Mac mini Review At Macworld

lemonylimey writes "Macworld has the first hands-on review of the new Mac mini along with nicely illustrated step-by-step dissection. It looks like the mini comes apart easily and (unsuprisingly) uses standard notebook components: a Panasonic DVD-R drive on 'SuperDrive' equipped models, Seagate Momentus 2.5" notebook ATA-100 hard drive and a single, nicely accessible 184 pin DDR DIMM socket. Upgrade options aside, it might not have the clock-for-clock power of the equivalent $499 PC, but you have to ask yourself - If you put them both on a shelf and ask your Mom* to pick one, which one is it going to be? (Yes, I'm sure your Mom is a Doctor of Mathematics and wouldn't buy anything she couldn't run Debian on. You know what I meant.)"

Comments

PC competition for the Mini-MAC?

[Anonymous Coward]

When MAC announced their "Mini", it caught my eye. Wanting to buy/build a small computer for my already cramped breakfast bar, I started pricing out similar hardware. The results startled me. Most of the configurations I found were more than the humble US$499 of the "Mini", often much more. To match price I had to configure with a much bigger shuttle-style case.

My question is this. What PCs are currently on the market to compete with this? When my wife asks for the "cute little MAC", what real computer can I buy instead?

Re:PC competition for the Mini-MAC?

[ambrosen]

I don't get why you don't want to buy one. Well, I do understand, but you've not elaborated your reasons.

Re:PC competition for the Mini-MAC?

[the pickle]

How about you stop trolling with the same comments in every Mac mini story on /. ?

Get a life.

Re:PC competition for the Mini-MAC?

[daviddennis]

There was actually an Ask Slashdot on this question a few days ago, so you might want to take a look at it.

That being said, in what way is the Mac mini not a "real computer"? It is a Unix system under the hood, after all. I bet your wife would like MacOS X a lot more than Linux or Windows, neither of which does nearly as well on the "cute and cuddly" test.

D

Re:PC competition for the Mini-MAC?

[Anonymous Coward]

My question is this. What PCs are currently on the market to compete with this? When my wife asks for the "cute little MAC", what real computer can I buy instead?

Personally, I don't think your "wife" really cares what you buy, as long as you keep her properly inflated.

Re:PC competition for the Mini-MAC?

[Anonymous Coward]

First of all, it's "Mac" not "MAC".
Second of all, it's "Apple" not "Mac".
Third of all, there are no currently no PCs that can compete AT ALL if you are talking about form factor (size, db rating, features).

Re:PC competition for the Mini-MAC?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent down - this is a cut and paste dupe of a different thread on /.

Re:PC competition for the Mini-MAC?

[Bastian]

Assuming your wife is after a Mac for the two main reasons why people buy Macs (the OS, and it just works), you're not going to find a PC on the market that compares to the Mac Mini. You can certainly find PC's the same size - just check out the Mini-ITX platform.

However, a preliminary look-through suggests that in this size range, you're going to get more bang for your buck with the Mac Mini. (I'm assuming, that, like most other Mac-disparaging PC users, you're a Megahertz Weenie.)

A good example of what I can find at CappuccinoPC.com is a 1ghz Celeron with only 128MB RAM, a 20GB HD, a CD-ROM drive (as in, no DVD, no burning), and a crap graphics card. For a price tag of $580.
To get it to something comparable to the Mac Mini, you're going to have to upgrade to a 1.26ghz PIII ($155), 256MB RAM ($55), a 40GB HD($30), a CD-RW/DVD combo ($60, $70 for slot loading), and add Windows XP ($119 for Home, $159 for Pro). Meaning that a comparable PC in the same form factor will cost you $920 - $970. And you're still stuck with a crap graphics card. I'm not sure if you get a sound card. On top of all that, 256MB RAM is the most you can get, and all the other upgrades (wireless, bluetooth, etc.) are more expensive than the same upgrades for the Mac Mini.

Re:PC competition for the Mini-MAC?

[Anonymous Coward]

MAC makes computers now?

Re:PC competition for the Mini-MAC?

[metalligoth]

I've seen this argument on several Mac mini related threads lately.

My theory is that it is a new troll. The "Macs aren't cheap enough" troll cannot possibly hold a candle anymore to the $499 mini's price tag. OS X is more powerful than XP Pro, and with the other software (iPhoto = Adobe Photo Album, etc.) it's got at least $499 worth of software on board.

Macs have supported right-click mice since Jobs came back in 1998 (or was it '97?), or you can hold control and click to get the same effect with the Apple one-button mouse. Since you supply the mouse when you buy a mini, the tired mouse argument is dead as well.

So now the people that fight for the glory of the outdated x86 architecture, especially the Windows users, feel obligated to call the mini "not a real computer" because it's a Mac or it's not powerful enough (1.25 GHz G4?! Not powerful @ $499?!) or they don't understand the GUI, etc.

It's the new Mac troll. Guess we need to get used to it, since it's all we'll hear on Mac threads when browsed at -1 for a long, long while.

Re:PC competition for the Mini-MAC?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't want to start a holy war here, but what is the deal with you Mac fanatics? I've been sitting here at my freelance gig in front of a Mac (a 8600/300 w/64 Megs of RAM) for about 20 minutes now while it attempts to copy a 17 Meg file from one folder on the hard drive to another folder. 20 minutes. At home, on my Pentium Pro 200 running NT 4, which by all standards should be a lot slower than this Mac, the same operation would take about 2 minutes. If that.

In addition, during this file transfer, Netscape will not work. And everything else has ground to a halt. Even BBEdit Lite is straining to keep up as I type this.

I won't bore you with the laundry list of other problems that I've encountered while working on various Macs, but suffice it to say there have been many, not the least of which is I've never seen a Mac that has run faster than its Wintel counterpart, despite the Macs' faster chip architecture. My 486/66 with 8 megs of ram runs faster than this 300 mhz machine at times. From a productivity standpoint, I don't get how people can claim that the Macintosh is a superior machine.

Mac addicts, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use a Mac over other faster, cheaper, more stable systems.

Re:PC competition for the Mini-MAC?

[Yaztromo]

It's not just the same comment over and over again, it was also a story last week.

I guess some PC users are just jealous :).

Yaz.

Re:PC competition for the Mini-MAC?

[daviddennis]

You posted this exact same message with SGI instead of Mac in response to one of my posts a year or so back.

Since that is so, it clearly has no factual content and should be ignored.

I'm not angry, just puzzled as to why anyone would bother to write... um ... upload such a post.

D

Re:PC competition for the Mini-MAC?

[daviddennis]

I hope you got a laugh out of the other reply to your post, which was an ancient troll. He didn't even update the model numbers and mhz ratings he used, how sloppy was that?

But understand that there are two types of customer. One type, and I fear the most common, looks at the details of a product and tries to compare it to others using a laundry list of features. For instance, a computer with an 80gb hard drive is better than one with 40. One with 512mb is better than one with 256mb. This completely ignores whether the products are well designed and assembled, whether they run MacOS X or Windows, and so on. This type of buyer drives the market because he/she/it is most common. It's much easier to describe something in numbers than in depth.

People who appreciate Apple products tend to look more at the whole product than the specifications, and they realize that while Apple isn't the cheapest company in the world, it makes fabulous things because it sets out from the start to do just that.

The two types of customer really don't understand each other very well, and I think that's why there is so much passion between pro and anti-Apple factions. One point of view simply cannot understand the other.

One thing that does intrigue me is that obvious valid anti-Apple arguments are rarely seen. For instance, you have to re-purchase much of your software if you want to use an Apple computer to its full potential. If you have Office, you need Apple Office. If you have Adobe products, you need to upgrade them. And so on.

The best anti-Apple argument is that many people fear change and going to something different. I've known people like that and they are perhaps the hardest type of person to deal with. This is largely disregarded on Slashdot simply because most Slashdot people are happy to learn about new operating systems and user interfaces, but it is a genuine problem.

So yes, there are lots of trolls and they change but little over the years. Perhaps they are simply envious of the cohesiveness of the Apple community and its obvious love of the products. That's something very unusual in this day and age, and we should celebrate it. Don't kowtow to the God Steve, but don't ignore his virtues either.

D

Re:PC competition for the Mini-MAC?

[TheOnlyCoolTim]

That $580 PC is absurdly overpriced, unless it includes a monitor. Which the Mac doesn't.

You fail it.

Tim

Re:PC competition for the Mini-MAC?

[Bastian]

If it's so overpriced, I would love to see an example of one that is reasonably priced.

Or is your definition of overpriced, "Anything that doesn't have a big blue Dell or a big green e on the case." 'Cause neither of them sell anything in this form factor, so they're not really very good references for comparison.

And no, it includes neither a keyboard, nor a monitor. It does come with a little stand so you can turn it on its side, though.

Re:PC competition for the Mini-MAC?

[Senjutsu]

It's just an old troll that the slashbots like to upload.

Re:PC competition for the Mini-MAC?

[Bastian]

In talking to PC users about this, I think what it comes down to is that a lot of PC users primarily stick with PCs because they are familiar with it. They don't Macs because they are unfamiliar, do things differently, and the people wear too damn many black turtlenecks. (Well, honestly, I see nothing wrong with this last reason.) More than that, they see the Mac as a toy.

But when it comes down to it, most PC users I have met who talk about how silly Apple computers are either haven't really even used a Mac, or have only used it for a few days or a week. Most of them don't seem to even realize that Mac OS supports multi-button mice and scroll wheels. Oftentimes, the criticisms aren't researched (I know this because they are wrong). Other times, the criticisms seem to be based on the idea that everyone should have a l33t0 gaming machine or a weather modeling workstation. I am always amused by people who complain about the lack of games available for OS X when the only two games they own are The Sims and Civ3

I suppose it's popular among Mac users to offer a complete psychological breakdown as to why PC users like to rip on Macs so much, but I won't bother. I'll just say that it seems that while I have met a few people who have seriously considered and tried both and ended up choosing Windows because they just prefer the platform (people who need to play Half-Life 2 aside), it was definitely just a few of them.

On the other hand, I know it's not too uncommon for PC users to wonder at how devoted Mac users are to their platform - a column on it shows up in some PC magazine a couple times every year. Here's a hint: it has absolutely nothing to do with SPEC benchmarks, application support, shooting demons with shotguns, or even aesthetics.

Re:PC competition for the Mini-MAC?

[elhedran]

One thing that does intrigue me is that obvious valid anti-Apple arguments are rarely seen. For instance, you have to re-purchase much of your software if you want to use an Apple computer to its full potential. If you have Office, you need Apple Office. If you have Adobe products, you need to upgrade them. And so on.

