Slashdot Mirror


Mac mini to PC Hack

DiZASTiX writes "Kevin Rose, the ever so popular host of G4/TechTV's The Screen Savers, has managed to fit a PC inside the Mac mini. 'I've seen a ton of articles around the web lately comparing the Mac mini to the near full size desktop PC. What they fail to compare is the amount of computing power per square inch you get with the Mini. So, I decided to take it upon myself to create the fastest PC possible with the size constraints of the Mini's small form factor.' The article covers most everything he did and includes pictures."

692 comments

  1. Nah! Let's try something better... by Paolo+DF · · Score: 5, Funny

    Well, fun would be in hiding a McIntosh motherboard inside an nonymous PC case. Now, *that* would puzzle the standard user. "Hey, how may I lower-right-side-button double-click with this mouse?" ;-)

    --
    Pumbaa! I don't wonder; I know.
    1. Re:Nah! Let's try something better... by g33ker · · Score: 1, Funny

      What? Mac with a 3 button mouse? ARGH!

    2. Re:Nah! Let's try something better... by gad_zuki! · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Dont forget to add a couple loud ass case fans for authenticity and so they know its on.

    3. Re:Nah! Let's try something better... by Paolo+DF · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well, I think that the standard PC now have something like a 16-buttons--three-weels--four side-buttons mouse. Wait, I do have a graphic tablet with four buttons, but this doesn't count, I think.

      --
      Pumbaa! I don't wonder; I know.
    4. Re:Nah! Let's try something better... by martinX · · Score: 2, Funny

      Why would you put a home stereo system in a PC case?

      --
      When they came for the communists, I said "He's next door. Take him away. Goddam commies."
    5. Re:Nah! Let's try something better... by Paolo+DF · · Score: 1

      A-ha! So nobody recalls the Mac original name here? LOL, I didn't think of the audio products. I *love* those amplifiers.

      --
      Pumbaa! I don't wonder; I know.
    6. Re:Nah! Let's try something better... by commodoresloat · · Score: 2, Interesting
      So nobody recalls the Mac original name here?

      You mean "Lisa"?

      If Macintoshes were ever called McIntoshes, there's no mention of it here. I think you're wrong.

      I *love* those amplifiers.

      Agreed -- my family used to have one of these (and a preamp) years ago. Wish I could afford one. Until following the (audiophile pornography!) link above (and wasting half an hour drooling and clicking), I had no idea they made speakers too.

    7. Re:Nah! Let's try something better... by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 4, Informative

      The original name of the Macintosh was Macintosh. It stemmed from a project (called Annie) to create a cheap gaming console, but they weren't related except that the person assigned to Annie countered with the proposal for Macintosh.

      The Lisa was a completely seperate thing, but a lot of ideas did get shared between the two groups.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    8. Re:Nah! Let's try something better... by wtmcgee · · Score: 1, Funny

      What's a McIntosh? Some new meal from our favorite fast food empire?

      --
      *** For a better tommorow, change your life today ***
    9. Re:Nah! Let's try something better... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't get it, do you? It was Macintosh, but not McIntosh.

      Cue the fucking retards who write "MAC"...

    10. Re:Nah! Let's try something better... by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 2, Informative

      First, the earlier poster said that the original name of the Macintosh was the Lisa, which is just wrong.

      Second, it would have been McIntosh, but Jef Raskin changed the spelling to avoid a trademark issue with the McIntosh stereo people. It didn't work (because how words sound is more important than how they're spelled for trademark purposes), and they had to come to an agreement.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    11. Re:Nah! Let's try something better... by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

      Second, it would have been McIntosh, but Jef Raskin changed the spelling to avoid a trademark issue with the McIntosh stereo people. It didn't work (because how words sound is more important than how they're spelled for trademark purposes), and they had to come to an agreement.

      I'm glad they made the change. It just wouldn't seem right if it was a McIntosh. What would we call it for short, a Mic?

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    12. Re:Nah! Let's try something better... by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      I thought the original name Raskin came up with was "Bicycle"?

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    13. Re:Nah! Let's try something better... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be the McMcIntosh. I'm lovin' it.

    14. Re:Nah! Let's try something better... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no, they licenced the technology from Xerox. but whatever, truth be damed.

    15. Re:Nah! Let's try something better... by MNJavaGuy · · Score: 2, Informative

      Xerox had little to complain about there. They let Apple study the Alto and it's GUI as they didn't feel that they had a product there that they could really do much with. They invested $1mil in Apple after that and received about a 1700% return on that. Probably more than they expected to get out of the Alto at the time. So I would hardly call it an outright theft.

    16. Re:Nah! Let's try something better... by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 1

      I thought Bicycle was a Steveism. Certainly he was fond of the idea, and the AUC had a Picasso-style Bicycle. I'll have to check my sources.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    17. Re:Nah! Let's try something better... by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      I saw a hack where someone had put a PC into a portable Commodore 64 case. I think he even connected the the C64 ports logically.

    18. Re:Nah! Let's try something better... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or simply... "Why are the other mouse-buttons all placed on the keyboard"?

    19. Re:Nah! Let's try something better... by TeknoHog · · Score: 1
      Well, I think that the standard PC now have something like a 16-buttons--three-weels--four side-buttons mouse.

      Which begs the question, does a PC need a keyboard at all? I mean everything is supposed to be so easy to do with the mouse anyway.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    20. Re:Nah! Let's try something better... by squiggleslash · · Score: 2, Informative

      You appear to be right, I stand corrected!

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    21. Re:Nah! Let's try something better... by spectre_240sx · · Score: 1

      Ohhh, yeah, like a G4.

    22. Re:Nah! Let's try something better... by spectre_240sx · · Score: 1

      A friend of mine did the same thing with an Osbourne case, including hooking up the monitor. I can't remember how new the motherboard was, but he got it working.

    23. Re:Nah! Let's try something better... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This whole mouse thing completely mystifies me. I mean, so the mouse that comes with a mac has only one button...so? what computer user would care so little about their own productivity that they use the cheap oem mouse that comes with a computer instead of investing the cost of far less than 1 billable hour in a high-end mouse that will suit their needs and maximize their productivity?

      oh right...we're talking about peecee users. cheep cheap cheep. that's right, windows is better because when you buy a cheap windows computer the cheap mouse that comes with it has lots of buttons. And don't worry, the boss will continue to believe that the real reason you didn't finish your task on time is because you had to re-install windows, just like he believed you last time. He uses the same excuse with HIS boss.

      What's the price premium on a high-end mac? 6 or 7 hundred? Gee, even at 10 minutes worth of additional productivity per day, that pays for itself pretty fscking quick...unless of course you are a low productivity idiot who makes practically nothing and whose primary use for your computer is downloading warez that you will never actually use to do anything productive with.

    24. Re:Nah! Let's try something better... by 91degrees · · Score: 1
    25. Re:Nah! Let's try something better... by erlenic · · Score: 1
      but this doesn't count, I think.

      No, it counts. Face it, you're one of us now!

    26. Re:Nah! Let's try something better... by binaryjay · · Score: 1

      BinaryJay BriefTop I made this thing quite a long time ago. :)

    27. Re:Nah! Let's try something better... by shotfeel · · Score: 1

      No, IIRC the original code name was Macintosh. When it came time for a "real" name, Bicycle was the top contender. But then it was decided (by Jobs?) that Macintosh was a better name and they stuck with it.

    28. Re:Nah! Let's try something better... by shotfeel · · Score: 1

      Not only that, but then all those little "i"s (iMac, iPod, iTunes...) would have to be capitalized.

    29. Re:Nah! Let's try something better... by Gilmoure · · Score: 2, Informative

      'Macintosh' as a name came about due to Jef Raskin. He liked the apples but didn't want to conflict with McIntosh stereo equipment.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    30. Re:Nah! Let's try something better... by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      Horn is correct that click-and-drag methods were invented at Apple and not at PARC (or elsewhere, as far as I know). I created this method for moving objects and making selections after finding the Xerox click-move-click method prone to error. Bill Atkinson extended the paradigm to pull-down menus...

      My thesis in Computer Science, published in 1967, argued that computers should be all-graphic, that we should eliminate character generators and create characters graphically and in various fonts, that what you see on the screen should be what you get, and that the human interface was more important than mere considerations of algorithmic efficiency and compactness. This was heretical in 1967, half a decade before PARC started. Many of the basic principles of the Mac were firmly entrenched in my psyche. By the way, the name of my thesis was the "Quick-Draw Graphics System", which became the name of (and part of the inspiration for) Atkinson's graphics package for the Mac.


      -Jef Raskin

      Raskin was the guy who initiated the Macintosh program at Apple and even talked to Jobs and Woz, in their garage, while they were working on the Apple I, about how they should be doing a graphical computer.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    31. Re:Nah! Let's try something better... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hehe, that's pretty sweet.

  2. Need a review by fembots · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Can we get tomshardware to do a review on this thing?

    The deatils are so little, we don't really know about its weight, performance, heat issues and total cost. The only obvious thing is it doesn't have a CDROM.

    And even if it is possible to build a PC the size of a Mini Mac with exactly the same specs (performance, weight, cost, color and whatnot), I bet not many people are going to rush out and get one soon.

    1. Re:Need a review by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.epiacenter.com

      http://www.mini-itx.com

    2. Re:Need a review by hostyle · · Score: 0

      And even if it is possible to build a PC the size of a Mini Mac with exactly the same specs (performance, weight, cost, color and whatnot)

      Approximately, yes - not the manufacturers link, but its still the same damn PC. There are even smaller ones out, but not very mass-produced. But basically the Mac Mini is nothing new, just better marketted than anything similar.

      --
      Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris.
    3. Re:Need a review by kc8apf · · Score: 4, Informative

      The Espresso does not even seem to come close to what a Mac mini offers performance wise. The specs you link to show that it has a max processor speed of 500Mhz. The Mac mini goes up to 1.4Ghz. They say that a celeron can go higher, but not 900Mhz higher.

      The video card is also a 4MB card. The Mac mini has a ATI Radeon 9200 with 32MB of RAM. Again, a huge difference.

      While the Espresso is in the right ballgame for size, weight, etc, performance is not even close.

      --
      kc8apf
    4. Re:Need a review by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      "Approximately, yes - not the manufacturers link, but its still the same damn PC." ... except that, given the specs on that page, the darn thing doesn't come with a CPU - you have to put in your own PIII. Plus you need an external Ethernet adapter since it doesn't have an Ethernet port.

      It's not even close to being the same thing - nor does it appear that it's MEANT for the same audience.

      C'mon, let's at least compare apples to Apples here.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    5. Re:Need a review by Total_Wimp · · Score: 1

      And even if it is possible to build a PC the size of a Mini Mac with exactly the same specs (performance, weight, cost, color and whatnot), I bet not many people are going to rush out and get one soon.

      You're kidding, right? Bare bones small FF PCs have been going like hotcakes for the LAN party crowd.

      The hard part, IMHO, is the video card. How do you duplicate the size of the Mac-Mini while getting high-end graphics? When someone figures that out then the PC version is going to fly off the shelf.

      TW

    6. Re:Need a review by fermion · · Score: 1
      This is standard fanboy argument. If a system cannot win on performacne, argue price. If it can't win on price, argue equal perfomance and de-facto standards.

      This system has been mentioned many times before, and each time someone states the bleeding obvious. The cheaper models are not equal in perfomance, the the more expensvice model is not equal in price.

      A properly configured mac mini , with 80 GB, 512M ram, wireless, bluetooth, keyboard, USB, Firewire, CD/DVD and writer, the works, is significantly less than $1000. A similiarly configured Mocha, with all that, a P4 and XP proffesional, is significantly more than $1000, approaches the cost of similiarly confgured iMac G5.

      So as always, if you need a PC, then it is worth the cost.

      But really the issue is that we should be buying machines on needed capabilities, not on rhetoric. Both will do what most people want.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    7. Re:Need a review by ikewillis · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Never mind this system uses a 1GHz CISC CPU, the Cyrix-derived Eden processor. Compare this to a 1.42GHz RISC CPU with a 128-bit vector unit for which the OS and all applications are pro-actively optimized for. The x86 world has only caught up to AltiVec with SSE3 and Eden processors don't even implement SSE2.

      If you want something to compare to the G4, how about a 1.5GHz Pentium M at the very least?

    8. Re:Need a review by drsmithy · · Score: 1
      And even if it is possible to build a PC the size of a Mini Mac with exactly the same specs (performance, weight, cost, color and whatnot), I bet not many people are going to rush out and get one soon.

      Of course it is. There are PC laptops smaller than the Mini with better specs.

    9. Re:Need a review by UniverseIsADoughnut · · Score: 3, Informative

      and SFFs like shuttles are a good bit bigger then a mini and a lot more expandable/capable.

