bitrate codec that content creators are supposed to use to preview their video. According to Apple's H.264 FAQ, a 1GHz G4 is needed to play "high-end digital film frames at 960x540 (at about 20 Mbps)." For those not used to doing the math, that's about 18GB for a 2-hour movie. An HD 1080p movie is twice as large and requires a dual 2.0GHz G5, but this doesn't matter because Pixlet is for content creation, not distributing HD video. H.264 is the codec for distributing HD video and will be included in Quicktime 7.

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.

The Radeon 9200 is not even close to being powerful enough for HD. It does not have a VPU. Even the 9800 isn't powerful enough. Only the Radeons based on the X800 core have the technology (VIDEOSHADER HD) for playing back HD.

I'd sure like to know the real system requirements (CPU and/or GPU) to play back H.264 video at 1280x720 and 1920x1080. I can't find them at Apple's site or with Google.

Here's the Pixlet info from the FAQ:

How does H.264 compare with Pixlet?

H.264 and Pixlet are designed for different uses.

Pixlet is focused on workflow, designed for digital filmmakers, animators and effects artists to easily review high-resolution image sequences on a standard PowerMac or PowerBook. Pixlet plays every frame of a sequence without frame-to-frame dependencies so that a media professional can scrutinize every detail of a sequence. Pixlet enables high-end digital film frames at 960x540 (at about 20 Mbps) to play in real time with a 1GHz G4 or faster Macintosh, while 1920x1080 frames (at about 40 Mbps) will play in real time on a dual 2GHz G5 or faster. This capability eliminates the need to invest in costly, proprietary hardware for the professional review process.

H.264 is a delivery codec, optimized for high quality and efficiency. It leverages data that does not change between frames for more efficient compression. While Pixlet may require about 40 Mbps for 1920x1080 content, H.264 delivers 1920x1080 content at about 8 Mbps. This efficiency in H.264 enables delivery to and playback on a wide range of devices, from mobile phones to computers to HDTV and beyond.

WOW! A Reposted Cringely Story on /.

[multiplexo]

What are the chances? Yessirree, there's nothing like reading reposts of Cringely's craptacular punditry! That's news I can use!

Re:PC competition for the Mini-MAC?

[wtmcgee]

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.

Get a Cappuccino Mini PC, its $478 and has TV-out

[TobyIRC]

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).

Re:PC competition for the Mini-MAC?

[10Ghz]

A DIY shuttle-like PC would crush the mac mini in ever respect.

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

But if it REALLY must be mini, you can probably find a suitable mini-itx system somewhere. Just google for it.

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.

Re:PC competition for the Mini-MAC?

[93 Escort Wagon]

"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.

Re:Unlikely

[jinushaun]

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.

Hey, I watch video just fine on my lowly 850 MHz computer with 384 MB RAM. All codecs. (Usually the only problems I run into is WMP requiring 11ty billion MB of RAM just to run) I'm sure the 1.25 GHz Mac Mini will have no problems. Needs more RAM though.

That codec they showed off looked cool... H.264?

[TheLittleJetson]

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?

The Mac Mini is for ______

[Admiral Burrito]

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.

Re:The Mac Mini is for ______

[ErikZ]

I was thinking of getting one, just to see what the AmigaOS is like.

Re:PC competition for the Mini-MAC?

[Dominic_Mazzoni]

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.

Re:PC competition for the Mini-MAC?

[Justin205]

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.

Re:PC competition for the Mini-MAC?

[testing124]

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.

Can you just plug any USB audio card?

[ponos]

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.

Re:Can you just plug any USB audio card?

[Sarin]

yeah they actually work most of the time. especially the high end audio cards you pointed out. Even the pci rme hammerfall pc cards work in the mac, just be change one jumper.

Re:PC competition for the Mini-MAC?

[BobPaul]

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.

Re:PC competition for the Mini-MAC?

[BobPaul]

What is a 'real computer'?

Real computers use punch-cards, you insensitive clod!

Re:PC competition for the Mini-MAC?

[o_kenway]

And there was me thinking it was in size and weight...

Re:Really

[Gherald]

Ummm, you shouldn't? He didn't cite incompatibility for Linux, so he must mean hardware, not software.

Correct, except for the fact that that "tinkering" with Linux involves getting software that should work to actually work. Naturally, this is distinct from software being 100% incompatible to begin with (i.e. win32 apps that won't run on their Linux or OSX)

s/Pixlet/h.264

[System.out.println()]

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.