I am switching, and there is no software I need to buy. Ok, most of my games won't work, but hey, I've played them already.

Think about what software you really use on a day to day basis. Now go down to an Apple store and try out the software that is provided, and see if it isn't good enough or better.

Thats not to say I think everyone should switch. I'm only switching because I don't use my x86 machine for gaming anymore (consoles are cheaper) and I don't want to ever have to open my computer case ever again. Of course I didn't have to change to Apple to achieve that, but it was a lot easier, and it is so damn cute.

Really, I am just switching 'cause the Mac Mini looks cute.

Re:PC competition for the Mini-MAC?

[daviddennis]

If you use Office, you'll probably wind up buying Office. At $150 it doesn't exactly break the bank, but it's pretty stiff in comparison to the cost of using your old copy, or (more common, I fear) "liberating" it from work.

If you like the Apple look, I think you'll be very happy as a switcher since the whole OS is designed that way. It really is a fabulous experience.

Hope you enjoy!

D

Re:PC competition for the Mini-MAC?

[GlassHeart]

The two types of customer really don't understand each other very well, and I think that's why there is so much passion between pro and anti-Apple factions. One point of view simply cannot understand the other.

It's worse than that. Each side thinks the other side is stupid.

If you have Office, you need Apple Office. If you have Adobe products, you need to upgrade them. And so on.

Largely true, but let me correct you on a small point. Adobe Photoshop Elements 2.0, for example, shipped with both the Windows version and the MacOS version on the same CD-ROM (and worked with the same serial number). Unfortunately I don't think they do that anymore with their new version, but it clearly could've been done if the vendors wanted to. Myst II: Riven is another example that I know of.

Also, it depends on what kind of "need" you have with these Windows apps. Some needs can be satisfied by running under VirtualPC, which is still something you have to pay for, but at least isn't a total replacement of your software library.

Re:PC competition for the Mini-MAC?

[figa]

There are a lot of great reasons to use a PC, beyond just being familiar with it, and I've been a daily Mac user since '87. I own an Athlon-based beige box, a mini-itx PC, and a blue and white G3 Mac. I'm probably going to upgrade the Mac to a mini this week if they're in stock, but I still won't use it as my primary machine. It will be for my iWife.

Why? I'm still getting more CPU cycles for my $$$ on the PC platform, and I still prefer Linux to OSX. I have a beige box that I've held on to for the last seven years, and I've upgraded the CPU, motherboard, and memory painlessly and inexpensively every year. For about $200 and an hour with a screwdriver, I double my CPU speed every year. Most of what I do with a PC is rip CDs, so CPU counts. I also use Fritz 8, which is both CPU hungry and not available for the Mac. Thanks to Wine, Fritz is almost fully functional on Linux. It would be 100% functional if it weren't copy protected.

On the Linux end, I like running apt-get and having the latest and best Linux software available for free, without waiting for a keynote speech or dropping $100 at the Apple store. I even prefer gtkpod over iTunes. On the low end, my mini-ITX box is easier to administer from the command line, it was cheaper than any Apple offering ($300), and it's completely fanless.

I'm not an Apple hater. I've owned a Mac since '95, I learned C with ThinkC, and in the early 90s I spent about a year programming 68000 assembler. I just stopped using Mac as my desktop box in about '97 when Linux took off and 3D gaming became possible.

Re:PC competition for the Mini-MAC?

[jdray]

Question: Will the 1.26 GHz P-III perform better or worse than the 1.25 GHz G4? Assume you're running XP, as that's what you stated, and what most consumer-grade-consumers would run.

Re:PC competition for the Mini-MAC?

[Anonymous Coward]

You could always just install Linux on your Mac.

Re:PC competition for the Mini-MAC?

[daviddennis]

Well, I was being polite, of course, but you could also say I was focusing on the root cause - because they don't understand each other, they think the other side is stupid. It's almost like they're different cultures.

Once upon a time, a computer was not a commodity, and the various brands of computer were truly unique and special things. I miss those days, and of course Apple Computer is now the sole heir to that tradition.

Digital camera makers also package Photoshop Elements in that way. And when I bought Macromedia Flash/Education Edition (I'm working on multimedia projects for education nowadays and was eligible), it was also Mac+PC. I don't know if the regular (non-education) CD was Mac+PC, but the education one certainly was.

D

Re:PC competition for the Mini-MAC?

[figa]

I have installed Linux on the Mac, several times. I ended up with a slow Linux box. I'd consider it again if I were to ever buy a laptop. I like the iBook, and it's a good balance of design, size, weight, battery life, and CPU power for the price. On the desktop, I'm not constrained by those concerns, and I go for the most CPU cycles for the money.

Can Mac Mini run Linux?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the question I hear most often. I just don't get it. Could someone smarter please explain it to me? I don't understand why anyone would bother running Linux on a Mac. For $99 you can purchase Mac OS X and get real live tech support for problems that (probably won't) pop up. There's a lot of technical reasons you should run Mac OS instead of Linux.

1. PowerPC hardware, PowerPC operating system

2. Linux has its origins on IA32, Intel's 32-bit architecture. Every platform Linux has migrated to since then has been beset with porting problems Linux runs 32% more efficiently on Intel than PowerPC. This is very telling as PowerPC is in general much faster per clock than Intel. Somewhere in the translation from PowerPC to IA32 something got lost.

   Mac OS is 100% native for PowerPC. The Mach kernel has been optimized for the G3, G4, and 970 since Apple began writing the operating system back in 1996. Why choose a hacked and kludged OS from another platform when you can have an environment tailor-made for the system you'll be running it on? Mac OS certainly isn't plagued by same driver problems Linux is (in)famous for.

3. Control over the source code

4. In Linux, the development model is highly irrational: anyone is allowed to submit patches, and one man (Linus Torvalds) sorts through gigabyte after gigabyte of amateurish code, attempting to integrate it into the kernel. Apple's model is much more modern and decisive: the code for the low levels of Mac OS is available for anyone to download and modify, while the more complex parts of the system (QuickTime and OpenGL) are kept closed-source so those that know better the Apple programmers are the only ones allowed to tinker.

   The results because of these differing development models are clear. Apple released a major update to the OS once a year, and releases about five minor updates to the OS, as well as several dozen security patches and driver updates, in the interim. Since March of 2001 we've gone from 10.0 to 10.2.5! Linux is still stuck at some sort of bizarre "in-between" 2.5 kernel patch and won't move on to 2.6 until well after Apple has released Mac OS 10.3.

   It's not hard to see the difference here is a bunch of kids playing with source code instead of doing their homework vs. highly qualified professionals pushing their skills to the limits. The Mac OS user benefits.

5. Graphical user interfaces

6. I don't even think I have to touch on this. While Linux offers several GUIs from GNOME, KDE, and Enlightenment, Apple offers only one. But here we have a case of quality vs. quantity. Apple controls the GUI for its operating system while anyone can hack and modify the various Linux GUIs as they please. This has led to a lack of desktop standards and a whole lot of bickering and flame wars over human interface guidelines. Most of the GUIs for Linux are simply poor knock-offs of the Windows 95 interface.

   Apple's Aqua and QuickTime graphical interfaces are faster, more elegant, and very consistent. A Mac user can sit down at any Mac and (assuming someone hasn't installed Linux) get right to work. With Linux, it's hit or miss as to whether the user will know what to do when he logs in! Getting work done is the most important aspect of a computer. After all, it is just a tool. Linux fails in this area miserably you're forced to edit and tinker and kludge and hack to make things perfect. A Mac allowes you to just sit down and roll up your sleeves and get some work done. I don't have time to play at my job.

7. Software!

8. I've used Linux before and the headache of downloading drivers and libraries and making sure the versions all sync up are too mucvh to handle, especiallly considering one has to compile these applications. On a Mac, I mount a disk image and drag the .app file to /Applications, and I'm done. Hell, most software for Mac even installs it there fo

Re:Can Mac Mini run Linux?

[satoshi1]

So, what are the reasons to run Linux on Mac Mini? Because you can.

Re:Can Mac Mini run Linux?

[JMZorko]

OK, this is just wrong.

1. Linus is not the _only_ person who looks at submitted code for Linux ... there are many people, and i've met some of them. This is just disingenuous to suggest.

2. The kernel source is not available because it's the least complex part of the OS -- it's available partly because it's one of the more complex pieces, and a lot of really smart people who know their stuff in kernel space look at / debug / suggest additions for it.

3. Come on -- on a Linux box, if you don't want to compile from source, use apt or rpm or dselect or whatever.

Hey, I love my Macs (1.33ghz 12" PowerBook, 450mhz Cube, dual 1.25ghz g4) but your points are deceptive -- there are harder methods of doing things on OSX, and easier methods of doing things on Linux. You choose the best method for the desired outcome.

Regards,

John

Re:Can Mac Mini run Linux?

[amichalo]

For $99 you can purchase Mac OS X and get real live tech support for problems that (probably won't) pop up.

From your comment I am not certain that you realize the $499 Mac mini comes with OS X, there is no need to purchase Mac OS X for $99.

Or am I the one who is confused?

Re:Can Mac Mini run Linux?

[daviddennis]

I wouldn't be as negative on Linux as you are - surely it should be admitted that the "kids", in the long term, have created a high-quality product that works well for a large variety of applications, especially for knowledgeable users.

In my mind, though, it just doesn't match up well to a bunch of user interface obsessives over at Apple Computer. Can you imagine the meetings, with Steve obsessing on the exact shade of aqua blue to use for the default button on a form? I can imagine hours of bone-grinding tedium for the other folks on the team, while Steve pushes and shoves and demands as close to absolute perfection as we can get on this planet.

I don't see Open Souce folks doing that. They're too nice. They don't really care about the shade of aqua blue on their buttons at all. And none of them have much tolerence for ten hour meetings. They'll just use the same ugly shade Windows does and go on with their lives.

That's why Open Source software is never going to win on the cool factor when pitted against Steve Jobs and pals.

I don't think I'd enjoy working for Steve. But from the outside, the polished perfection he gives his products is second to none. that's the first thing I love about the Apple platform.

The second thing is that it gives you a near-perfect blend of Open Source software for web development, and commercial software for video editing, animation and word processing. So far, the commercial programs for those purposes are superior to their open source alternatives. So you can use open source for what it's great for, and proprietary software for what it's great for.

Neither of those advantages exist in Linux, and they are, broadly speaking, why I'm a Mac user nowadays and not a Linux user. So I join your puzzlement; I don't understand why someone buying into Apple hardware would not want their sofware as well.

So I'd certainly be interested in hearing peoples' responses to this question, and hopefully this less inflammatory post will help get reasonable people out of the woodwork.

D

Re:Can Mac Mini run Linux?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are the one who is confused. That is one of the reasons why it is so cheap.