      The super small boxes that are via mini itx based are not selling like hot cakes. When you get to that size you are paying more for smaller less standard components and not equal performace. Plus there has been no large push by any mini itx system makers. Shuttles have been doing great cause the company has been pushing them very well, and they are something people want.

      The mac mini will sell good though, it's cheap for what you get and has proper marketing behind it. And it runs OSX, which will be a huge bonus for a long time. Most people run windows, and if they are looking for something different it's going to be OSX cause it's just as easy for them, and plenty common and so forth. The selling point to macs is the OS not so much the hardware though the hardware helps.

    10. Re:Need a review by drsmithy · · Score: 2, Informative
      If you want something to compare to the G4, how about a 1.5GHz Pentium M at the very least?

      A Pentium M is at *least* as fast as a G4 clock-for-clock, and given the much higher bus speed and memory bandwidth, will spank it in general-purpose performance.

    11. Re:Need a review by penginkun · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is something which bugs me...Tiger's core video will require 64mb to operate but Apple's releasing systems with a paltry 32mb of vram. Seems like every system they release should have AT LEAST 64mb now, in preparation for Tiger (which Steve talked up but good at Macworld. People will expect the mini to be able to take full advantage of Tiger, and they're going to be a little unhappy that it can't.

      It's put me off buying a mini (though I'll gladly take one if anyone has a spare!).

    12. Re:Need a review by BoomerSooner · · Score: 1

      And everyone knows you need a 1.5 GHz processor to run notepad.exe. My guess is a 1.42GHz G4 would hold up pretty well against a 1.5GHz Centrino especially if they have the 2MB L3. Plus look at the cost comparison, it's not even close the Centrino is significantly more.

    13. Re:Need a review by RQuinn · · Score: 1

      You do realize that that computer debuted nearly five years ago, right? Hence the performance...

    14. Re:Need a review by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " Never mind this system uses a 1GHz CISC CPU, the Cyrix-derived Eden processor. Compare this to a 1.42GHz RISC CPU with a 128-bit vector unit for which the OS"

      All pentium based processors use RISC cores. They lose a little performance interpreting old CISC instructions, but it's not that much. Your college textbook isn't going to tell you how processors are designed in the real world.

    15. Re:Need a review by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "While the Espresso is in the right ballgame for size, weight, etc, performance is not even close."

      Well, no, but if you want to run Windows on a unit that small...

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    16. Re:Need a review by ImpTech · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Nope. Sorry. Pentium M should always smack the G4 clock-for-clock. Go look up the SPEC results. G4 is clock competitive with P6. Pentium M is P6 plus branch-predict optimizations plus 2MB L2, i.e. faster.

      G4s might be cheap, but thats only because they suck.

    17. Re:Need a review by snuf23 · · Score: 1

      Agreed if you are looking a the Espresso. But how about the Mocha? With dimensions of 6.18" x 5.75" x 2.2" and featuring a full blown Pentium 4 it is a much better comparison.

      --
      Sometimes my arms bend back.
    18. Re:Need a review by Dr.+Sigmund+Freud · · Score: 4, Informative
      Tiger's core video will require 64mb to operate but Apple's releasing systems with a paltry 32mb of vram.
      Just a clarification. Some of the new eye-candy needs 64 Mb VRAM to work (Droplet works with 32Mb, Burn and Flash don't; and this is on Panther 10.3.7)

      Tiger will need 64MB VRAM for CI/CV to be crunched in the GPU. However, if the GPU does not have the requisite memory/power, Tiger will be smart enough to direct the CI/CV crunching to be done by the CPU (unlike Panther, which just sends the eye-candy to the GPU, regardless of whether or not the GPU can do it).

    19. Re:Need a review by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't really lose performance; it probably helps performance by conserving cache. What they lose is die space for the most part. You could argue that the decoder space could be used for cache if the more complicated isa were discarded, but there's no guarantee that it could be cheaply converted into enough cache to makeup for the performance difference.

    20. Re:Need a review by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huh? Tell me how a 0-operand based floating point stack is going to conserve instruction cache?

      That old dog of an ISA called x86 does anything but help conserve cache. It was the cheapest POS processor available when IBM first used it, and x86 has dragged that legacy along with it ever since.

    21. Re:Need a review by 10Ghz · · Score: 1

      Out of stock, crappier video, crappier looks. And propably more expensive when fitted with similar features.

      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    22. Re:Need a review by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Er, no, there aren't. Hell, there aren't many laptops with 6-1/2"x6-1/2" screens period.

    23. Re:Need a review by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      No, argue based on actual requirements.

      The sort of user that won't stress this box by wanting to fill it with more DV video then it can hold will be adequately served by a cheaper (possibly lesser) book pc.

      The sort of user that would stress this box would be well served by a ~ $700 XPC.

      Either of those two can support a $400G disk or a double layer DVD+R. The more expensive machine can be upgraded with standard cards like wireless NIC, the successor to firewire2, a better video card or a TV tuner with integrated MPEG2 decoder.

      The mini is not just limited but it's unecessarily limited when compared to 5 year old PC's targeted to the same niche.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    24. Re:Need a review by snuf23 · · Score: 1

      Gee it's out of stock - so I guess that must be because it sucks so hard.

      I will at least give you a polite nod for the "crappier video" comment. Crappier implies that you feel the Mac Mini's video is crappy. Which is better than the usual "it runs World of Warcrack so it's all the video you will need" comments.

      I wasn't suggesting it was better, just that it is a better comparison seeing as it is much faster. BTW, there is a Mocha model that is not out of stock and can be purchased.

      I compared pricing for a 2.4GHz P4 with 1GB RAM, DVD recorder and 80 gig drive to the Mac Mini. And yes the Mac was cheaper. If you wanted to buy a barebones Mocha and purchase the extra components yourself I believe it would be cheaper. Apple's upgrade component prices are not exactly cheap.

      As for the looks issue. I keep getting this in response. Who cares? Do you look and drool at how beautiful your computer is while you use? Shouldn't you be looking at the monitor? As if the Mac Mini looks like much anyway, it's a little white box with a gray apple on top and a slit in the front. So what? Aesthetically minimalist sure, beautiful - um no.

      I'm not a Mac Mini hater. I think they are pretty cool little Macs. It just seems to me that the majority of people think they are the greatest thing since sliced bread. Maybe for the Mac world, because it's the first "affordable Mac" but keep in mind that it sure isn't going to roast your toast like a G5 will. In fact, if you factor in monitor cost, for many people the eMac is a better deal.

      --
      Sometimes my arms bend back.
    25. Re:Need a review by d_strand · · Score: 1

      RISC does not mean "faster than CISC". RISC basically means "less work per clock but hopefully much more clocks".

      Your point is valid though since the Eden is a crappy perfomer and the G4 is decent

    26. Re:Need a review by goatan · · Score: 1
      And even if it is possible to build a PC the size of a Mini Mac with exactly the same specs (performance, weight, cost, color and whatnot), I bet not many people are going to rush out and get one soon.

      Ditto for the Mac mini i don't know many people except mac fans who know of existence and only the really serious mac fans have plans to get one.

      --
      Saying Apple is better than MS is like saying Botulism is better than rabies.

    27. Re:Need a review by 10Ghz · · Score: 1
      Gee it's out of stock - so I guess that must be because it sucks so hard.


      maybe it's out of stock because it was so crappy that they stopped making it ;)?

      But seriously. I can't compare the price of that particukar machine to the price of the Mini, since I can't see Mocha's price anywhere. I did find another Mocha-model (Mocha P4 7042). I customized it a bit (CDRW+DVD, 2Ghz P4, 40GB HD) and it costed $938! And that's WITHOUT any software! I could get two Mini's for the price of Mocha with Windows XP! And it would still have that crappy vid-card and god knows how noisy cooling-system.

      I will at least give you a polite nod for the "crappier video" comment. Crappier implies that you feel the Mac Mini's video is crappy.


      Of course, if you compare Mini's vid-card to GeForce 6800 or something, it is pretty crappy. But if you compare it to other machines of it's class, it has pretty damn good vid-card (Mocha and others have an integrated vid-card that use system-RAM)

      I wasn't suggesting it was better, just that it is a better comparison seeing as it is much faster.


      Debatable. It might have faster CPU, but it has slower vid-card. And how hot does that CPU run?

      As for the looks issue. I keep getting this in response. Who cares? Do you look and drool at how beautiful your computer is while you use?


      No, but it does matter. If I had to choose between two identically specced and priced machines, other being gorgerous and other looking crappy, I would choose the gorgerous machine every time. And since this machine would be sitting on my desk, it would be visible all the time. And therefore the looks would be somewhat important. Maybe I'm just starting to outgrow the "beige-box"-mentality when it comes to computers.

      As if the Mac Mini looks like much anyway, it's a little white box with a gray apple on top and a slit in the front. So what? Aesthetically minimalist sure, beautiful - um no.


      Last time I checked, it was't white, but more like silver-gray. And yes, I like minimalist look, instead of some whiz-bang box with neon and flashing lights.

      It just seems to me that the majority of people think they are the greatest thing since sliced bread. Maybe for the Mac world,


      Well, I think the Mini IS brilliant. I do not think that it's somekind of supercomputer or something, but I think it does have lots of computing power in a tiny case. And guess what? I don't own any Apple hardware. I have never owned any. Yet I think the Mini is absolutely fantastic. I had been looking for a tiny computer that is as silent as possible. Previosly I looked at Mini-ITX-machines. But now my plans have changed, since the Mini absolutely annihilates those machines. Price is more or less similar, but the Mini has better fit 'n finish and it has a lot better performance.
      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    28. Re:Need a review by emilymildew · · Score: 1

      What on earth are you talking about? Source, please. Your own experiences? What programs are you running?

      I call shenanigans.

    29. Re:Need a review by Geek_3.3 · · Score: 1

      G4's don't SUCK--they just use a older, less sophisticated processor, relatively speaking. How old are the G4's, hmm? And how old are the Pentium M's?

      EXXACTLY. It's an unfair comparison. We wouldn't compare a P4-1.5 Ghz to a AMD64-3000+ processor and truly expect something meaningful out of that, would we? The clock speeds are relatively similar(ish), but a VASTLY different ballpark in performance terms.

      Now if they jimmied in a G5 into a mini... THAT would be impressive... ;-)

    30. Re:Need a review by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The x86 world has only caught up to AltiVec with SSE3 and Eden processors don't even implement SSE2.


      Translation: I'm so pathetic that I measure my self-worth with my instruction set, and the lies Steve hands me.

    31. Re:Need a review by shotfeel · · Score: 1

      It's kind of a neat hack, but it doesn't seem to live up to its design goal -which (re-phrasing) to see how much PC computing power could be put into an iMac enclosure.

      But then to fit everything in, the largest single component was left out -an optical drive.

    32. Re:Need a review by penginkun · · Score: 1

      Thank you for the clarification, Dr Freud. I figured the CPU would pick up the GPU's slack, but that's only implied and never explicitly stated. I still feel the same though...every Mac shipped from 1 January 2005 on should have 64mb VRAM at a minimum. It might be nice to see the high-end iMac sport 128mb, come to think of it. 8^)

    33. Re:Need a review by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The age of a cpu design doesn't necessarily have bearing on how well it performs. Just look at the alpha. Even after years of only anemic R&D efforts, it still trashed the other workstation cpu's in the market.

    34. Re:Need a review by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > How old are the G4's, hmm? And how old are the Pentium M's?

      The Pentium M is the latest member of the P6 family. According to sandpile.org, the original P6, the Pentium Pro was released on Nov 1, 1995.

      I don't know of any similar references for Motorola's CPUs, so I'm not sure when the G4 was released but I suspect it was well after 1995...though I seem to recall it is basically an improved PPC604, so it might be older after all.

      Both CPU cores are several years old, and both are still being developed, so to say one is significantly at a disadvantage technology wise isn't entirely true.

      I seem to recall both were pretty similar clock-for-clock, but I suspect the biggest difference in performance would be due to the 167MHz bus on the G4 vs the 400MHz bus on the Pentium M.

      That said, I'm off to go lust over the Mac Mini some more. ;)

  3. MirrorDot link by HellSpam · · Score: 1, Informative

    http://mirrordot.org/stories/6404fabef80b3d41d5894 e6b0d250d83/index.html The server is already pretty slow.

    1. Re:MirrorDot link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slashcode automatically adds spaces to long strings to prevent them from being useful in any way. Here's a clickable link. There's some bug on sourceforge about this, but I'm sure it won't matter if anyone contributes to that, unless they actually include a patch (It's funny. Lots of griping, but no patches, for an open source product.)