Re:s/Pixlet/h.264

[RalphBNumbers]

Pixlet is lossless

Pixlet is not lossless. It's a high quality wavelet based lossy codec; sort of like JPEG2000, but with a bunch of optimisations for video.

What makes pixlet suitable for editing is that it has only I frames (i.e. each frame of the video is a complete entity in itself, not refrencing data in any other frame), thus it can be scrubbed quickly and accurately, and cut cleanly at any point (unlike the various MPEG1/2/4 and MPEG-4-derrived codecs, which decrease file size by refrencing information in other frames, thus sacrificing that editing functionality).

But you were right in that, if Apple were to launch a Video Store in the next few years, it would probably use MPEG-4-AVC (h.264) and AAC audio (perhaps even AAC-HC aka aacPlus, by then). Those codecs are much more suited to delivering media to consumers (i.e. they have much higher quality at lower bitrates, but less easy editing functionality).

Re:PC competition for the Mini-MAC?

[JavaMoose]

Please, don't care.

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.

Re:mac mini server

[Trurl's Machine]

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.

What makes you say so? Imagine a small home network. It's quite obvious that in a home network, a silent machine running 24/7 might come handy - to share the printer among all home users, to share the internet connection via Airport/WiFi, to share the common iTunes Music Library for all the home users, to serve as a firewall for home network, to serve Apache to the outside world etc. Why do we rarely see setup like this in non-geeky households? Because it requires geeky skills on both Windows and Linux. That's why you think that servers don't need to be easy to setup and configure - because non-geeks don't even TRY. But if you use Mac Mini, you can setup all the services described above with a few clicks on intuitive icons ("Enable Web Sharing", "Enable Firewall", "Share iTunes Music Library", "Share Printer" etc). Plus - it's silent, so you don't need "server room" in your household, Mac Mini can provide all these services, like, anywhere you want. And just connect a keyboard/monitor whenever you want to change some services or configurations.

External drive for Mac Mini?

[michaeldot]

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.

Re:mac mini server

[revscat]

But why? I really don't understand the draw of the mac as a server.

Because there is far more to OS X than merely a pretty GUI. The entire underlying kernel is an excellent POSIX-compliant UNIX implementation, arguably better than Solaris. I've been using my PowerMac as a pseudo-media server for about a year now, and it's been rock solid and a pleasure to work with via ssh. With Linux I was frequently (sometimes constantly) having to fight with various installers, configuration management, etc. That is far less of an issue under OS X, and it has freed up my time to do other more intersting things.

Besides, even on a headless server you can access the GUI remotely. You want to see something strange, do a VNC connection to OS X via Solaris. :) There's something not quite right about seeing the dock inside of a Gnome window.

Re:PC competition for the Mini-MAC?

[curious.corn]

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

Re:Or...

[waynelorentz]

Salling Clicker rocks. I resisted buying this for a long time, but finally did. It's really amazing. I don't have a TV in my bedroom, so I just pop my Powerbook on the dresser and run iDVD from my cell phone, or my Clie. It rocks.

Maybe Tiger will include something similar. Most American households have a cell phone. Many (though still a minority) have Bluetooth. If this is a media center, imagine that you don't have to buy a remote control for it BECAUSE YOU ALREADY HAVE ONE in your cell phone. Maybe that explains the recent coziness between Apple and Motorola, whose most recently successful phones have Bluetooth in them.

Pulled all that out of my ass, but if I'm right I will still take 100% credit.

Re:PC competition for the Mini-MAC?

[Leo McGarry]

You do realize that the AMD64 arch. is the direct competition to the G5, right?

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 ... 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.

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.

Re:PC competition for the Mini-MAC?

[Leo McGarry]

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?

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 ...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.

Yes, it costs a little more ... unless you're buying a mini, which feature-for-feature is the cheapest computer available anywhere.

How do you like your analogy now?

Re:PC competition for the Mini-MAC?

[BasilBrush]

"> 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.

Re:PC competition for the Mini-MAC?

[he-sk]

> 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.

Re:PC competition for the Mini-MAC?

[BasilBrush]

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? :-)

Re:PC competition for the Mini-MAC?

[constantnormal]

From what I've read, as a cpu, the AMD64 is certainly in the same performance class as a G5 (and vice versa).

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?

No HD MPEG-2 decode with G4

[benwaggoner]

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?

Re:mac mini server

[mr100percent]

802.11 wasn't new either, but Apple's Airport base station became very popular. Until XP simplified the interface, I was tearing my hair out trying to support different drivers and programs to allow people to connect.

I agree with the grandparent, this is something my mom could set up.