Re:Can Mac Mini run Linux?

[Anonymous Coward]

> > So, what are the reasons to run Linux on Mac Mini?

> Because you can.

That's also a reason to jump of a bridge e.g. a stupid reason, isn't it?

Re:Can Mac Mini run Linux?

[satoshi1]

Depends on how you look at it. What are the possible outcomes? The positives and the negatives. It all depends.

Re:Can Mac Mini run Linux?

[Anonymous Coward]

> > > > So, what are the reasons to run Linux on Mac Mini?

> > > Because you can.

> > That's also a reason to jump of a bridge e.g. a stupid reason, isn't it?

> Depends on how you look at it. What are the possible outcomes? The positives and the negatives. It all depends.

Exactly my point. And the original poster was obviously asking about the positives, but you are not going to share them with us, are you?

Re:Can Mac Mini run Linux?

[Anonymous Coward]

A quick check of http://www.apple.com/macmini/software.html would show you that the mac mini comes with osX along wuat a lot of other software.

Re:Can Mac Mini run Linux?

[sootman]

Jeez, does this need to be spelled out every single time? Yes, OS X is a great OS and a great UNIX. But some people, sometimes, just want to run Linux, and they want to run it on Apple hardware. I will be using my mini as a web server (apache, php, postgres, mysql, gallery, geeklog, and more) and everything I need works fine under OS X. If someone else wants a wsebserver in a tiny package BUT they have the desire or need to do it all in Linux, why shouldn't they?

Re:Can Mac Mini run Linux?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you seriously imagine Apple doing that? C'mon.

Re:Can Mac Mini run Linux?

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

That is one of the reasons why it is so cheap.

Sorry, no. If Apple really wanted to have a $499 computer, and components and labor cost over $400, they'd just throw in OS X free/underpriced. They're Apple. They can expect the profit on the Mac Mini to exceed any losses by not charging for OS X.

It is software, after all. Copying software has effectively zero marginal cost. The only question is whether to consider the profit as OS X profit or Mac Mini profit.

Re:Can Mac Mini run Linux?

[Ohreally_factor]

I can think of a reason. if someone were a die hard F/OSS person, they wouldn't want to use proprietary software for philosophical reasons, but they still might want the nifty hardware. Quite recently, it was considered hip amongst a certain segment of linux developers to sport Apple laptops with linux installed. They liked the nifty hardware.

I'm a die hard kool aid drinking card carrying Apple zealot, myself. But that's one possible reason, and I think it's a valid one.

Re:Can Mac Mini run Linux?

[amichalo]

You are the one who is confused. That is one of the reasons why it is so cheap.

According to Apple the $499 Mac mini comes with:
- Mac OS X Panther
- iLife '05 (GarageBand, iMovie, iDVD*, iPhoto, iTunes)
- Quicken 2005
- and two games Nanosaur 2 and Marble Blast Gold
* previously, Apple has not included iDVD on systems that do not have a Super Drive, and therefore, no DVD authoring capability.

Thanks for the FUD.

Re:Can Mac Mini run Linux?

[jbolden]

It wasn't really so much hip but rather that the iBook was a very good value in terms of what you got for a laptop. G3s&G4s are far better about low power consumption and heat than P4s; which in a laptop resulted in the G3s being almost comparable to the Pentium Ms which were much more expensive.....

Re:Can Mac Mini run Linux?

[Ohreally_factor]

Hey, I didn't mean to imply that any iBook toting linux developer was a poseur, I just meant it was a popular choice. Because it is nifty hardware. And I personally know one prominent developer who's more or less been won over by OS X, though he continues to develop for linux because it's still the good cause worth fighting for.

Re:Can Mac Mini run Linux?

[Richard_at_work]

For the record, I purchased a new iBook at the start of December 2004, non Superdrive, and received all of the software on that list apart from Quicken. Apple have shipped iDVD with non superdrive systems before.

Re:Can Mac Mini run Linux?

[Anonymous Coward]

2. The kernel source is not available because it's the least complex part of the OS -- it's available partly because it's one of the more complex pieces, and a lot of really smart people who know their stuff in kernel space look at / debug / suggest additions for it.

You mean the kernel (xnu) is available right... I used to build my own kernel just for the kicks of it. See Apple Darwin OSS Page and OpenDarwin (xnu cvs)

Re:Can Mac Mini run Linux?

[JMZorko]

Yes, that's what I meant -- the kernel source is available, not because it's the least complex part of the OS, rather, it's available partly because it's one of the most complex pieces, and there are a lot of super-smart people on the internet who know kernel space inside and out. And believe me, it's nice having the source available ... there have been times where some code I was writing was returning some strange error, and the man pages didn't give much of a clue, and Google didn't, either. I just snarfed the XNU source, grepped for the error I was seeing, and by looking at the source for the kernel function I was calling (and following the code to see what would make it return the error I was seeing), I found that I was populating a structure incorrectly.

I love open source :-)

Regards,

John

Standard bog PC2700 DDR ram?

[(H)elix1]

Any (quality) DDR ram work? I heard earlier Macs needed some goofy timing, so you had to be careful about what you bought. This still true, or did they use off the shelf stuff this time?

Re:Standard bog PC2700 DDR ram?

[Gob Blesh It]

You've always been able to use off-the-shelf RAM, but it's true that recent versions of Mac OS X (apparently not the hardware?) are more sensitive to timing issues. So be careful not to buy the rebranded DIMMs they'll sell you at a 50% discount because they failed all the QA tests. Stick to name-brand RAM, or at least buy from somewhere with a decent return policy, and you'll be fine.

Re:Standard bog PC2700 DDR ram?

[gunnk]

Early Macs used parity-RAM for higher reliability. Basically each byte was nine bits long -- eight for data storage and one as a checksum bit. If a bit flipped incorrectly or got stuck in one state you would know it because the parity bit wouldn't check out.

Now Macs use non-parity RAM just like everyone else. I don't even think servers use parity-RAM anymore (the other place it used to be very common). That makes me think that RAM is just more reliable now than previously.

Imagine...

[Temporal]

A beowulf cluster of these.

No no, seriously! You could have a little stack of them. You could even built a little pyramid of them, right on your desk! Am I the only one obsessed with this idea!?

Must... purchase... stack of Mac minis... ::zombie::

Re:Imagine...

[the pickle]

Actually, Apple says not to do that.

I suspect it's mostly a wireless issue, and if you're building a mini-cluster, you'd probably rather use Ethernet to connect them anyway, and you probably won't be using Bluetooth. Either way, at least the top machine would have antenna access, so if you absolutely needed BT/802.11 you could have one of them do wireless and relay to the rest over Ethernet.

p

Re:Imagine...

[tfiedler]

In eight rack units I could fit what, 16 of these critters. So I get 16 1.4GHz G4 processors for about US$9,600 My cluster of eight xserve g5s (16 cpu) cost me about $35,000 and takes up 8 rack units. Now my question is this... what is the real world performance difference between 16 1.4 GHz G4 processors versus 16 2GHz G5 processors and does the $25,000 difference make up that gap? Then, if you figure the cost of double the power cords, ethernet cabling and administration does it still?

Re:Imagine...

[confidential]

I would imagine it's more of a thermal issue, as the intake vents are on the bottom of the mini and heat will obviously rise to the top of it. Putting another mini on top of the first would just be feeding it warmer air.

Re:Imagine...

[sootman]

when the minis first came out, apple had a picture of 5 of them stacked next to a PC to show their size. it seems they took that pic away (else I forgot where it was) but in any case, you aren't supposed to stack them (or put anything else on top) 'cause that might damage the optical drive. So, either stand them on their sides (that's OK) or buy an itty-bitty rack. :-)

Re:Imagine...

[bblazer]

I am actually considering doing something similar. I want to use one as an in-home server for a single web site, DNS, file server, and mail server. I had thought about a G5 but that is overkill and very costly. For $579 for the "turbo mini" and $499 for OSX Server (10 user) I could be all set up for a fraction of the cost of an xServe. And considering the low load on the box, it should run just fine.

Re:Imagine...

[Isbiten]

Why not save 499$ and just use the standard client version? It support all that too. Hell you can even disable the GUI to save a few extra cycles.

Re:Imagine...

[SunFan]

Just put a desk fan behind the cluster.

Re:Imagine...

[SunFan]

What about hot-swap?

Re:Imagine...

[bblazer]

The GUI interface for all of the server functions is exactly what I am after.

Re:Imagine...

[pyite]

So you want Windows? GUI for server tasks is very much overrated if it means anything more than multiple terminal windows open at once.

Re:Imagine...

[Anonymous Coward]

My understanding is that putting weight on top of the Mini can interfere with the use of the optical drive.

Re:Imagine...

[hcdejong]

Minis are 2" high, so in 8U=14" you can stack 7.
You can fit 2 side by side, or 3 if you get rack shelves that will accomodate 19,5" wide equipment. And you may be able to stack 'em 2 or 3 rows deep if your rack is deep enough.
So at least 14 will fit, up to 63 if you really cram 'em together. You'd probably have to add some cooling fans, though.
OTOH the Xserve uses faster harddisks (3-4 internal ATA and/or a Fibrechannel RAID instead of one laptop drive), and it has gigabit Ethernet instead of 10/100. These can be major bottlenecks in a cluster.

Re:Imagine...

[hcdejong]

Right. Who could possibly want a server they can administer using their existing skill set, instead of having to spend time learning arcana.
People who choose a Mac as a server typically do this because it's easy to use.

Re:Imagine...

[pyite]

You do realize that none of the pre-built Xserves include a video card, right? I don't think people are buying them so they can have a GUI 'adduser.'

Re:Imagine...

[hcdejong]

You do realize that OS X Server includes "Server Admin: Remote Server Admin tools let you configure and monitor all key services of Mac OS X Server from near or far." [quote from Apple's site], right? this is a GUI tool. I do think people are buying them so they can have a GUI.

Re:Imagine...

[bblazer]

No, I don't want Windows. Otherwise that is what I would buy. I am very adept at using a terminal and hacking away at config scripts. It is just that I don't want to do that anymore. You comments are like those that say that the only way to really write code is to use vi or Emacs, and not a good IDE. To take it further, I guess I should not listen to CDs, but rather use an old wax drum phonograph. My .bashrc file can beat up your .bashrc file.

Re:Imagine...

[tu_holmes]

I have used the Server Admin tools... They're pretty nice and give you a decent representation of what the server is doing.

I wish I had tools like that in solaris, but I don't.

This is one of the things that Apple has done it's due diligence on, and have, in my opinion, created utilities that are just as good, if not better than those on windows server platforms, IE. Compaq and Dell's server utils.