    2. Re:MirrorDot link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bad link? doesnt seem to be working...

      Score: +5 insightful

    3. Re:MirrorDot link by hostyle · · Score: 4, Informative

      how hard was an actual non-mangled clickable link?. Kind of a pity mirrordot is /.ed too

      --
      Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris.
    4. Re:MirrorDot link by Dun+Malg · · Score: 2, Informative
      http://mirrordot.org/stories/6404fabef80b3d41d5894 e6b0d250d83/index.html The server is already pretty slow.

      That's not a link, that's a URL. this is a link.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    5. Re:MirrorDot link by Triumph+The+Insult+C · · Score: 1

      hey, thanks man. mirrordot and i share the same immediate upliiiiiiiiinnnkkkkkkkkk

      --
      vodka, straight up, thank you!
    6. Re:MirrorDot link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks like it is at least as hard as your link is getting hammered.

      Please email me, subscribe me to smail and email lists
      jlarmstrong1977@yahoo.com

    7. Re:MirrorDot link by Skuld-Chan · · Score: 1

      Looks like mirrordot got slammed too.

    8. Re:MirrorDot link by Bullet-Dodger · · Score: 4, Funny

      Ah, I see you've played Linky-URLy before!

    9. Re:MirrorDot link by LordNightwalker · · Score: 1

      No, it adds spaces so the page remains readable on lower resolutions; go check the imdb forums and see how gracefully that handles long strings. People will accept that a page doesn't fit entirely on screen, and requires them to scroll down to read the rest. However, horizontal scrolling is just plain ugly and confusing; reach the end of the line, scroll back to the left, and umm... What line was I reading again???

      --
      Install windows on my workstation? You crazy? Got any idea how much I paid for the damn thing?
    10. Re:MirrorDot link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please visit Slashcode bug #981137, which concerns automatically hyperlinking URLs in "Plain Old Text" mode, and add a comment to show your support for a speedy resolution. No progress has been made on this trivial feature request for longer than six months.

      Redistribute this comment at will.

    11. Re:MirrorDot link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could easy just add:

      word-wrap: break-word;
      overflow: auto;

      to the style sheet. This'd force a horizontal scroll bar only for the particular text that is wider. The rest of the text (ie other comments on the site) would be fine. It might be a pain to read that one single line. But big deal. At least the URLs would not be so broken.

    12. Re:MirrorDot link by NanoGator · · Score: 2, Funny

      "how hard was an actual non-mangled clickable link?"

      It's not very hard at all. All you've got to do is post the URL, and some URL nazi will come along and do it for you. It's all automatic!

      --
      "Derp de derp."
  4. "Nothing for you to see here. Please move along." by game+kid · · Score: 1

    What I first saw...

    Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.

    Apparently they fit Half-Life 2 inside the Mac Mini also. Is there anything hackers can't do?

    --
    You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
  5. they couldn't fit a cd drive by gfody · · Score: 0

    that would be impossible

    --

    bite my glorious golden ass.
    1. Re:they couldn't fit a cd drive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...with that board...

      There are other mini-ITX boards out there, though.

    2. Re:they couldn't fit a cd drive by dcstimm · · Score: 1

      that is a nano itx board, it hasnt even came out yet, ALL mini-itx boards are WAY to big for a mac mini.

    3. Re:they couldn't fit a cd drive by LordNightwalker · · Score: 1

      Maybe in height, don't know how high a mini-itx board is, but 6.5x6.5 inches for a mac mini vs 6.7x6.7 for mini-itx, I wouldn't exactly call that "WAY too big"... Of course, there's also the issue of the rounded corners on a mac mini mainboard vs straight corners on mini-itx, but overall both mainboard types are comparable in size.

      --
      Install windows on my workstation? You crazy? Got any idea how much I paid for the damn thing?
    4. Re:they couldn't fit a cd drive by dcstimm · · Score: 1

      no they are not, the motherboard in the mac mini is 5x5" so its ALOT smaller than the mini-itx boards

    5. Re:they couldn't fit a cd drive by Dr.+Evil · · Score: 1

      Most subnotebooks occupy fewer cubic inches than the mini, including a display and battery.. The size of the thing really isn't all that big a deal.

  6. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Much better question: But does it run OS X?

    That's the biggest thing the mini has going for it, really. That and low cost.

  7. news-o-matic by LittleGuernica · · Score: 5, Funny

    Seems like Slashdot has the Mac mini-news-o-matic up and running at full speed. Not that I blame them, it's so hip it can barely see over it's pelvis...

    1. Re:news-o-matic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and a point for the obscure Zaphod Beeblebrox reference

  8. Cramming a PC into a Shell not hacking. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Not that I don't think that's a cool or challenging thing to do, but how exactly is that a hack?

    1. Re:Cramming a PC into a Shell not hacking. by indianropeburn · · Score: 4, Funny

      well... he hacked off about 3/4" of his heat sink.

    2. Re:Cramming a PC into a Shell not hacking. by Dolda2000 · · Score: 1
      Well, see meaning 6 and 7 in the definition of a hacker according to the Jargon File:
      6. An expert or enthusiast of any kind. One might be an astronomy hacker, for example.
      7. One who enjoys the intellectual challenge of creatively overcoming or circumventing limitations.
      Thus, this is a hardware hack.
  9. Why bother? by spungo · · Score: 5, Funny

    There are some people in this world who should be removed in order to spare us their crushing banality.

    1. Re:Why bother? by GTownBeast · · Score: 1

      Why put Linux on every piece of electronics that exists? Because they can, and they enjoy doing things like that. If it's practical, so much the better.

      --
      Rumor has it... that Catholic School Girls Rule
    2. Re:Why bother? by identity0 · · Score: 1

      Careful now, threatening the President is liable to get you a visit from the Feds... You don't want to go to Gitmo, now do you?

  10. but does it run OS X? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bet it's loud and gets hot. Probably doesn't have Bluetooth and Airport Extreme. He took out the CD drive. No firewire. Seems like a waste of a good mini.

    It'd be a lot cooler if he fit it in an iPod.

    1. Re:but does it run OS X? by Paolo+DF · · Score: 1

      After all, he can always ship the original motherboard over here, I'm sure that somebody would take very good care of it. ;-)

      --
      Pumbaa! I don't wonder; I know.
    2. Re:but does it run OS X? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It'd be a lot cooler if he fit it in an iPod." Dude... You are an iPod!

  11. Not Impressed by mboverload · · Score: 0, Troll

    Tell me when they get a 3.4ghz P4 and a Radeon x850 in one of those.

    1. Re:Not Impressed by -kertrats- · · Score: 1

      Tell me when you get a 3.4 ghz P4 and a Radeon x850 for $500.

      --
      The Braying and Neighing of Barnyard Animals Follows.
    2. Re:Not Impressed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sure, in about 5 years from Goodwill when its garbage.

    3. Re:Not Impressed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  12. So uh... by X43B · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Is his website powered with this machine?

    1. Re:So uh... by kevcol · · Score: 1

      Not anymore.

  13. Re:"Nothing for you to see here. Please move along by BosstonesOwn · · Score: 0

    Get out side in the sunlight and/or get girl friends?

    --
    This package Does Not Contain a Winner
  14. Size matters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    power per square inch you get with the mini

    That's what I keep trying to tell her. But it's all about size, size, size...

    1. Re:Size matters by Beatbyte · · Score: 1

      I'm shocked you posted this AC... seriously.

  15. faster?!? by ecloud · · Score: 4, Informative

    No way is a 1 GHz Via Nehemiah going to be faster than a 1.25 GHz G4. The mini is already one of the fastest PCs (personal computer, this includes macs by the way) that has been fit into such a small space.

    I have an Epia system; to me it feels pretty anemic for its clock speed in comparison to say a PII or better.

    1. Re:faster?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.cappuccinopc.com/mocha.asp

      "Socket 478 P4 400/533 FSB up to 2.8Ghz" on the Mocha 7043.... That would seriously kick the ass off of a 1.25Ghz G4.

    2. Re:faster?!? by Homology · · Score: 0
      No way is a 1 GHz Via Nehemiah going to be faster than a 1.25 GHz G4. The mini is already one of the fastest PCs (personal computer, this includes macs by the way) that has been fit into such a small space.

      I have an Epia system; to me it feels pretty anemic for its clock speed in comparison to say a PII or better.

      The newer Via C3 CPU's has special instructions for AES encryption (they call it PadLock), and will outperform a P4 3.0GHz. It will, of course, also outpeform a G4. In a gateway this hardware encryption is valuable. For instance, OpenBSD will transparently use Via encryption instructions.

    3. Re:faster?!? by timeOday · · Score: 3, Insightful
      The mini is already one of the fastest PCs (personal computer, this includes macs by the way) that has been fit into such a small space.
      Really? I think there are scores of laptops out there that would spank it.
    4. Re:faster?!? by lspd · · Score: 1

      No way is a 1 GHz Via Nehemiah going to be faster than a 1.25 GHz G4.

      The VIA unichrome video chipset using shared memory is a poor substitute for a Radeon 9200 with dedicated memory.

    5. Re:faster?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what? How many users will actually benifit from this?

    6. Re:faster?!? by John_Booty · · Score: 1

      The newer Via C3 CPU's has special instructions for AES encryption (they call it PadLock), and will outperform a P4 3.0GHz. It will, of course, also outpeform a G4. In a gateway this hardware encryption is valuable. For instance, OpenBSD will transparently use Via encryption instructions.

      Yeah, if you're doing AES encryption (and your software supports it). For everything else... no performance boost.

      --

      OtakuBooty.com: Smart, funny, sexy nerds.
    7. Re:faster?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The newer Via C3 CPU's has special instructions for AES encryption (they call it PadLock), and will outperform a P4 3.0GHz. It will, of course, also outpeform a G4."

      Possibly the most retarded comment ever. A chip with specific hardware instructions can out perform SOFTWARE at one job by using its custom instruction set. Well; fuck-dee-doody-doo!

    8. Re:faster?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But then again, laptops are actually larger now.

      OTOH there are mini-ITX boards for non-VIA cpus floating around now...Pentium M anyone?

    9. Re:faster?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, with a larger surface area for heat dissipation.

    10. Re:faster?!? by GoRK · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you are building up a P4 3.0GHz machine and you need really fast AES (or whatever other crypto you might want) you probably have plenty of room for a dedicated PCI or Mini-PCI crypto accelerator which OpenBSD and others will also happily use!

    11. Re:faster?!? by Minwee · · Score: 1

      Although you may be surprised to hear this on /., there are more important things in life than spanking it with your laptop.

    12. Re:faster?!? by colmore · · Score: 3, Informative

      Have you *seen* a Mac Mini? The thing is small. Sit it on the palm of your hand, you'll have trouble believing it. You really need to be in Sony Picturebook territory to compare.

      --
      In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
    13. Re:faster?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's only one catch dude.
      Yes, the phat ass PC will use lots more power and generate lots more heat in the process.
      Futhermore, the PC will cost more, and if the extra (general) processing power is not needed, then you're wasting your $$$.
      I don't like to waste cash, so... But hey, it's your life, and lots of folks throw money aways like it's Xmas.

    14. Re:faster?!? by Homology · · Score: 0, Troll
      Yeah, if you're doing AES encryption (and your software supports it). For everything else... no performance boost.

      As I wrote, this encryption is useful for gateways, even at home. For instance, protecting your wireless network using IPSec. Install OpenBSD and use isakmp that is part of base install.

    15. Re:faster?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The newer Via C3 CPU's has special instructions for AES encryption (they call it PadLock), and will outperform a P4 3.0GHz. It will, of course, also outpeform a G4.

      Oh yes, and the G4 used (7447) has an Altivec unit which - when used properly - beat the crap out of any x86.

      RC5-72 for example:

      PowerPC 7447 @ 1,25GHz 13,336,584 http://n0cgi.distributed.net/speed/query.php?cputy pe=99&cpumhz=1250&recordid=1&contest=rc572&multi=0

      VIA "Nehemiah" @ 1,0GHz 1,195,287 http://n0cgi.distributed.net/speed/query.php?cputy pe=126&cpumhz=1000&recordid=1&contest=rc572&multi= 0

      Or OGR:

      PowerPC 7447 @ 1,25GHz 30,108,694 http://n0cgi.distributed.net/speed/query.php?cputy pe=99&cpumhz=1250&recordid=1&contest=ogr&multi=0

      VIA "Nehemiah" @ 1,0GHz 3,440,749 http://n0cgi.distributed.net/speed/query.php?cputy pe=126&cpumhz=1000&recordid=1&contest=ogr&multi=0

      Now, which is more useful, an AES encryption instruction, or an generic vector engine that can be used for virtually unlimited variety of tasks?

    16. Re:faster?!? by ModernGeek · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The mini is already one of the fastest PCs (personal computer, this includes macs by the way) that has been fit into such a small space.

      Really? I think there are scores of laptops out there that would spank it.

      Not with the price tag of a Mac Mini though

      --
      Sig: I stole this sig.
    17. Re:faster?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Modded Insightful?

      A laptop comes with an LCD screen. And it can run off a battery.

      Duuuuuuuh.

    18. Re:faster?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well if I'm constructing a wlan gateway, I'll let you fill in the blanks for me.

    19. Re:faster?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The MacMini is a dog. It uses a slow G4. Your statement is ludicrous. Try here:
      mocha
      These machines destroy the mac mini for the same price

    20. Re:faster?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? I think there are scores of laptops out there that would spank it.
      Too bad you don't think with your brain instead! Seriously man, have you seen a fuckin mini? It is TINY. If you can find a laptop ANYWHERE near the same size, and not to mention the 500$ price tag, I'll fuckin buy it off you. Not to mention Apple, IBM, Dell, Gateway, et all.
      I mean seriously man. laptops are fuckin huge compared to the mini. Just like a desktop is fuckin huge compared to a laptop.

    21. Re:faster?!? by Zoop · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think there are scores of laptops out there that would spank it.

      I dunno. I just saw the thing in person today for the first time. It's small, and its internal space would be about the same as a small notebook (not a subnotebook, as they usually rely on external CD-ROMs). And the smaller notebooks have not been speed demons, even in raw MHz.

      Certainly none of the desktop-replacement Wintel laptops I've seen have that little volume--they're gargantuan. In fact, the only thing that would equal it is, well, a Mac laptop.

      There may exist a faster laptop out there that comes with all the stuff the Mac Mini does but faster, but they're hardly ubiquitous.

    22. Re:faster?!? by pretoris · · Score: 1

      Really? I'm not sure I would want to use a laptop that small. A 6.5 inch screen would be a bit small for my tastes.

    23. Re:faster?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > mocha

      Wow! There's a holocaust in my eyes and everyone's invited.

    24. Re:faster?!? by wirelessbuzzers · · Score: 1

      There may exist a faster laptop out there that comes with all the stuff the Mac Mini does but faster, but they're hardly ubiquitous.

      IBM Thinkpad comes to mind. Expensive, but for the same reason that Macs are: they're high quality.

      --
      I hereby place the above post in the public domain.
    25. Re:faster?!? by mcrbids · · Score: 1

      Certainly none of the desktop-replacement Wintel laptops I've seen have that little volume--they're gargantuan. In fact, the only thing that would equal it is, well, a Mac laptop.

      Well, then, perhaps you haven't seen this little gem?

      It's quite small. It's light - definitely NOT "gargantuan".

      And, It's full-strength. I bought one a year ago to replace my Athlon 2000+ - and it's suprprised me at how adept it is at it. I run Fedora Core 3 on it, and with VMWare, I routinely run 3 or 4 OS's at a time - and it handles it all with grace.

      It amazes me to see so much in such a small package. Complete with Gb ethernet, 802.11g, and just about every other connection option possible built in. (No floppy - but the macs you're comparing this to don't have one either, and in any event, I've never missed it)

      And, it seems that my observations are supported by other indendent scrutiny.

      So, what's that you say?

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    26. Re:faster?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The mini is already one of the fastest PCs (personal computer, this includes macs by the way) that has been fit into such a small space.

      Really? I think there are scores of laptops out there that would spank it.

      Some, perhaps -- not "scores". Most laptops are bigger.

      Mac Mini = 2.9 lbs; 6.5" x 6.5" x 2" = 84.5 in^3

      For comparison, Apple's smallest laptop:

      12" PowerBook = 4.6 lbs; 1.18" x 10.9" x 8.6" = 110.6 in^3

      (That's just over 30% bigger.)

      Are there any laptops this small that are equal to its performance, much less "spank" it?

      For a laptop to be as small as the Mac Mini: If it's the same area as a 12" Powerbook G4, it'd have to be 0.90 inches thick. If it's the same thickness as a 12" Powerbook, it'd have to be around 7.5" by 9.3" -- that's 25" smaller than an 8.5x11 sheet of paper.

      That's a *really tiny* laptop. I'm sure such laptops exist, and there are likely laptops faster than the Mac Mini, but is there anything in the intersection of these sets?

    27. Re:faster?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Laptops tend to be at least double the volume.

    28. Re:faster?!? by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Sure, at two to three times the price.

      Size, speed AND cost are what the mini is about. Most companies get two of the three down. The mini is about the only one out there that got all three. And it's definitely the most stylish, and functional if you look at all the included software.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    29. Re:faster?!? by gizmo490 · · Score: 1

      The only problem with the size comparison that every one seems to be running is that my 17 inch flat screen is 13.5 * 10.5 * 7/8 (not including the base) for a volume of about 124 square inches. Even if you could find a somewhat slimmer screen than mine that was only 15 inches across I'm pretty sure the volume of the monitor would still be over 100 square inches putting the computer system's volume at over 180 square inches which is greater than the d600 that was listed.

    30. Re:faster?!? by ModernGeek · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but you can't find a laptop for that much with the same specs, and even if you sold an x86 based laptop without the LCD, it would still cost more. Get out of your little closed box world and open your eyes.

      --
      Sig: I stole this sig.
  16. Re:"Nothing for you to see here. Please move along by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Arrghhhh you HAD to go and call Kevin Rose a hacker didn't you......

  17. So.. by beelsebob · · Score: 4, Informative
    It's lacking a CD drive, it's probably gonna overheat because he trimmed down the heat sync provided and it's a slower CPU... I say that the phrase we're all looking for is:

    macMiniScore++;
    1. Re:So.. by indianropeburn · · Score: 5, Funny

      not to mention he rested his HD on top of the modified heat sink. i'm waiting for the update on this article which demonstrates video footage of accessing a folder, watching the hard drive spin up, then burst into flames.

    2. Re:So.. by Humorously_Inept · · Score: 1

      It's a pretty good effort considering that he's restricted to using off the shelf components. I'm certain that he doesn't have the resources to have a custom motherboard designed and fabricated for the Mini's chassis. Your macMiniScore++ statement needs to be qualified by an:

      if (buildFunds >= appleFunds)

      That said, he certainly didn't improve on the Mini in any way. That's no reason not to goof around, though.

      --

      ~Someday, I hope to be an aspiring author.
    3. Re:So.. by GoRK · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If by "off the shelf" you mean "announced over a year ago and still not yet released but hopefully will be sometime before next year rolls around" then, yes, he did build it from "off the shelf" components.

    4. Re:So.. by beelsebob · · Score: 1
      Or possibly:

      macMiniInc :: BOOL<br />macMiniInc = totalCost >= appleFunds<br /><br />totalCost :: Int<br />totalCost = buildFunds + cost addingCDDrive + cost replacingBoxAfterItFries
    5. Re:So.. by Mike+Rubits · · Score: 1

      I think the point is if a modder in his spare time can do it, a professional company certainly can.

    6. Re:So.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      think the point is if a modder in his spare time can do it, a professional company certainly can.

      Only if by "do it," you mean "cram into the case some parts that will function as a PC for a little while, as long as you live at the north pole and don't need a CD."

    7. Re:So.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah>&#54;, or may\\<be no!!#t.

    8. Re:So.. by macshit · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Your macMiniScore++ statement needs to be qualified by an: if (buildFunds >= appleFunds)

      I'm not so sure... after the Mini was announced, I looked at a bunch of professionally designed small-sized PCs people referenced as Mac Mini alternatives (cappuccino whatever, that sort of thing), and they were all pretty sucky compared to the M.M.

      Naturally they all looked pretty dorky -- you don't expect random Taiwan PC houses to compete with Apple on that front -- but they were also all rather lacking in features as well: all had slow CPUs (much slower than a 1.25GHz PPC), bad graphics, etc.

      I'd say these sort of comparisons, though they generally seemed intended to demonstrate that the M.M. is "just pretty", usually end up doing just the opposite, and confirm how good the M.M. really is (and I'm no Apple apologist -- I've never owned a Mac, or even used one very often). It's not the fastest computer out there in absolute terms, but given its design constraints, it's a bang-up job.

      Maybe it's possible to cram a similar feature-set using PC standards into similar-sized case, but it doesn't look anywhere near as trivial as many people seem to think. I think Apple has genuinely upped the ante -- hopefully competition from the M.M. will pressure other tiny-PC makers into improving their rather anemic existing products.

      Bravo, Apple.

      --
      We live, as we dream -- alone....
    9. Re:So.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be honest, the Mac Mini's form factor is mostly a solution in search of a problem. People that want small machines generally just buy laptops (many of which are compariable in price to the Mac Mini).

      But the main reason that PC Vendors don't build "minis" because they don't feel the need to gimp their low-end machines to the extent that Apple does. ("Hey the specs suck! -- But it's sooo small!") Thus you get a really tiny hacker toy niche market like Mini-ITX which is supported by exactly 0 major vendors.

    10. Re:So.. by crayz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      To be honest, the Mac Mini's form factor is mostly a solution in search of a problem.

      Thank God all other consumer products in our society are designed for the best possible efficiency and functionality, completely absent considerations of form or style

      At least Apple, minus a few Flower Power iMacs, makes classy stuff. Your vaunted PC makers are the ones grafting 10 pound pieces of neon plastic to their boxes and calling it style.

    11. Re:So.. by amanpatelhotmail.com · · Score: 1
      ...i'm waiting for the update on this article which demonstrates video...

      Well this isnt' exactly what you mention, but here.

      Its a video of a AMD Duron overclocked to 3.8Ghz without the fan running. It funny as hell. Check it out.

    12. Re:So.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If by "off the shelf" you mean "announced over a year ago and still not yet released but hopefully will be sometime before next year rolls around" then, yes, he did build it from "off the shelf" components.

      You can, of course, always fly to Japan and buy it in Akihabara.

    13. Re:So.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A guy rises to the challenge of fitting a PC in a mac-mini case and all you can think to do is insult the effort.

      You sir, suck.

    14. Re:So.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Your vaunted PC makers are the ones grafting 10 pound pieces of neon plastic to their boxes and calling it style."

      That's funny... all I've got is black metal.

      See, we've got this thing called "choice" out here in pc land.

    15. Re:So.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      That's funny... all I've got is black metal.

      Hmmm....

      F/X: Spray paint can being shaken

      So just what colour would you like this new G5 Tower? Anything Tremclad sells will be fine....

  18. Slashdotted- Coral P2P by SirDrinksAlot · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Seriously, we ned to start using the Coral P2P cacheing thing for all links on slashdot.

    Would somebody PLEASE think of the servers!

    It's not cached now but if it was!

  19. Summary by Pan+T.+Hose · · Score: 4, Insightful

    From the article: "Additional thoughts: Due to size restrictions, fitting a CD-ROM drive in the mini enclosure would be impossible with this motherboard. Luckily, this motherboard supports pretty much every external bootable device, including bootable CD-ROM and USB thumb drives."

    You should not only fit a CD-ROM, but actually a DVD-RW combo. In other words, you have failed to fit a PC in Mac Mini, so comparing its speed or price is quite pointless. I hate to say it as a PC user, but the result of this experiment is clear: Mac: 1, PC: 0.

    --
    Sincerely,
    Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
    "Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
    1. Re:Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is hardly Mac: 1, PC: 0

      It's a failure of creativity on the part of Kevin.

      Mac: 1, Kevin: 0

    2. Re:Summary by SilentChris · · Score: 1

      "In other words, you have failed to fit a PC in Mac Mini"

      Yes, but barely. The only reason Apple pulled this off is because they constructed the hardware from top to bottom. All it'll take in the PC world is VIA/ASUS etc. to create a board small enough, with clearance for a PC slimline optical drive. I don't know about you, but I'd MUCH rather have a PC running Linux/MythTV for my home theater than a Mac mini (the only reason I can think of getting one).

    3. Re:Summary by commander+salamander · · Score: 1

      So get a mac mini, and install linux/mythtv on it :P

      --
      Is this rock and roll, or a form of state control?
    4. Re:Summary by Zeinfeld · · Score: 1
      You should not only fit a CD-ROM, but actually a DVD-RW combo. In other words, you have failed to fit a PC in Mac Mini, so comparing its speed or price is quite pointless. I hate to say it as a PC user, but the result of this experiment is clear: Mac: 1, PC: 0.

      Only because it is not irritating the Macheads as much as people hoped.

      If you want to talk seriously small PC then take a look at the Sony laptops, they have one that is so small you could mistake it for a mousemat.

      I am sure that within 6 months we will see a lot of machines with this approximate size. I would much rather that someone came out with a seriously good machine that is slightly bigger and fanless.

      I would like a machine that is about 1" high and a suitable form factor to serve as a base for an 18" LCD monitor, it should not be more than about 6" deep. That should be enough to pack in two 3.5" disks, a p4 processor, decent high end video and these days I consider WiFi and bluetooth to be basic requirements.