Re:Imagine...

[gobbo]

Yeah, it would be nice if one could get them networked via firewire, too, since they don't have 1000bT. Just... don't stack them--use a simple little shelf (only 3lb ea.) to give each one airspace.

Re:Imagine...

[Jeremy Erwin]

The key word here is "remote". You can run the GUI on another Mac OSX computer, and control a headless XServe.

Re:Imagine...

[Anonymous Coward]

But what about reliability and redundancy? Xserve is designed from the get go for servers and includes features you don't see in Mac mini and contains better quality components (my guess) than standard desktop computers. But then again, probably it also depends on your use. If you have less stringent requirements, probably Mac minis are enough and they save you cash, too.

Re:Imagine...

[guuyuk]

You can, Mac OSX supports IP over IEEE1394 (aka Firewire).
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=152 307

Re:Imagine...

[prockcore]

Server Admin: Remote Server Admin tools let you configure and monitor all key services of Mac OS X Server from near or far.

Not so. It only monitors the services provided by Apple. If you want to roll your own Apache and PHP (because Apple-provided PHP is currently vulnerable), the server admin won't show it, and as far as I can see, there isn't any way to add it manually.

It doesn't even work on all Apple provided services. Apple Remote Desktop doesn't show up.

The xserve is a nice piece of hardware, but the OS is poorly suited for servers.

Re:Imagine...

[gobbo]

You can

Oh yeah, I've networked Macs with firewire before and it was very easy and seemed to work well... but those machines had two firewire ports each, and I wasn't trying anything like clustering. Go off and try a cluster of minimacs over fw, then tell me it works. Don't forget, one port each = hub of some kind.

Re:Imagine...

[UnknowingFool]

For practical cooling reasons you probably don't want to stack the Mac minis like that. Even if you could stack them with cooling, I would think the performance difference would be noticeable.

The Mac mini uses a G4 chip while XServe uses G5s. That's a generation difference already. It would be like comparing a PIII with a P4. Besides clockspeed, the generational differences would lead to much better performance in the newest generation. Also your XServe G5s are designed to be clustered together in terms of software and hardware optimizations. The Mac Mini could be used as a server but was designed to be a desktop computer. It would be the same if you orderded a bunch of sub $500 Dells and tried to get them together as a clustered server instead of buying a Dell enterprise server.

Re:Imagine...

[jdray]

I suppose if you wanted a cluster of two (for redundancy and failover as well as minimal process distribution), one port each would work fine, particularly considering that the 10/100 ports would be client-facing.

Re:Imagine...

[Moofie]

"So you want Windows?"
No, I want a server GUI that's actually designed by people who are not idiots.

"GUI for server tasks is very much overrated..." Just because it's never been done well before doesn't mean it can't be done well.

Re:Imagine...

[mfago]

Apple-provided PHP is currently vulnerable

Thankfully Apple just patched that.

Benchmarks

[Gob Blesh It]

And here's a bunch of performance benchmarks pitting the Mac mini against a range of other current Macs--not just abstract numbers but real-world tasks (think "17 Meg file"). I wonder how PCs stack up, particularly with Cinebench and the iTunes rip test...

Re:Benchmarks

[jdray]

Any idea how the Mini stacks up (I know, don't do that) against boxes produced by people OTHER than Apple? If this is a carrot for switchers, you'd think there would be a bunch of published comparisons to Intel-based boxen.

I'm currently running Suse 9.1 on an IBM Thinkpad with a 1.6 GHz Celeron. It's definitely not a speed demon, but it gets me by just fine. And it runs laps around the P-II/300 Compaq Armada that my wife runs XP on (shudder). So, when thinking of purchasing another computer, what should we expect out of this Mac Mini versus either of the machines we already have?

And telling me how I'm going to be able to run Half Life at over 60 fps while simultaneously ripping bootlegged movies to DVD and serving up pr0n over my DSL line on an $800 box cobbled together with parts at Fry's doesn't help at all. I have no interest in doing any of those things. Having a good, solid platform for general purpose computing that doesn't catch every strain of Martian Death Flu that comes along appeals to me. Computing in the mainstream appeals to my wife. The Mac is a good compromise. The Mini is a good price competitor. But where should we set our expectations when bringing one home?

Re:Benchmarks

[Gob Blesh It]

I haven't really kept up with PC vs. Mac benchmarks for quite some time, so I'm sorry I can't really answer your question.

But I have to ask... why is it relevant? Is your wife's Compaq too slow for web browsing, or something? I can tell you that any Mac you buy today (as long as you pump it full of RAM) is more than speedy enough for "general purpose computing." Menus pop down instantaneously. Flash animations are fast and responsive. DVDs play smoothly, even in the background as you browse the web.

Still, I'd suggest popping over to an Apple store and trying one out in person before committing the cash. You never know.

If you've got any other questions I'd be happy to oblige. Hope this helps...

My Mac sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't want to start a holy war here, but what is the deal with you Mac fanatics? I've been sitting here at my freelance gig in front of a Mac (a 8600/300 w/64 Megs of RAM) for about 20 minutes now while it attempts to copy a 17 Meg file from one folder on the hard drive to another folder. 20 minutes. At home, on my Pentium Pro 200 running NT 4, which by all standards should be a lot slower than this Mac, the same operation would take about 2 minutes. If that.

In addition, during this file transfer, Netscape will not work. And everything else has ground to a halt. Even BBEdit Lite is straining to keep up as I type this.

I won't bore you with the laundry list of other problems that I've encountered while working on various Macs, but suffice it to say there have been many, not the least of which is I've never seen a Mac that has run faster than its Wintel counterpart, despite the Macs' faster chip architecture. My 486/66 with 8 megs of ram runs faster than this 300 mhz machine at times. From a productivity standpoint, I don't get how people can claim that the Macintosh is a superior machine.

Mac addicts, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use a Mac over other faster, cheaper, more stable systems.

Re:My Mac sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use a Mac over other faster, cheaper, more stable systems.

Nice... base a comparison using two OSes that you cannot even buy anymore: OS 9 (at best) and NT 4.

While you're at it, I have a 486 66 MHz with 16M of memory running DOS that can't run Halo 2. PC addicts, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use a PC over other faster, cheaper, more stable systems.

Re:My Mac sucks

[the pickle]

I know you're trolling, but here's a question for you.

What hard drive controllers are you using in each machine?

If both machines are using ATA-33 or ATA-66 controllers, it's a fair comparison. If the PPro box is using an upgraded controller but the Mac is still using its stock SCSI (which, admittedly, isn't all that great compared to modern ATA, but we ARE talking about a Mac from 1996 here), then this is obviously a very UNfair comparison.

Also, you don't say what OS you're running, but the disk drivers from early PPC Mac OS versions are horribly slow. If the drivers haven't ever been updated since the machine was new, I'm not the least bit surprised that you're seeing very slow disk copies.

Finally, how much RAM does the PPro have?

p

Re:My Mac sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

YHBT. YHF. STFU.

Re:My Mac sucks

[Gob Blesh It]

Dude, I don't think that's actually Jason Kottke. I linked to it in my original post because it's a pretty well-known troll, or so I thought.

Re:My Mac sucks

[Jerry Smith]

>>8600/300 w/64 Megs of RAM
Nice machines, http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/powermac/sta ts/powermac_8600_300.html but if there has been little or no maintainance in 7 years: yes, grinding halts happen.
I feel sorry for the machine. And for you, having to work with it. Poor bastards.

Re:My Mac sucks

[MysteriousPreacher]

Hmm, not sure how this is trolling.

Yeah, as long as you clean install and de-frag every now and then, it's a perfectly viable machine for general office work and some retro-gaming.

In many cases, when someone complains of their older machine not running, it is generally poor maintenance, expecting more than the machine can do, or my favourite. Physical ram of 64MB with virtual memory set to 760MB.

talked with the project lead

[voisine]

Had a nice conversation with the project lead for the mac mini this morning at the apple store in the Westfield mall. He said first day sales blew away any computer apple's ever made, by a sizable margin, although the shuffle blew the mini away for first day sales of any apple product ever. He said he was asked, can you make it this small? (10" square)... yes. Can you make it this small? (8" square)... yes. Can you make it this small? (7" square)... maybe. Can you make it this small? (6 1/2" square)... no. Okay, that's the size then.... oh crap! :)

Re:talked with the project lead

[Anonymous Coward]

The first day isn't over yet, unless all the Apple stores sold out.

Re:talked with the project lead

[voisine]

The mini already passed the previous best first day for an apple computer (Imac G5), just on pre-orders.

Re:talked with the project lead

[Anonymous Coward]

"...Can you make it this small? (7" square)... maybe. Can you make it this small? (6 1/2" square)... no. Okay, that's the size then.... oh crap! :)"

If he's an experienced engineer, he said "no" knowing full well that he could probably go to 5" square.

Re:talked with the project lead

[Delilah Jones]

"Okay, that's the size then..." Ahh. Such have been the beginnings of some of the world's greatest inventions!

Re:talked with the project lead

[jbrw]

I read a story saying the head people at Sony liked to put early prototypes of Walkmen in buckets of water to see if any bubbles came out. Bubbles == air == wasted space inside the product.

Here's some linky goodness relating that story to a Sony Handycam.

Re:talked with the project lead

[javaxman]

He said he was asked, can you make it this small? (10" square)... yes. Can you make it this small? (8" square)... yes. Can you make it this small? (7" square)... maybe. Can you make it this small? (6 1/2" square)... no. Okay, that's the size then.... oh crap!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

That is Steve Jobs' management technique in a nutshell !

Don't let it out!

Re:talked with the project lead

[Moofie]

It worked for Palm.

Size matters.

Mac mini taken apart seen @ iSight

[giaguara]

I watched my 2 friends take apart a Mac mini yesterday in iChat using 2 iSights (one here, one in US).

It took them less than 30 minutes to take everything back, explain me and themselves what they were doing (there were other people there watching it too), and put everything back. I took several snapshots during the takeapart - which is good since they forgot to use their cameras...

Actually, pretty amazing. That Mac that is, but as well how good quality of video I had.

The first thing I wanted to do when I saw those Macs was to take one apart. Now seen one taken apart, took pictures of it, and will take one apart as soon as I have one myself... So yes, not news seeing the contents of them.

Re:Mac mini taken apart seen @ iSight

[Anonymous Coward]

Where is "here"? How was the iChat video chat lag between "here" and the US?

Re:Mac mini taken apart seen @ iSight

[giaguara]

europe.

Re:Mac mini taken apart seen @ iSight

[Anonymous Coward]

How was the iChat video chat lag between "here" and the US?

upgrading the Mac mini

[Tumbleweed]

Fortunately even really high quality RAM (like Corsair) in the PC3200 (faster than the Mac mini uses) 1Gig DIMM variety with 2.5-3-3 timings, still cost far less than what Apple charges. Even if you pay Apple $50 to install it for you, you're going to save some real money there.

The thing I'm concerned with upgrading is the HD - I really want a 7200rpm drive in mine (Hitachi makes a nice 60GB model).

Re:upgrading the Mac mini

[Anonymous Coward]

You could definitely upgrade the drive. I know people with PowerBooks that do this, the only problem is of a thermal design, it might run a bit too hot.

Re:upgrading the Mac mini

[Johnny Mnemonic]

Even if you pay Apple $50 to install it for you,

I would be very surprised if you can pay Apple to install third-party product; I wouldn't when I was at an Apple store. Reasoning is simple: if it doesn't work/fails early, do you blame Apple? Apple has no control over where you purchased your third party product, or how you've treated it since, so they don't want to be culpable if it fails sooner than you think it should through no fault of their own.

If you want to do upgrades to this box, you're very likely on your own. And no, doing so doesn't void your warranty unless it causes damage to the rest of the machine; and such a thing is hard to determine anyways--so I always gave folks the benefit of the doubt.

Re:upgrading the Mac mini

[Anonymous Coward]

Why pay Apple (Store) for RAM installation? There are plenty of Apple authorized dealers that may do it cheaper.

Re:upgrading the Mac mini

[valkraider]

I agree, go to a local independent shop. But they are not usually cheaper.. :) But that is only considering the sticker price of the service.

One thing to remember is that when you support locally owned and operated business, more of that money stays in the local economy and indirectly offsets other costs (such as tax supported services and infrastructure).

There is always more to the story than just the sticker price. When we WAL-MART our economy to death to save $1 on toilet paper - there is a consequence.

This principle applies as local as you want to get. Neighborhood, City, County, Region, State, Nation...

um. . .

[Bastian]

A) I am making this post from a TiBook running Debian. Debian has one of the best PPC ports out there. I think the Mini will most likely run Debian very nicely.

B) Everyone is sick of the stupid clock speed per dollar argument. It's lame. Quit assuming that everyone out there cares about raw CPU power first and foremost, or shut up.

Re:um. . .

[lemonylimey]

A) I am making this post from a TiBook running Debian. Debian has one of the best PPC ports out there. I think the Mini will most likely run Debian very nicely.

So I guess your mom will be buying one, then?

Everyone is sick of the stupid clock speed per dollar argument. It's lame. Quit assuming that everyone out there cares about raw CPU power first and foremost, or shut up.

I wasn't saying that it was important. I was saying that people can go on and on about it and it isn't going to make the slightest bit of difference to 99% of the purchasing descisions made about the MM.

Re:um. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Could debian users stop being the biggest pricks on the internet? Thanks,

MOM

Re:um. . .

[torpor]

its true ... i am a computer geek of 22 years, and i've worked with some of the heaviest metal you can find, in typical commercial server environments (nothing gov't, nothing 'warfare'), and i can say this: pretty much no matter what, software is always gonna suck harder than hardware. always.

we -never- truly optimize our software systems. i have found this to be true after careful observation, over two decades, of over 40 years of computing system operations.

it is always a 'simpler task to just build a better computer' than it is to spend time, finely optimizing our software for our chosen 'run platform'.

with that in mind, i love the fact that we are now building self-optimizing operating systems, openly, among as big an audience as possible.. perhaps those old machines, suddenly powerful-er, will become valuable again, eh?

[at least, thats what i think every day as i pass my ol' BeBox, sitting there all blinky-light, on my way to my chair, desk, and powerbook, heh heh...]

Re:um. . .

[BeerCat]

we -never- truly optimize our software systems.

Perhaps not whole systems, but one story about the original Mac calculator, that I didn't see on the Mac Folkore was how the original calculator was written in (IIRC) Pascal, and ended up being about 2k-3k in size. However, disk space on the 400k floppy was so much at a premium, that it was nearly dropped, until the creator then hand coded it in 68000 assembler, and got the size down to around 700 bytes.

Underpowered?

[zmotula]

From the article: "As I stated in my previous column, 'machines like the mini or the cheap Dell desktop are underpowered for advanced users, but both will suffice for their target market.'"

Underpowered? What does an "average advanced user" do to need more than a one gigahertz processor? I'm currently running a PII/350, which is a bit slow for my needs (some movies skip a bit and the browsing is not as smooth as I wish it would be), but I'll be quite happy with, let's say, 800 MHz PIII.

I do some programming, some typesetting, edit some sound samples, why should I need more than 1,2 GHz Mac Mini?

Allright, editing half a GB photographs in Photoshop would probably suck on the machine, but that's not "advanced user", thats "professional" in my terms...

Re:Underpowered?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you thinking of upgrading? Stick a gig of RAM in the mini and you'll be totally fine. I think "professional" is probably what they meant.

Re:Underpowered?

[FLAGGR]

I agree. Currently, my main system is a P2 / 266mhz. I spend all my time programming games and stuff, works fine for me. Sure, I could go on one of the family PCs, which are P4's, but this one is in my room and runs fast enough. (Then again, half the stuff I do I have to move to another PC to test it, because either my CPU is too slow or GPU doesnt support some feature) I ordered a mac mini, can't wait (3 weeks till it ships, so says apple) xcode will be awsome.

Re:Underpowered?

[jo_ham]

I use Motion, possibly Apple's heaviest app in terms of system requirements, on my 15" 1.5Ghz powerbook and it runs quite nicely indeed. Just don't expect full frame, full quality playback of an unrendered multi-layer composite (but then, don't expect this of a Dual G5 either).

As noted, the Mini has similar specs to a Powerbook, although it only has 32Mb of video ram compared to the 64 in my PB. My laptop will also take twice the amount of RAM if you can afford two 1GB SO-DIMM sticks.

I think the Mac Mini is well specced for what it is and will hardly break sweat for the apps that its target audience will be running on there. Garage Band might give it pause for concern if you start getting complex, but freezing the ttracks you're happy with while working on others will fix that.

Re:Underpowered?

[allanc]

Advanced User things I do that would like more processing horsepower:

1. Video editing. Converting video files to MPEG, rendering effects, that sort of thing.
2. Compiling software. More MHz = Faster compile. Doesn't matter much when you're just installing software, but when you're developing software and have to go through several iterations of fiddle-compile-run to get a particular feature to work properly, compile time gets really annoying.

But actually, the main processor-hungry type of activity out there is the one used by the least advanced group of users out there. Video games. The last several upgrades to my Windows machine have been to run various games (Starcraft brought me up to a P166, The Sims brought me to PII, Black & White got me an Athlon XP 1600+, and most recently The Sims 2 and Myst: Uru got me to shell out for a GeForce video card).

All that being said, I'm getting myself a 1.25GHz Mini to use primarily for video editing as soon as I have $724 (getting the 512M, bluetooth, and Superdrive upgrades) to spare.

Re:Underpowered?

[harlows_monkeys]

Underpowered? What does an "average advanced user" do to need more than a one gigahertz processor?

My 1.5 GHz PowerBook gets a bit pokey in iDVD, both in laying out the DVD, and in encoding the video when burning.

Re:Underpowered?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a Java developer, and I am planning on getting a Mac Mini to use as my primary development environment (using either XCode, Netbeans or Eclipse as an IDE).

It will be quiet (unlike my current noisy PC), and will hopefully provide a cleaner, more stable UI than Windows. I've spent more time fighting Windows than doing work lately.

Compilation can be done on my Linux server, and the appserver can run there too. I doubt I'll need more than a 1.42GHz processor for coding, given that I used a Celeron 466 up until 2 years ago with similar IDEs. They run fine once you disable automatic compilation, and may even run fine with it on the Mac Mini (although I can really live without it).

Re:Underpowered?

[dwightk]

I do some programming, some typesetting, edit some sound samples, why should I need more than 1,2 GHz Mac Mini?


You wouldn't I do all that and more (DVD encoding works but is the only thing I do that I would like more power for) on a PB G4 867MHz

Re:Underpowered?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're going to be doing Java development you should check out Idea.

Re:Underpowered?

[Warhaven]

Advanced Users == Computer Gamers

Re:Underpowered?

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks a bit pricey, but I might give the trial a go.

Re:Underpowered?

[dwightk]

more power as in sometimes I have to turn off iTunes because it starts to skip when I'm IMing someone and NetNewsWire and Mail both fire off at the same time...

Re:Underpowered?

[dwightk]

sorry... while I'm encoding DVD's

Re:Underpowered?

[valkraider]

I have been using Eclipse on my PowerBook 1.5ghz for about 8 months now. Quite nice. Much nicer than the DELL Celeron I gave up. ;) Java development is quite nice on the Mac.

I love mine

[caulktel]

I just love my Mac mini, except I still prefer Firefox over Safari, but other than that it rocks! !.25 gig is plenty of speed for everything that I do . Now when my Apple keyboard arrives Mon. I will be complete once again.

Re:I love mine

[allanc]

You know there's a Firefox port for OSX, right?

Re:I love mine

[caulktel]

Yes, that's what I'm using. I just like it better because I can import my bookmarks from other platforms, also even though its slow I like fire ftp . Oh and theres the Noia theme also. Man, do I love this Mac Mini.

Re:I love mine

[jbolden]

You can import bookmarks into safari.

defaults write com.apple.Safari IncludeDebugMenu 1

will get you the advanced menu for Safari.

You can run Debian on a Mac

[panth0r]

The title says it all... http://www.debian.org/releases/stable/powerpc/inst all

iDVD question

[ip_vjl]

I know that in iLife 05, iDVD will install even if you don't have a superdrive. Does anyone know if it works with external DVD drives?

I've got an external firewire Sony DVD+-R/RW drive. If it will work, I could just get the combo-drive model.

I know there was a hack that would allow non superdrive systems to use iDVD, but was wondering if it was now part of the official build of iDVD.

Failing directly buring in iDVD - i believe it now supports creation of disk images. Are these standard disk images that I would be able to burn to the DVD drive outside of iDVD, or are they some sort of "iDVD-only" disk image?

Anyone know?

Re:iDVD question

[phillymjs]

According to this, you still have to have a Superdrive-equipped computer to burn DVDs directly from iDVD.

According to this, however, the disk images feature would allow you to save your project as a DVD image and then burn the image to a disc with another app.

~Philly

Re:iDVD question

[Anonymous Coward]

PatchBurn can be used to enable DVD burning in iDVD on internal DVD drives that are otherwise not supported, Firewire Burning is sketchy at best.