      The thing that really anoys me about the PC form factor is the monitor cable. They are all way to thick and clunky and they only carry the monitor signal. I want sound, Usb and firewire to all plug into the same port, plus the monitor is probably a better site for the wifi antenae. What we really need is to get rid of the monitor cable altogether and have a fibre optic like they use for dolby digital.

      If I could have all the peripheral plug in points built into the base of the monitor I don't much care what the box looks like. It can go in a cupboard.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    5. Re:Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then do what I plan to do once my mini arrives. Put Mythfrontend on the mini (yes, it builds in os x now), and run the backend on a linux box with a fast processor, a bunch of tuners and SATA drives that lives off in a closet or the basement or something.

    6. Re:Summary by pegasustonans · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I guess I missed the fact that this was supposed to be some sort of contest.

      Given that it's just one guy doing this in his spare time vs. an entire hardware development team over at Apple, I'd say he did pretty well...

      --
      And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. --Will
    7. Re:Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're being generous. If you really wanted to pour salt on this wound, you'd point out that you can get a Mac Mini with a slot-loading DVD *burner*.

    8. Re:Summary by Lefty+McGrep · · Score: 1

      Yes, but the guy is a tool. He attempts to fit piece of shit PC parts inside an engineering marvel. Like the Apple engineers just came up with this over the weekend. There is no innovation or engineering by PC companies. Stop with the Apple envy and use your enormous clunky tower with your parallel and serial ports. Leave the Apple boxes alone. Moron.

    9. Re:Summary by dlZ · · Score: 1

      I am a PC guy more than a Mac guy, that's for sure. I deal mostly with Linux or Windows. I will be buying a Mac Mini. It will be my first Mac ever. I'm absolutely in love with the size of it. And I understand that it's not going to compete with a G5, but for what my needs are it is absolutely perfect. It will be a second machine behind my Athlon 64, but I have a feeling I will be using it more for general web surfing and all those fun things.
      Oh, and what's the big thing with the one button mouse!? I'm so used to a 2 button with a scroll wheel, and it takes about 15 seconds to adjust to only one button. Not like control is that far away (and the Apple mice and keyboards are really elegent looking.)
      Hopefully soon I'll be posting as a happy Mac and PC user.

      --
      rm -rf ./evidence @ punkcomp
    10. Re:Summary by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

      If he did that, the pecker union might make him turn in his card.

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    11. Re:Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With the monitor, you just summed up Apple's Monitors since they introduced ADC (Which has been since axed) but all of Apple's monitors include two ports of each of USB 2 and FireWire 400 http://www.apple.com/displays/design.html at the bottom right has several of the features you are looking for.

  20. Why do *you* bother? by fm6 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    And then there are people who login to Slashdot merely to complain about how boring other Slashdotters are.

    1. Re:Why do *you* bother? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you don't need to login on /., just keep the user cookie of the domain .slashdot.org!

    2. Re:Why do *you* bother? by CrackedButter · · Score: 1

      Then there is this post where I'm having to point out the people who with loads of time on their hands,point out people who complain about other people who are boring as well! :)

    3. Re:Why do *you* bother? by Trespass · · Score: 1

      Well, some seem to log in to complain about people complaining...

    4. Re:Why do *you* bother? by fm6 · · Score: 1

      Not to mention the people who complain about people who complain about people....

    5. Re:Why do *you* bother? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Not to mention the people who complain about people who complain about people....

      Oh those guys are the worst!

    6. Re:Why do *you* bother? by hostyle · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry but you have me confused. Are you complaining or lauding that particular individual? Either that or you're pamts held up with a string ...

      --
      Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris.
    7. Re:Why do *you* bother? by fm6 · · Score: 1

      Am I waving or drowning? So hard to tell...

  21. Hips? A Pelvis? by game+kid · · Score: 1

    It hardly even has rubber feet you insensitive clod!

    ...but seriously, I agree. It does seem a bit prompt to have Mac Mini news just >= 1 week after release.

    --
    You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
  22. The devil's work by Faust7 · · Score: 4, Funny

    So he takes everything inside the case that makes a Mac a Mac, guts it, and puts in everything that Apple hopes people are leaving behind for the Mac.

    I have to admit, it has a kind of black symmetry to it.

    1. Re:The devil's work by hostyle · · Score: 2, Funny
      ( ) firewire
      ( ) shiny
      ( ) white
      ( ) plastic
      ( ) reassuringly expensive

      Is this what you meant? Yeah, they totally failed.

      --
      Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris.
    2. Re:The devil's work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Mini's hardware is rather unimpressive. Of course so is this terrible thing that he has constructed. More interesting would be the production of a nano-itx P4-M motherboard with SATA, a SATA 2.5" 7200RPM HDD, a SATA slot-loading DVD-R, a mini-pci slot for Intel's wireless solution, and some DDR2 slots. Throw in one of the emerging laptop video sockets, and a mobility Radeon 9700 and we have a tiny computer that would require little cooling, use little power, and thoroughly outperform the Mini.

    3. Re:The devil's work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gives new meaning to the word "switcher".

  23. Apparently they never heard of the Cappuccino PC by onelin · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The http://www.cappuccinopc.com/ has been out long before the Mac Mini, and the original was even a smaller form-factor, with modern P4 variants just slightly larger.

    Anyway, this whole article is missing the point. Cheap OS X is good for everybody! I wouldn't buy a PC that small even though there's the option...

  24. Coincidence? by Greger47 · · Score: 4, Interesting
    The Mac mini box is 16.5 cm along the edges. Compare that to the mini-ITX PC boards that are 17x17 cm.

    I guess Apple decided to give all those nerds that insist on "upgrading" their Macs with a PC mobo a challenge. :) /greger

    1. Re:Coincidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if you actually read the f'ing article, you'll see that he used a VIA Nano-ITX board. It's 12x12 cm. Not much of a "challenge", you pointlessly smug Apple crackmonkey, you. :)

      The only difficulty was making the CPU's heatsink fit inside the case - so he trimmed it with a hacksaw and installed a fan to insure adequate cooling.

    2. Re:Coincidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if you actually read the f'ing article, you'll see that he used a VIA Nano-ITX board. It's 12x12 cm. Not much of a "challenge", you pointlessly smug Apple crackmonkey, you. :)

      The OP is trying to make the point that you can't fit in a Mini-ITX into the Mac Mini case, and it therefore makes it a challenge to fit in a better machine than what is available in Nano-ITX size.

      Not that reading comprehension before posting is important, you pointlessly smug Slashdot jerk-reaction autoposter, you. :)

    3. Re:Coincidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Mac mini box is 16.5 cm along the edges. Compare that to the mini-ITX PC boards that are 17x17

      I don't understand why anyone really cares about 2 cm either way, or 10 cm, for that matter. This is NOT a portable computer in any sense of the word. It can sit on the floor or shelf or desktop or wherever.

      The smartest thing I see (as usual) in Apples design with the Mac Mini is the near-silent operation. That's something we can all use. Saving a few dozen square centimeters? Who cares?

    4. Re:Coincidence? by IrvineHosting · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The mac mini only uses 85 watts of electricity. That is pretty cool in itself in this day and age of 450+ power supplies. And you ou can stack 10+ minis in the space of tower system.

    5. Re:Coincidence? by owlstead · · Score: 1

      You always have Nano-ITX. If VIA manages to use serial ata as well as PCI-e into their motherboard they could shrink a bit without too many problems.

    6. Re:Coincidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This isn't informative, because you can't actually stack the Minis without them overheating.

    7. Re:Coincidence? by System.out.println() · · Score: 1

      Did you finish reading the parent's post? He wasn't saying "OMG teh mini is smaller it's better!!!1!1!" He was saying.... well, go read it. He says it about as simply as I could.

    8. Re:Coincidence? by magefile · · Score: 0

      A fan? Isn't that one of the great things about the mini, that it has no fan, and thus is quieter?

    9. Re:Coincidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stacking is not allowed. Apple recommends against it. I suspect the cooling system of the Mac mini is compromised by placing one on top of another. But it's still a cool computer (figuratively speaking) and I want one.

    10. Re:Coincidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It has a fan, like the iBooks and PowerBooks, which only goes on when needed. The included fan is very quiet and very small (like the mini itself).

    11. Re:Coincidence? by Lussarn · · Score: 1

      Stacking is not allowed

      I keep that in mind, I don't wnat to get sued.

    12. Re:Coincidence? by cowbutt · · Score: 1

      I've put a mains power meter inline with my main desktop PC (350W PSU, P4 2.4, Radeon 7500, 512M RAM, 2x80G 7200 RPM discs, 1x DVD-ROM drive, 1x CD-RW drive, TV card) and whilst the meter shows it drawing about 100-110W at boot, at idle it only draws about 70-80W.

    13. Re:Coincidence? by Sketch · · Score: 1
      And if you actually read the f'ing article, you'll see that he used a VIA Nano-ITX board. It's 12x12 cm. Not much of a "challenge", you pointlessly smug Apple crackmonkey, you. :)

      If it's not much of a "challenge', could you please tell me where I can get a Nano-ITX board? I've been waiting for over a year to buy one.

      Luckily for me, it appears that Apple has provided the solution to that problem of finding a motherboard smaller than the Mini-ITX.

      --
      -- OpenVerse Visual Chat: http://openverse.com
    14. Re:Coincidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Mac Mini only uses 85 watts MAX.

  25. Now Perhaps... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now perhaps he should make the mini his server!!!

  26. ScreenSavers by mboverload · · Score: 1

    The first worthwhile thing G4 has done since Leo left.

    1. Re:ScreenSavers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This wasnt for g4. I believe he did this on his own as a side project. On his own website. A project like this may be a bit too techie and not console gaming enough for g4. techtv>g4

  27. You want me because of my .. referral? by teeheehee · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Call me Rip Van Winkle, because I must have taken a nap for too long and missed out on the beginning of perhaps the most annoying, selfish comments to hit blogdom. It's like the freakin' Avon of the Internet on that page with everyone trying to get referrals for their own mini Mac.

    Give the man props for his work on his site, don't be a smarmy pissant and use the popularity of his work to increase your chances at winning a Mac mini. If it's so precious and you have to have it, sell your current machine, get a part time job, and actually make the $500 it takes to buy the thing.

    I am curious as to how many blog sites have a commenting community with so much self-zeal. I feel sorry for the frequent site visitors, who must find it necessary to wash themselves vigorously with soap and scalding hot water.

    --
    "We are not always what we seem, and hardly ever what we dream."
    Schmendrick the Magician
    1. Re:You want me because of my .. referral? by generic-man · · Score: 1

      You must have been asleep when Gratis Internet started offering Free iPods (referral-free link). Then again, bloggers are necessarily a self-obsessed self-zealous group, concerned more with garnering interest than with creating actual content. The obsession with "help me get free shit! Click my ads!" is reminiscent of the AllAdvantage/GoGoCity/etc craze of 1999, when every personal web site had FREE MONEY FAST offers. Trust me! Some guy's personal web page says that he has a guy who took pictures of a REAL CHECK he got from the company! It works! Click here, dammit!

      Just imagine: if this trend continues, the nightly news in 2020 will consist of "So I saw on NBC that Joe said that Mike said that Kim said that some guy in the Ukraine totally went to a web forum and downloaded info about HEY GET YOUR FREE MAC MICRO HERE something having to do with Korea. Comments?"

      --
      For more information, click here.
    2. Re:You want me because of my .. referral? by Boiling_point_ · · Score: 2, Interesting
      ...don't be a smarmy pissant and use the popularity of his work to increase your chances at winning a Mac mini

      Although I agree with you, this Kevin Rose chap seems to be actively encouraging exactly those comments.

      Pyramid schemes provide benefits to

      <acronym title="suckers">participants</acronym>
      in inverse proportion to the expontentially growing userbase. There's a finite number of people who will follow you into these things, and only those who get in very early stand a chance of attracting the requisite numbers to receive the pay-off. Plus they've sold their privacy (and their time, when it comes to dealing with the deluge of spam).

      For these $FREEITEM offers, there are two groups who stand to lose (and therefore underpin the entire scheme):

      1. latecomers who sell their privacy and time for no eventual $FREEITEM (since they can't attract a further ~10 suckers); and
      2. the advertisers themselves who spend more on the
        <acronym title="people who just demonstrated they are too cheap to pay for things anyway">qualified sales leads</acronym>
        than they will ever make up in sales conversions.
      For those who are interested, and ESPECIALLY those who are considering "buying in" - (the Coral Cache of) Rob Cockerham's entertaining masterpiece on the Herbalife system should give anyone with half a brain enough warning to walk quickly on by with their hands in their pockets and eyes pointed straight ahead.
      --
      "If you create user accounts, by default, they will have an account type of Administrator with no password." KB Q293834
    3. Re:You want me because of my .. referral? by generic-man · · Score: 1

      Holy cow. That Kevin Rose blog entry would require thousands of valid entries to satisfy everyone's selfish desire for a free (product).