Re:iDVD question

[sootman]

this page says that there's a trick to make iDVD 5 create an image, rather than burn a disk. Also, there's a hack out there to do this in iDVD 4. I used it a year ago and it worked fine. made a plain-vanilla .iso or .dmg or .img (I forget which) so no, it shouldn't be some goofy iDVD-only format. I made images one one mac and burned them on another with Toast. I'm posting this from my combo-drive mini but I haven't installed iLife 05 yet. (Ships with '04 and comes with '05 on a DVD.)

Re:iDVD question

[Anonymous Coward]

PatchBurn 3 can be used to do this. It can enable burning support in Finder/iTunes for unsupported and firewire drives. It also enables the iDVD Easter Eggs to burn to an unsupported internal drive/export to an image. You can supposedly use it to burn from iDVD to a Firewire DVD-RW but it's a bit sketchy as someone else has said.

Re:iDVD question

[TheOnlyCoolTim]

So Apple says you should only be able to burn DVDs with their drive?

It really mystifies me why people think Apple is better on some moral level than Microsoft. At least I don't have to buy a Microsoft CD-R drive to use XP's built in CD burning...

Tim

Re:iDVD question

[admactanium]

you don't need their drive to burn a dvd, you need their drive to burn a video dvd from idvd. i can burn data dvd's on external drives all day long easily from the mac os x finder. it opens it as an empty volume and i drag and drop files onto it like any other disk. when i eject it asks me if i want to burn the disk.

plus, there are ways to get around the idvd restriction.

Re:iDVD question

[Anonymous Coward]

correct me if im wrong, but during the keynote didn't steve say that llife 05 has removed that restriction and you can use idvd with anything now?

Re:iDVD question

[jbolden]

Apple was giving iDVD away free. The way you "paid" for it was by buying their hardware. Apple is an odd company, a really good software company whose marketing plan is based on getting you to buy their hardware while they "give" away the software. Now that they are charging for iLife they will probably open up iDVD (as the comment below indicate).

Some random benchmarks

[kompiluj]

I have lately started thinking about buying MacMini, iBook or a PowerBook. Because I most often use Gentoo GNU/Linux or FreeBSD (but I also use Fedora, SuSE, M$ Windows and Solaris) therefore I have done some benchmarks to compare compile times on some different architectures. My software of choice is PostgreSQL database since it's size is just right (a few minutes of compile time anyway). Ok, here come the benchmarks (the most important is the 'user time' which is how long really the compile took, it discard other factors like filesystem, HDD and system load factors):

# cd /usr/portage/dev-db/postgresql/
# ebuild postgresql-7.3.6-r1.ebuild fetch unpack
# time ebuild postgresql-7.3.6-r1.ebuild compile

PowerPC G4 750FX 800MHz, 512kB cache
real 5m53.398s
user 4m26.985s
sys 0m51.748s

Intel Northwood ("old" pIV) 2.8:
real 2m56.295s
user 2m29.630s
sys 0m26.190s

AMD Athlon 1.5 256kB cache(Sempron 2200+):
real 5m55.046s
user 5m9.700s
sys 0m34.270s

AMD Athlon 1.8 256 kB cache (Sempron 2600+):
real 4m14.234s
user 3m19.729s
sys 0m44.704s

Well, not bad for 0.8 GHz, heh

Re:Some random benchmarks

[xil]

> PowerPC G4 750FX

The PowerPC 750FX is a G3, not a G4. (It's made by IBM; all G4s are made by Motorola.)

Also note that Apple doesn't ship any G3 processors anymore; the low-end in new machines is a G4.

Re:Some random benchmarks

[kompiluj]

Sorry, you are right, it is G3:

$ cat /proc/cpuinfo
processor : 0
cpu : 750FX
temperature : 19-21 C (uncalibrated)
clock : 800MHz
revision : 2.2 (pvr 7000 0202)
bogomips : 1585.15
machine : PowerBook4,3
motherboard : PowerBook4,3 MacRISC2 MacRISC Power Macintosh
detected as : 257 (iBook 2 rev. 2)
pmac flags : 0000000b
L2 cache : 512K unified
memory : 384MB
pmac-generation : NewWorld

Re:Some random benchmarks

[Daleks]

Compilation of a full application is heavily dependent on I/O. If you're compiling tons of tiny object files and then doing one big link, then most likely the CPU isn't being taxed. Try your benchmarks again while mounting a RAM based file system and compile PostgreSQL from there. The times will probably be vastly reduced, and indicate more about relative CPU performance.

Re:Some random benchmarks

[Ohreally_factor]

Well keep in mind that the main difference between the G4 and the G3 is that the G4 has an Alti vec sub processor. If you're mostly going to be running postgre, the alti vec isn't going to buy you anything. I'm sure some of OS X's Aqua display technology leverages alti-vec, but probably not a lot.

What I mean to say is that despite your comparison using a G3 rather than a G4, it's probably not that far off from a G4.

Re:Some random benchmarks

[kompiluj]

I wrote 'user time'. Have you never heard of Unix or something? "User time" is time spent in CPU. It does not take into account the I/O. The I/O goes into "system time" or "real time" (aka 'wall clock time'). Therefore "user time" indicates relative CPU performance.

Re:Some random benchmarks

[ZosX]

What I find really intersting about this is that a 800mhz processor performed nearly on par with a 1.5ghz Athlon, even though it did use a good deal more system (kernel) time. Considering the much smaller FSB potential of the G3, this is not suprising. Its really intersting to see how various CPUs perform different tasks and how mhz really isn't even remotely indicative of performance. As fancy things like vector units are added to commodity processors it will be interesting to see when eventually common compilers can optimize code effectively for parallel processing. I once heard that the PowerPC's were designed to only add numbers in rapid succession because it could complete a bunch of adds a lot faster than a simple multiply. IBM really needs to push the PowerPC further, it would be sad to see it only exist in expensive hardware.

ARGH!

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate it when people talk about photos they took or video they captured but don't bother to provide a link to see them! What's the point? Like we can read your mind or something?

Fan behaviour?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've read lots of reports that under light use the fan is either very quiet or does not run at all. Can anyone who actually has a Mini confirm whether under light load the fan runs at all (and not just "whisper quiet" or "dunno if it's the HD or the fan")? I'd order one immediately if someone can actually confirm that the fan rarely runs (as opposed to running at low speed), just like my iBook.

Re:Fan behaviour?

[caulktel]

I have been using mine now for about 50 hours without shuting it off, and I have yet to hear any fan at all (its in my bed room) in fact the case of the Mini itself feels cool to the touch and the power brick just slightly warmer.

Re:Fan behaviour?

[dqbiggerfam]

Just how big is the adapter? Roughly the size of a laptop adapter?

Re:Fan behaviour?

[Anonymous Coward]

I already know it's very quiet. What I wanted to know is if it run at all. A poster on the Apple forums noted that it did run all the time, it's just almost silent.

Re:Fan behaviour?

[Anonymous Coward]

There are two Quicktime VRs setup on Apple's site that show the size of the Power Adapter.

Apple Parts
Third Party Parts

Re:Fan behaviour?

[AntiGenX]

I love my new mac mini, the only time I have ever heard the fan was when I was running catman in the background of the terminal while doing a bunch photoshop stuff at the same time. The fan was barely noticible compared to my dell across the room.

hard drive question

[sootman]

ATA/100 means 120 GB is the max, right? You need ATA/133 to go over 128 (or 137 or whatever) GB?

Re:hard drive question

[Bishop]

no. ATA/xxx is the IDE interface speed.

Re:hard drive question

[lemonylimey]

ATA/100 means that the interface has a top speed of 100MBps and it was the last official ATA standard before Serial-ATA. ATA/133 was just something Maxtor cooked up as a marketing ploy.

Internal capacity isn't the upgrade you should be looking for on the Mac Mini. Since it uses a 2.5" Notebook HD you're pretty much limited to 100GB, which is a pretty expensive upgrade for gaining 20GB of space. My plan is to dump the 4,200rpm or 5,400rpm drive in the mini and replace it with one of the new 2.5" 7,200rpm drives. If I need more external storage, I'll just buy a Firewire HD.

Ram $$$ savings

[rollthelosindice]

It is so good to see that the end-user can do their own ram installations on the Mac Mini. After all, with one of the main purposes of the machine being cost savings, it would be difficult to achieve with Apple charging $425 for what the other says can be bought for $160 (1GB ram chip).

I have come to the conclusion that I will buying one of these and replacing my lilksys wireless router with it. It's about time I got a legitimate home network setup, and this is a great motivation.

Not really $499

[9mind]

The first thing I noticed was lack of an analog monitor connection. This automatically drives up the price for most would be buyers looking to replace their PCs. Most users would rather spend $500 on a new PC and use their existing montior, thna be forced to buy a DVI compliant (read: flat screen) monitor. The people that can afford both... wouldn't they just buy one of the little half-eggshell IMACs with the monitor attached and basically get the same thing?

I myself think the size is great... contemplated buying one... saw that... and was like oh well I'm not going to replace my 21" Trintron flat CRT with a flat panel (I could afford) just to use it... and most new users sans anything thinking they are getting a new computer for $499, only to have a flat-panel pricetag of $250 to $1000 (compared to a CRT from $60 to $200) for a compatible 15" to 19", is going to balk at the price. Sometimes I think Apple just doesn't get it.

Great product, but they missed one key factor, in the crowd they are supposedly going after.... they want ALL AROUND affordable.

Re:Not really $499

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, it would be nice if you could hook up a VGA monitor. You know, using some sort of adaptor. Like a DVI -> VGA adaptor. It would be really nice if Apple would even throw it in the box!

Oh, wait, they do!

Research first next time.

Great post, but you missed one key factor, in the fact that your premise was entirely flawed.... we want ALL AROUND intelligence.

Re:Not really $499

[Senjutsu]

The first thing I noticed was lack of an analog monitor connection. This automatically drives up the price for most would be buyers looking to replace their PCs. Most users would rather spend $500 on a new PC and use their existing montior, thna be forced to buy a DVI compliant (read: flat screen) monitor.

True. That why the Mini comes with a DVI-to-VGA adaptor, genius.

Re:Not really $499

[Anonymous Coward]

"Connect your USB keyboard and mouse. Then hook up your DVI or VGA display (adapter included)."

Problem solved. Except there never was a problem.

Re:Not really $499

[Anonymous Coward]

The first thing I noticed was lack of an analog monitor connection.

You couldn't have been looking at a Mac Mini if you didn't notice the analog video output. DVI-I is not a digital only connector, it contains pins for both digital and analog signals. To connect the mini to a VGA monitor all you need is the right cable.