      I'd bet good money that in 4 months time, these are the same suckers who will be complaining about how much junk mail they get -- both at the throwaway e-mail address they used and at their home mailing address.

      --
      For more information, click here.
    4. Re:You want me because of my .. referral? by guuyuk · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it's really funny the posters spend 1/3 of the posts saying MACS SUX (or is it SUX0RS...I can never get that right), and the other 2/3 of the posts trying to get people to give them a free Mac mini.

      --
      We're sorry, the phone number you have reached is imaginary. Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and try your call again
  28. Re:"Nothing for you to see here. Please move along by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sure he won't do it again... Must have been some bad influence at school. Damn whippersnappers!

  29. What he should really do... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...is try to stuff in an Apple //c motherboard or something. He'd have to modify the port holes on the back, but at least people would still be safe from spyware and viruses!

    1. Re:What he should really do... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know people who do things like these want "nerd street cred", rather than just getting things done... but if you want to run Apple II software, you can simply run KEGS.

      - http://kegs.sourceforge.net/

  30. TechTV by asv108 · · Score: 1

    Is still on the air? Before the Comcast merger, I did tivo the Screensavers. I have never seen a product or company turn to such complete and utter crap, so quickly almost instantly, after a merger.

    1. Re:TechTV by thryllkill · · Score: 1

      I agree. The Screensavers said goodbye to most of the truly knowledgable members of the staff. Now looks like MTV for the dork generation. While this only slightly peeves me, they then killed Unscrewed, which honestly was the second best show they had behind X-play. The only real benefit I've seen is they seem to only show Robot Wars half as much as Tech TV did before the merger.

      --

      Note to self: No more arguing with the faithful.

    2. Re:TechTV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, ever since they dropped Leo and Pat, the show is full of a bunch of "1337 h4x0rs" that avoid doing anything worthwile(not to mention they recently shifted anime unleashed back an hour, and stuck the screensavers in its place, curse who-ever is in charge of the scheduling),and they droppes some of the better shows for some gaming shows.

  31. Look by chia_monkey · · Score: 5, Funny

    Look everyone! I've figured out how to put my Ford engine, stereo, and electrical system into my Porche! Read all the details at www.whywouldiwanttodothis.com

    --

    "He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts...for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang
    1. Re:Look by alan_dershowitz · · Score: 1

      It exists, it's called a "kit car", and they have been popular for years.

    2. Re:Look by drinkypoo · · Score: 1, Offtopic
      There are several good reasons you would want to do it - but with GM equipment, not ford. First of all, short block chevy V8 engines are the most ubiquitous swap motors around. They have been installed in basically every kind of vehicle that has been around and you can get kits for installing them into italian cars, german cars, french cars, other GM vehicles that never came with a V8, boats, airplanes, generators, you name it. A 327 is a nice fit for many porsches, and if you shell out the big bucks to get an aluminum block it's probably LIGHTER than the stock flat four or six, which might make the car less tailhappy.

      But, you probably knew that :P What you might not have known is that in every way but efficiency, the GM V8 is a superior engine. It has more power, more torque, there are more parts for it, the ignition system is better, et cetera. We're not talking about swapping into modern porsches here though :P

      The 1971 240Z is a mean little machine, but it's a lot meaner with a 350ci chevy motor out of a camaro under the hood with TPI fuel injection and HEI ignition.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Look by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but does it run Mac OS X?

    4. Re:Look by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you spot a Mac user on the Internet?

      He's the one always comparing his computer to a luxury automobile that he can't afford but would find self-worth from it if he happened to own one.

    5. Re:Look by binux · · Score: 1

      I sick of reminding people to link the URLs in their posts. You should also check if the links you provide actually exist. Here's how you provide a good link.

    6. Re:Look by jlipkin · · Score: 1

      Well, actually, I had a friend who put a Chevy engine in a Porsche 914. Why? He replaced the original 80-HP four cylinder engine with a Chevy small block v-8. That thing went from 0-60 in a heartbeat.

    7. Re:Look by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A better analogy would be replacing the lawnmower-engine in your Geo Metro with a sewing-machine.

    8. Re:Look by nacturation · · Score: 1

      I've figured out how to put my Ford engine, stereo, and electrical system into my Porche!

      You'd think every household in the southern US has a ford engine, stereo, and electrical system on their porch.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    9. Re:Look by White+Roses · · Score: 1

      But clearly, the stereo system wouldn't fit.

      --
      Do not touch -Willie
  32. Been there, done that, spent less by JimmyJava · · Score: 0, Troll
    1. Re:Been there, done that, spent less by beelsebob · · Score: 1
      Um... No...

      5.82"(W) x 10.0"(D) x 2.79"(H)

    2. Re:Been there, done that, spent less by Judogi · · Score: 2, Informative

      Logic - 5.82"(W) x 10.0"(D) x 2.79"(H)
      Mini - 6.5" (W) x 6.5"(D) x 2.0" (H)

      Been there, done that, spent less? Don't think so...

      The mini is smaller.
      The mini is more than likely less noisy.
      The mini comes standard with certain things you might need in a computer, such as:
      - hard drive
      - cd rom
      - processor
      - memory
      - operating system

      The base price of the Sumicom PC is cheaper, but I doubt you'd actually build that PC for less than the price of the mini (especially if you actually paid for Windows *gasp*; Linux excluded).

      Not to mention the Logic device is just plain fugly.

  33. Failed: Mac Mini to PC Hack by lax-goalie · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I thought this was cool, until the "can't fit a CD-ROM" part.

    All this proves is you can fit a lower-powered nano-ITX mobo in the same case as a Mac Mini, and power it up. But it's not the same, nor even complete...

    It was a cool experiment, but not a sucessful one... Hat's off to the Mac design team for shoving that much stuff into such a small box.

    1. Re:Failed: Mac Mini to PC Hack by sponga · · Score: 1

      actually i say hats off to the pc enthusiast for a Do It Yourself and getting 2/3 of the power/parts of the Mac Mini that was backed by lots of funding research.

    2. Re:Failed: Mac Mini to PC Hack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yesterday I modded my '04 Corvette with the engine from an '84 Chevette. Thing was, I couldn't get the transmission synced up right, and the AC is busted now. But it'll turn over :D

      Can I get some props, please?

    3. Re:Failed: Mac Mini to PC Hack by GlenRaphael · · Score: 1
      All this proves is you can fit a lower-powered nano-ITX mobo in the same case as a Mac Mini, and power it up.
      It's worse than that. If you read carefully, you'll note that he used a prototype board that's not yet shipping to customers. So even if it worked, he'd be comparing a product that's on store shelves now to components that might be available soon. Not really an apples-to-apples comparison, so to speak.
      --
      I play Nerd-Folk!
    4. Re:Failed: Mac Mini to PC Hack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not so much a big design thing, since literally any of the manufacturers that produce nano-itx boards could produce custom motherboards with soldered-on components and fit it into a unit the size of the Mini...but no one would buy it, so they haven't. If someone built a PC that had performance on par of the Mini and was as much of a dead-end, it wouldn't be successful. Neither VIA nor Shuttle have the same image as Apple; their brand recognition isn't cool. People that will but nano-itx boards aren't going to settle for integrated everything, because then it's just a really shitty PC. Not very exciting, is it? Ah, but Apple is shiny, and their platform has an air of elitism and mystery. So a shitty Mac that does everything grandma does and doesn't get spyware--because the market for Mac spyware isn't really profitable--is as hot as it gets. Dude, they made the iPod, and like, we all know how rad that is.

      The PC market will continue to produce smaller cases, boards, and so forth but it will take longer and everything will have to be upgradeable. There will have to be choice with respect to what we can put in them, because if there isn't, it's just a shitty PC.

    5. Re:Failed: Mac Mini to PC Hack by rzebram · · Score: 2, Funny

      90% of the budget for the design of the Mac Mini was spent funding caffeine for the designers to drink while playing hours and hours of Tetris. How else do you think they got it all in there?

    6. Re:Failed: Mac Mini to PC Hack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Hey, I just fit a PC inside my Mac Mini, neat huh?"

      "Nah, you didn't even fit a CD-ROM inside it. It totally sUx0rs. Mac rul3z, y34h!"

      Obviousy, some people wouldn't know a cool mod even if it had the courtesy to hit them in the frontal-lobe with a 'neat' stick.

    7. Re:Failed: Mac Mini to PC Hack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviousy, some people wouldn't know a cool mod even if it had the courtesy to hit them in the frontal-lobe with a 'neat' stick.

      And you seem to be one of them. This is a hack that removes functionality and power instead of adding it. It's the IT equivalent of putting a diesel engine in a lotus elise, and requiring a bolt-on diesel tank (see the part where he explains there was no room for an optical drive). It doesn't matter if it's something novel, it's still not cool, because you're taking something with excellent performance for its beautiful stream-lined form factor, and making it worse in every possible way.

    8. Re:Failed: Mac Mini to PC Hack by Frank+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      power it up? He didn't post any screenshots of thing running windoze or linux.

      I'm a big fan of Kevin, but this only confirms my point is that he is a wannabe hacker. Most of his segments on G4 are things he reproduced by finding on the internet [as is much I suppose].

      The problem with his latest hack, is that it's not even elegant. Leaving out the cdrom negates the entire point of this project.

      I wonder what the back looks like, with the caes... I'm sure it looks like something I did in woodshop in 5th grade with dull chisel.

  34. No CD/DVD by jonbrewer · · Score: 2, Informative

    Due to size restrictions, fitting a CD-ROM drive in the mini enclosure would be impossible with this motherboard.

    I'd say his project failed. The whole idea of such a device is to not have all sorts of other bricks (like external media) plugged in. Esp if it is to sit next to the nice 36" LCD TV (of course using DVI connector) and act as a media box.

    1. Re:No CD/DVD by demonbug · · Score: 1

      Too bad the hard drive in a real mini is too slow for this anyway...

    2. Re:No CD/DVD by MobileC · · Score: 1

      I use this new fangled "network" system, a cd drive wouldn't get used.

      --

      Fran
      :):):)
      1st 1st Poster of the new Millennium!

    3. Re:No CD/DVD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too slow?

      I play ripped DVDs from my Laptop's hard drive all the time.

  35. Re:Apples to Oranges by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks for the "insgihtful" comment there Apple store guy!

  36. Re:Detailed Instructions... [-100: troll] by Carthag · · Score: 1

    3. Insert even less useful "PC crap"

    How was this modded insightful?

  37. This could have been better by ulcer_boy · · Score: 1

    I've been anxiously waiting for the Nano-ITX motherboard (http://www.viaembedded.com/product/epia_N_spec.js p?motherboardId=221).

    No, it doesn't have firewire but it supports up to 6 USB 2.0 ports.

    No, his version doesn't have WiFi or Bluetooth but there is a Mini-PCI slot to add those things yourself (for far less than Apple would charge).

    Also, there are some configurations of the board that are fanless. It's a shame that Kevin hadto use a board with such a huge fan/heatsink because that consumed most of the space inside the case and adds noise. If he used a fanless version he could have had plenty of room for a Slimline slot-loading optical drive.

    I'm not trying to discount the Mac Mini (I'd love to have one) but I also think people should understand the potential of the Nano-ITX motherboard. It's soon going to be showing up in a lot of cars, entertainment centers, etc...

    1. Re:This could have been better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where can I get a single Mini-PCI card with bluetooth and Wifi for less than $99?

    2. Re:This could have been better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What we need is nano-itx Centrino. High performance with low power. It's almost like Intel doesn't fully appreciate the sort of gold mine that they are sitting on with their P3 line; a constant headache that has brought us the 100+W P4 flamethrower.

  38. Re:Detailed Instructions... [-100: troll] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    3. Profit?

  39. Re:Apples to Oranges by theguywhosaid · · Score: 1

    What they also fail to compare is the amount of bugs, security vulnerabilities, viruses, and spyware per square inch you get with a windows based PC.

    Because everything running on x86 is Windows®.

  40. Re:Apparently they never heard of the Cappuccino P by beelsebob · · Score: 2, Informative
    Unfortunately the cappuchino PC is woefully underpowered at a mere 500Mhz and with onboard 4MB graphics rather than a Radeon 9200 with 32MB.

    But, yes, you're right - the point of the mini is to get a nice reasonably powerful box that takes up no space, costs very little and runs OS X.