Re:Not really $499

[Anonymous Coward]

what's next? you're gonna complain about the 1 button mouse (or the fact that they don't bundle it)

Re:Not really $499

[Anonymous Coward]

It comes with a DVI to VGA converter, so this is a non-issue.

Re:Not really $499

[9mind]

Well as many people pointed out... I stand corrected *looking at my new mac mini*

There's PC3200 RAM in my Mini...

[parvenu74]

I bought my Mac mini this morning (waited in line in the 18 degree temps outside the Apple store in Kansas City so I could be fifth in line!) and have been working with it all day. Of the more interesting things I've noticed: System Profiler indicates that I have 256MB of PC3200 RAM installed... and I thought these things came with PC2700! I am going to buy myself a putty knife and will get back later with info and a picture or two of what I find inside...

For you PC (ab)users (I'm now in recovery on this point!) who are sitting on the fence wanting to get one of these but don't want to loose the functionality of all your Windows software, have no fear. Just go download the Windows Remote Desktop Connector and get cooking. Among the neat features, you can map the drives on your Mac to the remote PC allowing you to move files back and forth between the PC and the Mac with the utmost of ease! :-)

Re:There's PC3200 RAM in my Mini...

[Anonymous Coward]

The Mac Mini treats RAM that's installed in it as PC2700. System Profiler, though, is aware of the difference and will detail what you really have.

Speed wise, there's no difference between 2700 and 3200 in the Mini.

Re:There's PC3200 RAM in my Mini...

[Zixia]

waited in line in the 18 degree temps outside the Apple store in Kansas City so I could be fifth in line!

Geez, if you're going to wait in line in that sort of temperature, you could at least aim higher than fifth. Why not first?

Kids these days have no amibition.

Re:There's PC3200 RAM in my Mini...

[drsmithy]

Of the more interesting things I've noticed: System Profiler indicates that I have 256MB of PC3200 RAM installed... and I thought these things came with PC2700!

Not that it really matters a whit, with the G4's dismal 166Mhz bus...

Re:There's PC3200 RAM in my Mini...

[Minter92]

Little note. A butter knife worked fine for me. I didn't need a putty knife and didn't scratch the case. Once apart its really easy to get at the ram and installing a new HD isn't thar hard either. A little tricky getting the cddrive off but once that happens the rest is self evident.

Mod parent "-1, Dumbass"

[Anonymous Coward]

Adapter in the box, you tool.

Next time, remove head from sphincter before clicking "Submit."

memory, drive

[a984]

- actually 1GB memory can be had for $85.
http://www.pricewatch.com/h/prc.aspx?i=33&a=4922

- macintouch has a decent performance review. http://www.macintouch.com/perfpack/comparison.html Overall mini is pretty good, but the disk is roughly like iBook, that is half the speed of eMac, (BTW eMac is a gem, it beats new iMAC G5 in most tests). Going FireWire or USB2 on mini is no solution, they are half as slow as internal even with fast drives (thus 4 times as slow as latest eMac). They have 60Gb/7200 internal on order so check them later to see if this solves disk problem.

Re:memory, drive

[Judogi]

Those $85 sticks of ram have serious compatibility and quality issues. They are the 128x4 design, usually only 4-layer pcb, and even on the PC side will only work with a very limited set of VIA chipsets.

Macs have historically been picky with ram. I had to buy new ram for my G4 Cube after upgrading to Jaguar because the old stuff wasn't up to spec. The cheapest ram I have seen that could potentially work with the mini is about $155 on newegg.com. That ram is the good stuff - 64x32, 6-layer.

Other than that, any ol' DDR PC2700 1gb unbuffered should work. But I have a sinking feeling the cheap sticks won't work.

Re:memory, drive

[a984]

Many many years ago when i was putting extra memory in imac g3 i was told exactly that - macs are picky, timing issues, quality, etc. Suspecting fear mongering by memory merchants I went out and bought generic memory at below 50% what so-called "reputable" mac suppliers were charging. It worked and is still working fine.

I believe the line above only when somebody unconnected with "reputable" merchants (and that excludes MacWorld for example) tests generic offerings and reports real numbers (bad on arrival, errors discovered during stress cycling, etc). Barring that suspect self-serving fear mongering.

Re:memory, drive

[matthaak]

As a long-time Mac user, I know that the processor in the Mac mini is totally fine. In fact, the only reason to step up to a higher-end Mac, as far as processor is concerned, is if you were going to jump to duals, which OS X definitely takes advantage of. If you're not even considering duals, then the Mini is perfect. Replace the internal HD with Hitachi's TravelStar 7K60, which is 7200 RPM w/ 8MB cache and put in 1 GB of ram. The total cost with the 1.25 GHz Mini, and prices off of pricewatch, is about $730. Still the cheapest Mac with great real-world performance.

Re:memory, drive

[Moofie]

"Going FireWire or USB2 on mini is no solution, they are half as slow as internal even with fast drives"

Huh?

correction

[a984]

sorry, actually FW on mini is imperceptibly faster than internal, it is USB2 that sucks

Where's the PS/2 connector?

[amichalo]

No troll here. I am excited for the Mac mini, but it there some technical reason uncovered that helps explain the whole port fiasco?

The Mac mini is supposed to be either a "Switcher's Mac" or a Mac for IT pros who are going to hook it to a KVM, or lastly a home entertainment server. In any of those cases, the ports standard on the Mac mini (DVI/USB) are a bad choice.

Where are the VGA out and PS/2 keyboard and mouse ports? I see that for $20 you can buy a DVI -> VGA adapter, but I don't see any PS/2 keyboard -> USB adapter. Why doesn't it just COME WITH these things in the box. Could such items cost more than a couple bucks per unit to include?

Switchers only have VGA and PS/2 devices. Only high end KVMs support DVI and USB. What the hell is going on in Mission Control?

Re:Where's the PS/2 connector?

[dcstimm]

Ps2 keyboards / mice have never been used by macs, so it does require a USB/Keyboard and mouse, Apple just dropped the price of its keyboard/mouse from $49 to $29 because of the mac mini. The Apple keyboard also gives you two USB ports so you dont lose any ports when you hook up a keyboard and a mouse. Most people will need to get a new keyboard and mouse but most people wouldnt complain because its not that expensive.

Also the Dvi to Vga adapter comes with the computer so ANY monitor will work, vga or dvi.. Hell Im going to hook it up to my HDTV..

And Apple is just trying to convert PC users that are scared to give up their new $80 dollar wireless usb keyboard and mouse combo they just bought.

Also with the Mac Mini Coming with a free Printer http://apple.com/promo they are going to sell a shit load of these babies.

Re:Where's the PS/2 connector?

[slim]

Even in the PC universe, PS/2 is getting increasingly rare: pretty much everything you'll see on the shops is USB now. My ThinkPad has no PS/2 socket either. Here's an example of a $25 PS2/USB convertor. I expect you could get cheaper. It only takes up one USB port too: neat.

The DVI->VGA adapter DOES come in the box, like you ask.

If you already own a KVM switcher, you're right, the migration away from PS/2 is a pain: but USB/VGA KVMs appear to be the basic choice in mainstream outlets now, from my brief investigations.

Re:Where's the PS/2 connector?

[hcdejong]

You're missing the point. This is supposed to be a bare-bones machine. Include both adapters and you'd have a $530 base configuration instead of $499, adding expense for items not everyone will need. You don't want to know how many unnecessary adapters, cords, etc. I've gotten over the years. All wasted money.
I'd rather have the adapters separate.

Re:Where's the PS/2 connector?

[phillymjs]

Ps2 keyboards / mice have never been used by macs

This is technically true.

Mac clones, however, are a different story. Some Mac clones made by Motorola and Power Computing had both Apple Desktop Bus connectors and PS/2 connectors. The Power Computing boxes even had two monitor ports; one then-Apple-standard DB-15, and one VGA port.

~Philly

Re:Where's the PS/2 connector?

[amichalo]

Also with the Mac Mini Coming with a free Printer http://apple.com/promo

I didn't see a promo for a printer with the Mac mini. The Epson Stylus C86 is free (mail in rebate) with the purchase of "qualifying" iMacs, eMacs, Power Mac, iBook, or PowerBook. No mention of the Mac mini.

For $499, expecting a printer too seems a bit much.

Re:Where's the PS/2 connector?

[amichalo]

You're missing the point. This is supposed to be a bare-bones machine. Include both adapters and you'd have a $530 base configuration instead of $499, adding expense for items not everyone will need.

You state this will increase the price from $499 to $530 but I whole heartedly disagree that it would cost Apple $31 to include the PS/2 -> USB Adapter I found for $9.95 RETAIL.

I am afraid I must not have made my point clear. Regardless of the cost, they can keep the $499/599 price point. Apple's target market for these devices are "switchers" and tech enthusiasts. As my previous post pointed out, if Apple is expecting them to use either existing hardware (PS/2 & VGA) or KVM switches (only high end ones have DVI/USB support), then Apple needs to provide this stuff.

I get a white phone cord with every Mac I buy because it comes with a modem. Who doesn't have a phone cord in their house or can get one a grocery store. Yet something people will need and probably have a harder time finding like a PS/2 -> USB adapter (thanks for pointing out the DVI -> VGA is included) is an item Apple has choosen not to include.

Re:Where's the PS/2 connector?

[amichalo]

The DVI->VGA adapter DOES come in the box, like you ask.

Thank you for pointing this out. My oversight.

I found this $9.95 Dual PS/2 -> single USB converter and no doubt eBay will continue to sell the things wholesale for far less (saw some in the $4 range).

All this just makes my point. It would cost Apple SO VERY LITTLE with their buying power to include this thing. They included the DVI -> VGA as you pointed out. Why not take the next logical step?

Re:Where's the PS/2 connector?

[amichalo]

Easy to have a sig like you do when the discussion is locked. Why don't you start a new discussion and I'll give you my two cents. You can add it to the $6,000.

Reply to this when you've done it so I get a /. notice.

Re:Where's the PS/2 connector?

[dcstimm]

No the Printer is Free, Look at the page again, On the right it says CHoose your Mac: Mac Mini is number 1, and its for all Macs...

Re:Where's the PS/2 connector?

[sosume]

All my USB mice and keyboards came with a ps2 to usb converter, so I had no problem tying them to my KVM. The other way around will be interesting though.. well I can always use VNC or remote X or something...

Re:Where's the PS/2 connector?

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't have a floppy drive either.

Sheesh. . . It's 2005 already, get with it.

Re:Where's the PS/2 connector?

[Anonymous Coward]

PS/2 USB Adapters are notoriously crappy. I doubt you could find one that worked with most keyboards, and that's just another hassle for Apple to deal with. Getting a USB keyboard is the way to go, especially one with an Apple key layout, like some of Logitech's designs.