  41. Just Works + Tech support by xtermin8 · · Score: 1

    Its big selling point is not its size, or even price, but that it works out of the box, with decent (relative to others at least) tech support. I'd like to see it compared to XBox2 instead of a PC, in fact I hope it catches on as a kind of TVpod- a dedicated media player for HDTV

    1. Re:Just Works + Tech support by FLEB · · Score: 1

      It doesn't have a TV-out, though, does it? I was really suprised to see that in the specs, considering the lack of a monitor and the perfect opportunity for being a set-top box.

      --
      Information wants to be free.
      Entertainment wants to be paid.
      You just want to be cheap.
  42. enough with the free minis! by v1 · · Score: 1

    Good lord, every other entry in the discussions below that linked story were "click me for free mac mini". Idiots and their pyramid schemes...

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
  43. surely you mean cubic inch by lethe1001 · · Score: 1
    What they fail to compare is the amount of computing power per square inch you get with the mini

    Um, the computer takes up a 3 dimensional volume, so the proper measure is power per cubic inch. You could make the power per square inch anything you want just by changing the height and footprint, it's arbitrary. So that's a meaningless measure.

    You need power per cubic inch.

    1. Re:surely you mean cubic inch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they are referring to the mobo's foot print, the mac mini's mobo, occupies the least space for the most performance. The only thing close is the via m-itx and n-itx, and some embedded intel ones i would guess. But at 16.5*16.5 CM the mini makes the most of its realty.

      but ya, a more important measure for the system as a whole is the volume as you say.

  44. Cool, but I see there are caveats,,, by @madeus · · Score: 1

    I think it's cool, but there are significant caveats acknowledged in the linked story not mentioned in the article above.

    The Nano-ITX motherboard used is not commercially avalible - and it will not be avalible for general sale for some months yet. The author points outs that even using this yet-to-be released motherboard, there was no room for a CD/DVD drive. It also does not feature a built in modem or a 'Firewire' port (but I don't think that's a big deal). It doesn't appear to feature WiFi or Bluetooth either, but there certainly seems room to fit them easily.

    It features a 1 Ghz Via C3 CPU (and either a Via or S3 graphics card), so performance could be a problem if you wish to use this as a 'home entertainment' device (or well, pretty much anything other than a low traffic headless sever or simple web browsing/email device IMO, YMMV).

    On the plus side it appears to have S-Video, Composite and VGA output (no DVI, but a lot more useful to most people I'd think), additional input and output audio interfaces and two SODIMM slots (which I think is better than than the single DIMM on the Mac Mini, but again YMMV).

  45. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess you mean "tried it" as in you emulated it with PearPC then?

  46. It's all in the stuffing by Rob+Wilco · · Score: 5, Funny

    Wow. Now all he has to do is cram a SPARC inside the PC inside the Mac Mini and he'll have Electronic Turducken.

    --
    Free iPod Photo: http://FreeiPodPhotos.com/index.php?referral=2546
    Free Mac Mini: http://www.FreeMiniMacs.com/?r=13941255

    --
    - Rob Wilco
    1. Re:It's all in the stuffing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a good post. I barely noticed the advertising.

      --
      Pepsi is the choice of a new generation. Buy Pepsi and Britney Spears will lust after you. Have you tried Pepsi Vanilla? How about Pepsi Twist? If you like caffeine, try Mountain Dew. Did you know that Pepsi is giving away free iTunes songs? Click here to learn more about Pepsi.

    2. Re:It's all in the stuffing by Rob+Wilco · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      ROTFL! Actually, hmm, yep - your sig is better.

      --
      - Rob Wilco
  47. Celeron != G4 by kaan · · Score: 1, Interesting

    The specs you link to show that it has a max processor speed of 500Mhz. The Mac mini goes up to 1.4Ghz. They say that a celeron can go higher, but not 900Mhz higher.

    And for sake of argument, even if the the celeron could get itself up 1.4ghz, it would not offer the same actual performance of a G4. This is the age-old argument about the architectures being so different that the clock speeds don't matter, but it cannot be stressed enough. The CISC-based Intel/AMD processors are not as efficient at getting work done as the RISC-based PowerPC processors.

    I like the analogy of a person physically moving 1,000 boxes from one side of the house to the other. The CISC person might be able to get from one side to other (and back) in 2 seconds, but each time he does he can only carry a single box with him, so it would take 2,000 seconds to move all boxes. Whereas the RISC person might take 5 seconds to make the same round-trip distance, but each time he can carry 20 boxes, so it takes a total of 250 seconds (5 seconds * 1000 boxes / 20 boxes-per-trip). The numbers I used are not meant to exactly correlate to a Celeron vs. G4, but they convey the right idea - efficiency and speed are not equivalent.

    1. Re:Celeron != G4 by nosferatu-man · · Score: 1

      While your larger point is correct -- that clockrate isn't much use in comparing across processor families -- your computer architecture lesson is laughably wrong.

      --
      To spur "enterprise Linux," Big Bang, the distributed two-phase commit.
    2. Re:Celeron != G4 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Besides, Intel and AMD has borrowed a lot from the RISC camp, and Motorola/IBM has borrowed a lot from the CISC camp, so there's actually not much difference in how the processors work any more.

    3. Re:Celeron != G4 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
    4. Re:Celeron != G4 by log0n · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yet you do nothing to actual disprove the point made in the first place... You're rebuttal skills are laughably poor ;-)

    5. Re:Celeron != G4 by log0n · · Score: 1

      And so're my spelling skills!

    6. Re:Celeron != G4 by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      Probably a better way to put it (in terms of moving boxes) would be:

      The RISC architecture would need to look at the box, grasp the box, pick up the box, then move to where the box goes, look at the spot where the box goes, then set the box down, then release the box, finally returning to the first pile of boxes. It would look somewhat awkward as it went about its task, especially since it always seemed like no matter what step it was doing, it always took the same amount of time: 15 seconds (a total of 120 seconds).

      The CISC architecture would scoff, and say "thats silly! I can do all that in a single, graceful motion." And it would do so, flowing back and forth as it moved the boxes, as if each trip were a single but complex operation, yet each trip would take a total of 130 seconds.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    7. Re:Celeron != G4 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      comparing x86 as "CISC-based" and powerPC as "RISC" based is also completely stupid. modern x86 processors are "RISC-like" internally and simply break up the x86 instructions into RISC instructions for greater efficiency

    8. Re:Celeron != G4 by drsmithy · · Score: 2, Informative
      The CISC-based Intel/AMD processors are not as efficient at getting work done as the RISC-based PowerPC processors.

      x86 CPUs haven't been CISC since the mid 90s.

      I like the analogy of a person physically moving 1,000 boxes from one side of the house to the other. The CISC person might be able to get from one side to other (and back) in 2 seconds, but each time he does he can only carry a single box with him, so it would take 2,000 seconds to move all boxes. Whereas the RISC person might take 5 seconds to make the same round-trip distance, but each time he can carry 20 boxes, so it takes a total of 250 seconds (5 seconds * 1000 boxes / 20 boxes-per-trip).

      Your analogy is arse-about-face. The principle of RISC is to have small, basic operations and execute lots of them quickly. The principle of CISC is to have large, complex operations and get more work done from each one. In other words, CISC is the architecture that can carry 20 boxes at once and RISC is the architecture that can move 1 box twenty times in the same time period.

      The real irony here is that most of the flagship processors for an architecture ostensibly designed for pumping up clockspeeds (RISC) don't actually have particularly high clock speeds.

    9. Re:Celeron != G4 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      G4s are slower than just about every desktop/server chip today.

      I'm sorry but you're wrong. I have 2 computers:

      1: Mac G4 1.33 GHz, 512 MB PC2700 RAM
      2: AMD Athlon 3000+ (2.1 GHz), 1 GB PC3200 RAM

      And both of them do raw MPEG-2 to Divx/XviD encoding at nearly the same rate. They also rip audio CDs to MP3s at nearly the same rate.

      The G4 is a decent chip. The G5 is better however, because of its addressing and memory management (the two areas PC chips were still "winning" in). The only negative is the total GHz for PPC CPUs available is lower.

    10. Re:Celeron != G4 by origamy · · Score: 1

      Wanna benchmark it? Please don't do it counting how many times it can add, multiply, etc. No Gigaflops, etc.

      Get an off the shelf product, like After FX, Maya, Lightwave or Photoshop and run a series of performance tests in both computers. Now tell me when a Mac will win from a PC - I'm talking Intel or AMD, and talking AMD64 too running 32 bit apps. I'm yet to see a benchmark that proves me that the price per (volume/speed) - whatever unit of comparison you wanna use - justifies me buying a Mac.

      Even though I'm thinking about getting a Mini because "it's cool". Not because it's fast or anything, because I am sure it won't beat my P4 nor my laptop (similar cubic area w/o screen/keyboard).

      ---
      Sigless on Sundays

    11. Re:Celeron != G4 by Dixie_Flatline · · Score: 1

      It's true the RISC-based chips have lower clockrates, but I think what's ended up happening is that because the instructions are simpler, they line more of them up side by side.

      So, to use the previous example, the CISC guy is a superman. He's speedy. He can carry 8 boxes across the room every 1/2 second. If he screws up, though, it takes longer for him to recover. He's plenty fast.

      On the other hand, the RISC chip is like 8 guys that can all carry boxes across the room, but it takes them a whole second to get there. They can carry a couple boxes each, though, so they get the job done just as fast without anybody breaking a sweat. If one of them screws up, it takes a little less time to recover from it.

      This analogy is so grossly simplified that I don't think that between trying to use it and my admitedly limited knowledge of processor architectures I can make it work. Still, I don't think I'm too far off. :)

    12. Re:Celeron != G4 by fireboy1919 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If there were a box moving instruction, CISC would win.

      CISC always wins when executing the special complex instructions thanks to pipelining - which, by the way, is much more complicated than RISC pipelining. CISC boxes usually optimize the code to help this along. This is why CISC is winning: it has a lot of the features of a JIT compiler built-in.

      Each trip would take 130 seconds, but it'd be able to do 1.5 of them at a time.

      The only place that RISC wins is when the instructions must all be sequential, can't be improved upon more during runtime than during compile time, and require roughly the same amount of hardware to do for the entire operation.

      Where would that be? Primarily in graphics. However, for your average multiuser system, CISC is a better idea.

      --
      Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
    13. Re:Celeron != G4 by sl3xd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm yet to see a benchmark that proves me that the price per (volume/speed) - whatever unit of comparison you wanna use - justifies me buying a Mac.

      This argument, while certainly valid from a point of view, is similar to saying that the price per horsepower is the only important criteria for buying a car. Fred Flintstone has you beat there, pal.

      In computing terms, your brain has a better price per volume/speed than any computer, so why buy a computer?

      I've yet to see a benchmark that proves that price per (volume/battery) justifies buying an iPod. iPods are more expensive than most portable music players. iPods also dominate the market because there are virtues other than cost per song stored on the device, and iPod customers sing their praises. iPods certainly weren't the first, they aren't the cheapest, nor are they the smallest, batteries aren't their strongest suit either... They are popular because they are easy to use, have stellar sound quality, and cost only a little more than the competition.

      People who buy a Mac aren't buying it because it's the fastest ship in the fleet; they buy it because it's more luxurious than a Wintel box, or because it's able to do things that a PC currently doesn't do well, if at all. They choose macs because they are still more intuitive and easy than a Wintel box.

      The majority of users I know of who complain about Macs are really only complaining about two things: Games, and 'upgradeability'. If it doesn't play their newest AMOR (Amusing Misuse of Resources -- apologies to the KDE team), the computer therefore 'sucks'. Then they complain about 'upgradeability.' That's an interesting argument, seeing that I can't 'upgrade' my PC without replacing the at least the Motherboard, CPU, and RAM. Yet PC's are more upgradeable? If I want a longer 'upgrade path' than sticking with AGP gives me, I'd have to also get an entirely new case and power supply for PCI-Express. Somehow this strikes me as little different than having to buy a whole new computer.

      I don't own a Mac; but I've actually used them for real work(gasp). Once you get past the fact it isn't a Wintendo Entertainment System, Macs really are excellent machines, and I'll be glad to shell out the cash for a Mac the next time I 'Upgrade' my computer.

      --
      -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
    14. Re:Celeron != G4 by drsmithy · · Score: 1
      It's true the RISC-based chips have lower clockrates, but I think what's ended up happening is that because the instructions are simpler, they line more of them up side by side.

      Actually they're not. As I said, modern x86 CPU have "RISC" cores - that's why the clock speed can be cranked up.

      The flag bearer for the early days of high clock speed RISC was, of course, the DEC Alpha.

      This analogy is so grossly simplified that I don't think that between trying to use it and my admitedly limited knowledge of processor architectures I can make it work. Still, I don't think I'm too far off. :)

      You still don't get it, I think. CISC generally *doesn't* scale to high clockspeeds, RISC does. Certainly, a CISC architecture is the "superman" that can carry heaps of stuff, but he can't do it very fast. RISC is a team of gymnasts, who aren't very strong but get a lot of light tasks done quickly.