Re:Where's the PS/2 connector?

[AlgUSF]

I am a switcher, and I got a $19.99 adapter for my mac-mini which changes PS2 keyboard/mouse into USB. Works perfect. It comes with a DVI->VGA adapter.

Re:Where's the PS/2 connector?

[macintaz]

If you read the articals the Mac mini comes with the VGA to DVI adapter and you pic up a PS/2 to USB pretty cheap as most keyboards are USB your all set

Re:Where's the PS/2 connector?

[Herbmaster]

And Apple is just trying to convert PC users that are scared to give up their new $80 dollar wireless usb keyboard and mouse combo they just bought.

With the mac mini, Apple isn't going after PC users who would have bought an $80 wireless usb keyboard and mouse. They're going after the guy who'll use it with their POS Dell QuietKey or $30 HP keyboard from 4 years ago, and an IntelliMouse. Either that, or people who will pick up a keyboard and mouse while they're at the Apple store - now that they're a little more reasonably priced. PS/2 to USB converters are a dime a dozen. If Apple isn't selling them in their retail stores, I bet they'll start carrying them soon.

Use Patchburn for external and unsupported Drives

[j0kkk3l]

You can use the free Patchburn to enable burning from Apple's iApps with nonsupprted burners.

Mac Mini Info for Linux / Windows Users

[BobWeiner]

O'Reilly has a useful article on Mac Mini information for Linux / Windows users.

Get one free

[drewpc]

I saw this link on macslash.org (I think) and thought I'd pass it around. Apparently, you sign up for one offer (like a 30-day free trial of eFax) and get 10 friends to do the same, and they'll send you a free mini mac. If you're interested, use the following link to sign up:

http://www.freeminimacs.com/?r=14209873

My Mom Loves Debian

[allgood2]

She keeps asking when we are to get married :)

Looks like we're both right

[amichalo]

The page you were looking at is here:
http://www.apple.com/promo/printoutcashin/

The page I was looking at is here:
http://www.apple.com/promo/

Apple didn't update the page i was looking at, but did update the page you saw.

Anyone know if Apple's USB keyboard works on PC?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anyone know if Apple's USB keyboard (not wireless) works with PCs?

It really is PC3200 RAM in my Mini

[parvenu74]

For what it's worth, I managed to easily and quickly open up my Mini with a simple putty knife (and no scratches to the plastic or aluminum!) and sure enough, there was a 256MB stick of Samsung PC3200 RAM (Apple advertises these as coming with PC2700). I removed that stick and replaced it with a 512MB PC3200 (CL 2.5) Mushkin stick (my WinXP Pro box will have to do with only one of two of these sticks for now), replaced the cover and booted up. The performance increase was noticeable and immediate; the NewEgg.com order for a 1024MB stick of PC3200 goes out tomorrow! (Supposedly the Mini will only use PC3200 at PC2700 speed, but when the PC3200 is only $4.50 more at NewEgg, why not get the faster chip?)

I did snap a couple pictures with my Nikon D70 but I decided against posting them since there are already several links to pictures of deconstructed minis in various places on /. and I presume nobody reading this is all too interested in either the RAM stick that was in my Mini or the putty knife used to open up the box...

Re:Anyone know if Apple's USB keyboard works on PC

[Judogi]

Yep. The Command (Apple) keys works as the Windows key. The volume controls even work on XP it seems.

Buy or wait?

[a984]

Depends on your circumstances obviously. The form factor is very tempting. Myself I'm waiting for the second iteration. This is primarily a desktop machine and as such should have a disk that is as fast as that in current eMac. Right now disks in Mini are two times slower than in eMac! That is SLOW. External FW drives even with fast 7200 drives are equally slow, USB2 is much much worse! Otherwise perfect machine for everyday use.

Apple needs to do 3 things in second generation.

a) make HD at least as good as in the current eMac.

b) redo USB2 and Firewire. They suck now, and suck badly.

c) add optical audio.

Perfect machine then.

Of course,

[ambrosen]

Dell did try, but they sold virtually none. Just seems the form factor's a killer for PC buyers and a USP for Mac buyers. Weird.

Momentus

[Anonymous Coward]

Cool, isn't Momentus the seagate drive which is intended to be used in 24/7 roles?

The 2.5" drive thing worried me, but if this is the case I might consider one.

Re:Momentus

[a984]

Momentus either 4200rpm that Apple puts in Mini or newer 5400rpm (these go to 100GB and are advertised as 50% faster and were too dear for Apple) are not 24/7 as far as I can tell. Where did you hear it?

The only 24/7 notebook drive designed for 24/7 operation is that 60GB/7200rpm drive by Hitachi but only when designated e7k60, 7k60 is not. Beware.

Again in my opinion Apple should have used SATA 2.5 drives in Mini. Fujitsu makes them, 5400/80 max at this point.

Re:Momentus

[UnknowingFool]

There are many reasons to choose SATA over ATA but I would think for a barebones system it wouldn't make a lot of sense. Cost would probably the biggest factor. While the SATA performs better than ATA, would anyone buying a sub $500 machine really buy it for performance? This machine is meant to be a desktop not a enterprise server.

Re:Momentus

[a984]

SATA was specifically designed to be LOW COST high speed interface, and as such given proper volumes should be competitive. Mini will hopefully be of high enough volume to make SATA possible. (sata was not designed for enterprise servers per se, better of these use ultrascsi 2.5/10 k drives that cost roughly $900 for 70GB).
Besides 3.5 inch SATA drives are cheap these days and become still cheaper vis-a-vis PATA.

SATA is important because neither USB2 nor FW4 at least as implemented by Apple are capable of supporting external 7200rpm drives properly. Lets be honest not even 5400rpm and in case of USB2 not even 4200rpm. In case of mini that means no decently fast storage is possible unless 7200rpm notebook drives are up to the task.

Noise!

[Zhe Mappel]

From the review:

One thing that did surprise me about the Mac mini was the noise level, both good and bad. Most of the time the machine is very quiet, basically silent; I expected more regular fan noise given the cramped quarters inside the box. On the other hand, under the heaviest extended loads--ripping a number of CDs in a row while performing other processor-intenstive tasks, for example--the fan ramps up to a surprising volume. Nothing compared to the wind tunnel levels of a crashed Power Mac G5, to be sure, but louder than I expected. Similarly, the Mac mini's optical drive is about as loud as its PowerBook cousin--it can get noisy when ripping songs in iTunes. (Thankfully, it's nearly silent when watching DVDs.)

Well, that's hardly encouraging. That it's even being mentioned by MacWorld, whose job is generally to cheer for Apple products, is significant.

Small form factor PC's have struggled mightily to reduce noise, with minimal but increasing success. Apple might have learned from the PC sector's improvements and produced a design with better heat exchange. One obvious direction is being pursued by Hush.

Windows Remote Desktop

[xiaodidi]

Just go download the Windows Remote Desktop Connector and get cooking

I use RDC on my Mac to access a W2K server that has Terminal Services ON -- but wasn't set up by me. Would you know how to set up Terminal Services on a PC running W2K Professional? Thanks!

My complaint!

[John Harrison]

I ordered one online before they were on sale at the stores. The estimated ship date is Feb 17th! Now I am wondering if I should just cancel my order and go to the store. Of course I would have to fight the results of the blizzard, but I wouldn't have to wait a month...

Re:My complaint!

[RedX]

If you didn't order a built-to-order config or can otherwise live with one of the standard configs, I'd just pick one up locally, assuming the local store has something acceptable in stock. The online store charges sales tax, so you're really not saving anything by waiting a few weeks (unless, again, you ordered a BTO)

Re:My complaint!

[John Harrison]

I ordered BTO, and now that they are changing specs and prices on BTO I'm not sure what I'll get.

Don't trust those Seagate Momentus drives.

[Anonymous Coward]

At the retailer where I work, I have seen several of those, more often than other brands, come DOA. In fact, I just had another one last night. I don't particularly trust the current offerings by Seagate and this comes just 3 months after I rip apart my Powerbook to put one in.

They need either a PCI slot or gig-E.

[porkchop_d_clown]

Personally, I'd prefer a PCI-X slot so I could throw an Infiniband adapter in there.

Dumb Question, Windows iPod here.

[Shivetya]

I was under the impression that you could not use a windows iPod with a MAC.

Is that true?

Re:Dumb Question, Windows iPod here.

[valkraider]

You can't use a windows iPod with a Media Access Control?

Re:Dumb Question, Windows iPod here.

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I was under the impression that you could not use a windows iPod with a MAC ...Is that true?

Of course you can't, iPods don't have ethernet jacks. They don't get assigned a MAC. You can use the USB or Firewire connection and plug them into a Windows PC, Linux PC, or Macintosh, however. Those should all have a MAC if their ethernet is plugged in.

Re:Dumb Question, Windows iPod here.

[EggMan2000]

LOL, Weak, but I did smile....

AFAIK you can.

[porkchop_d_clown]

The only difference between a Mac iPod and a Windows iPod is the formatting of the HD. Because Macs understand FAT32, a Windows iPod will work on a Mac, but because Windows doesn't understand HFS+, a Mac iPod will not work with a PC.

Re:AFAIK you can.

[HuguesT]

You can reformat the Mac iPod easily to FAT32 though.

different hd and rama

[Wild_dog!]

Anandtech has a review and they have found some different hardware from spec.

http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2328&p =5

"Although it uses desktop memory, the Mac mini uses a 2.5" notebook hard drive. The base $499 version comes with a 40GB drive and the $599 version comes with a 80GB drive. What is surprising however is that some units appear to come with Seagate's 5400RPM Momentus ST94011A drive, including the unit reviewed here today. The 5400RPM drive features a 2MB buffer and is fairly snappy for a 2.5" drive, it's still much, much slower than a 3.5" desktop drive, but it's a nice surprise to see a 5400RPM drive used in the mini. We have been getting reports of some units coming with 4200RPM drives however, right now it seems to be luck of the draw as to which drive you get. "

and

"The other surprise we got was that the memory installed in the mini was in fact CAS 3 DDR400 and not DDR333 as Apple's spec sheet suggests. Granted anything above DDR333 does absolutely nothing for the mini as the G4 is FSB limited to the bandwidth of single channel DDR333 SDRAM."

Gentoo is the first Linux on the Mac Mini

[Wild_dog!]

http://www.gentoo.org/news/en/gwn/20050124-newslet ter.xml

Whoohoo....that is what I want to do as soon as I get one....should be fun.

Seagate Savvio is maybe what you are thinking of.

[Wild_dog!]

This is seagates 2.5" drive for the server market.
Spins at 10K....

http://www.seagate.com/products/discfamily/savvio/