      Your analogy is based on the mistaken assumption that modern, high clock speed x86 CPUs are CISC chips - they aren't.

    15. Re:Celeron != G4 by Dixie_Flatline · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes, you're right. I think part of the problem is my mis-naming of the terms. Really, what I referred to as CISC should just be called 'Pentium 4', however it does things. From what I understand, it's instruction path is narrow and deep. Very fast, but bad for branch misprediction.

      PPC970 (G5) is wide and shallow. Concurrent execution of many instructions, slower, better for branch misprediction.

      CISC and RISC don't really have any standout examples any more (from what I know). Both Intel and IBM have hybrid chips that fall strongly into neither category.

    16. Re:Celeron != G4 by mkldev · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Umm... no. RISC wins most of the time if all other things are equal. If that weren't so, you'd be using a CISC chip right now. What's that? You think your AMD or Intel chip is CISC? Not if it's recent. It's a RISC core. Those CISC instructions are broken into micro-ops that are then processed in a RISC fashion.

      Why is that, you ask? Because RISC instructions are inherently more pipelineable. The only place -CISC- wins is if all the instructions must be sequential. RISC can do far more instruction reordering such as prefetching a chunk of data significantly farther ahead of its use because that fetch instruction is a separate, schedulable entity. Thus, to give CISC equivalent performance, it was necessary to split CISC instructions into roughly RISC-equivalent components. This is done in pretty much every modern CISC chip out there.

      As for CISC compilers optimizing the code better, that's probably true. Now imagine what would happen if the code you were running on a RISC box were as well optimized.... Suddenly the RISC machine isn't just keeping up with the CISC. It is leaving it in the dust. Try IBM's POWER/PowerPC compilers some time.... :-)

      And all that extra hardware for cracking pretty much every CISC instruction into multiple instructions? Extra heat, extra die space that could be used for cache, extra CPU cycles to do the cracking, extra power consumption....

      Basically the only way CISC wins is if you stack the deck.

      --
      120 character sigs suck. Make it 250.
    17. Re:Celeron != G4 by nosferatu-man · · Score: 1

      I said that the your overall point is correct, which it is. But talking about RISC and CISC in this context is less than meaningless. The "RISC" POWER architecture is slow and wide compared to, say, a MIPS or Alpha design, and the "CISC" x86 (in either Intel or AMD form) is just a compatibility wrapper around a *highly* regular "RISC" core.

      The difference in speed between POWER derivatives and x86 is related far more to process engineering, memory bandwidth, and quality of compilers than to some out-dated and specious taxonomy coined back before OoOE was widespread and people were still impressed with SPARC.

      --
      To spur "enterprise Linux," Big Bang, the distributed two-phase commit.
    18. Re:Celeron != G4 by ArbitraryConstant · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "And both of them do raw MPEG-2 to Divx/XviD encoding at nearly the same rate."

      There's any number of ways performance can be affected. Are you using a codec that's optimized for Altivec but not SSE? Those chips would not demonstrate such a wide performance gap without something slowing the Athlon down.

      "The G5 is better however, because of its addressing and memory management (the two areas PC chips were still "winning" in). The only negative is the total GHz for PPC CPUs available is lower."

      What exactly is "addressing and memory management"?

      G5s have a bus comparable to Pentium 4s, but Athlon64s and Opterons have on-die memory controllers. That gives them significantly better memory performance, particularly better latency. Better than G5s and better than P4s.

      --
      I rarely criticize things I don't care about.
    19. Re:Celeron != G4 by linuxpyro · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't game. I use my dual AMD MP 2800 Linux PC for audio work (PlanetCCRMA), Maya, Shake, image editing via the GIMP, Web surfing, and Emailing. I built this computer myself. I've had problems. I could have gone out and gotten a Mac and probably had an easy ride. But I decided to stick with my PC.


      Why? You know the old saying Knowledge is Power. It's true. I know my computer. I know what's in it, how the pieces go together, what it can and can't do. If I were to go with a Mac to me at least I would be handing my computing experience to some company. (Not that I don't to a degree already by buying the parts, but I can still choose what to use and what not to use.) There is something to be said for being independent. I know that if there is a problem I can work it out myself rather than take it in for a repair or restart it and make the problem hide temporarilly. (Note I am refering to, say, Dell PCs running Windoze as well.) What I have works, and I am happy with it. Maybe a faster box would be nice, but I have poored my own soul (well, part of it) into this box, and to me nothing else can replace it.


      I walked in to CompUSA a few weeks ago looking for a new keyboard. I had to walk past the Apple section to do this. While I happened to look at one of the 30 inch displays, a salesperson came over and started giving his memorized speach about the Macs and how they were so advanced that you could drag and drop files with them. I politely listened, but wasn't really impressed. I'm not saying they're bad boxes, but they're just not for me.

      --
      Saying "I'll probably get modded down for this" in a post is the best way to get it modded up.
    20. Re:Celeron != G4 by fireboy1919 · · Score: 1

      It's a RISC core. But the entire CPU is not the core. The CISC instructions are broken down by the CPU. Reread my post. I mentioned this.

      All things being equal, sending CISC instructions to the CPU which are then converted into RISC is faster than RISC because the CPU can figure out good ways to rearrange the ops. What you discribed is generally considered CISC because the instruction set actually sent to the CPU is a complex set of instructions, and there are multiple clock ops.

      Compile-time optimizations are only really good for pure numerical stuff (of which the most common is graphics, as I said) because pipelining optimizations can be done at compile-time. For everything else, most advantage goes to just-in-time optimization, which modern day CISC does.

      You should take a compiler class. They usually teach these things there.

      --
      Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
    21. Re:Celeron != G4 by Hoser+McMoose · · Score: 1

      The whole RISC vs. CISC debate is VERY dated with todays processors. Really there are NO current high-end processors that could be described as strictly RISC or strictly CISC chips.

      The core PowerPC instruction set is over 100 instructions, and with all the extra add-ins on most current designs it can hardly be called a "Reduced" instruction set! On the flip side, x86 chips may have rather complex instructions, but all current designs decode those instructions into simple micro-ops.

      When you get right down to it, x86 chips and PowerPC chips actually end up looking VERY similar. The insides of Intel's Pentium III has a lot more in common with the G4 than it does with the Pentium 4. Similarly if you look at the G5, the basic design is not all that different from the AMD Athlon.

      As for performance, clock for clock the G4 and the PIII are all well within the same order of magnitude. Some applications will run faster on one chip, some will run faster on the other, but overall they are very close. The Celeron-M processor could easily be used in a case the size of the Mac Mini and easily provide at least as much performance as the top-end G4.

    22. Re:Celeron != G4 by BitchKapoor · · Score: 1
      "The majority of users I know of who complain about Macs are really only complaining about two things: Games, and 'upgradeability'."

      But PCs are more upgradeable when it comes to certain parts. For example, say I want to add another hard drive. With my $700 Dell, I can just buy a 120GB internal drive for $60 or whatever and put it in. With a Mac, either I have a highly-integrated machine like the Mini or an iMac, in which case I have to buy a more expensive external drive, or I had to pay twice as much in the first place for the original computer. Similarly for upgrading the CD-RW to a DVD-RW or adding a PCI card. I agree these aren't huge things, they're little things you can do to keep your computer up-to-date, and it's more cost-effective when you have a PC. Seeing as how I'd run the same software on either a Mac or a PC (fvwm2 + xterm), the PC has the edge.

      Oh, and Mac laptops don't have a trackpoint and their touchpad only has one button and they don't have separate page up/page down/home/end keys. So that's a non-starter. Of course, most PC laptops suck, too.

    23. Re:Celeron != G4 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      LAME performance for the 3000+

      I think you should:

      1. Pick a CD at random
      2. Rip it into one large WAV file
      3. Encode it using LAME on both platforms.
      4. Repeat with iTunes on both platforms.
      5. Provide the results.

      In both cases we'll compare identical encoders, and not LAME x86 vs. iTunes G4. This is to prevent problems stemming from LAME being the highest-quality MP3 encoder, and iTunes being a POS.

      Btw, clock-per-clock the Athlon64 is better than the G5. And the Pentium 4 is much better at divx encoding than the AthlonXP.

    24. Re:Celeron != G4 by Tarwn · · Score: 1

      Personally I could care less about the whole Mac vs IBM compat. box (or this magic 'Wintel' you speak of). However, I found it amusing that you define "upgrade" as a faster CPU, more memory, and a board that supports it. Generally when lookng for examples the first thing we think of is that which we would like ourselves.
      I agree that (in most cases) it is more costly to upgrade a CPU when you purchase your motherboard without looking ahead. The motherboard I bought a coule years back with a P4 1.6 (400fsb series) would have only allowed me to upgrade to a P4 3-ish (800 fsb northwood). The last motherboard I bought (about 1.5 yrs ago) without upgrading my CPU would also allow me to upgrade to any Intel P4 on the market.
      Perhaps it is merely because you are a Mac owner that you don't realize the broad range of upgradeable hardware in the average box. Video cards, audio cards, more memory, larger storage space, optical storage, extra NICs, home automation components, additional USB/1394 ports, integrated wireless, video capture, tape drives, a wide variety of input devices, Compact Flash/Smart/etc card reader bays, ir towers/bays, bluetooth, a wide variety of gaming devices, harddrive controllers, system monitoring hardware, ...

      Perhaps you would like a faster CPU upgrade, but don't classify capability to upgrade in general with your specific needs. I'll stick with my windows and Linux systems on their current architecture, I prefer the cheaper replacement parts if something breaks and the greater number of upgrade paths to choose from (as well as manufacturers, etc).

      -T

      --
      Whee signature.
    25. Re:Celeron != G4 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      People who buy a Mac aren't buying it because it's the fastest ship in the fleet; they buy it because it's more luxurious than a Wintel box, or because it's able to do things that a PC currently doesn't do well, if at all. They choose macs because they are still more intuitive and easy than a Wintel box.

      I just bought a Mac mini, which was delivered 2 days ago. The reason I bought it wasn't because it was more luxurious, or because it's more intuitive, although I do enjoy those two aspects as additional perks. The reason I bought the Mac mini was because, despite it not being the fastest machine on the planet, it didn't take up much desk realestate and because it does everything I need it to do. I've been using my TiBook G4 (640Mhz or so) for nearly 4 years now, and it has become my main machine (with an external monitor and keyboard). It has been that way ever since my G3 wasn't cutting it anymore. I really couldn't justify an upgrade to a real desktop machine because #1 they cost too much #2 my TiBook did everything I wanted it to (including video editing!) perfectly well, which meant I had no real incentive to upgrade at all. However, there are issues with using a laptop as your main machine, which are specific to laptops and have little to do with the specs.

      So along comes the Mac mini. Is it fast enough? Yep. Does it have enough memory? Yep, after the 512Mb upgrade. Does it have enough ports? Well... hmmm, I could use more, but it's the same as my TiBook, to which I have a USB and FireWire hub attached, so it'll do. Do I need to buy anything else (hidden costs!) to get it to work? Nope! I can swap it out with my TiBook! Is it cheap? Hell yeah! Can I easily transfer the data on my TiBook to the new machine? Holy shit, this was the first time I tried it, but all I can say is Holy Shit that wasy easy! Via FireWire in target mode, the Mac mini took care of it all! Truly amazing! (It took less than 1 hour since the moment it arrived to the moment it was in fully functional operation mode with all my data.)

      So all in all, the Mac mini met all my requirements, and then fulfilled some I didn't even know I had! (Much in the same way that the original iPod was everything I wanted in an mp3 player, and then some!) That may very well have been the most boom for the buck I've ever gotten out of a computer purchase.

      In a sense, however, the Mac mini worries me. Will it eat away at sales of higher end machines? I have a hunch it will. A lot of people I know that have tower style Macs purchased them because they want the freedom to a monitor better than the iMac/eMac, and that was it. They didn't need a 1.8Ghz single-CPU G5, let alone a dual-2Ghz. For most people, even people doing audio/video funkyness as a hobby, the Mac mini is perfectly viable. Yeah, you'll need an external HDD for that, but that's really not much of an issue. (For a lot of people, it won't be an issue because 80Gb is more than enough for them.)

      The only people that would want a G5 tower are those that have very specific high-computation needs (high-end video/audio editing, scientific calculations) or they have some odd requirement for either FireWire800, FiberChannel, Gigabit Ethernet (tell me, who REQUIRES Gb Eth at home?) or some special PCI card. (Anything that's NOT special comes in a USB/FireWire package these days.)

      So, it was both the cheapest and most effective upgrade I ever did. And before anyone says that an Espresso or Cappucino, or even a Dell tower is comparable in price, let me spell it out: it isn't. It doesn't come with iMovie, iPhoto, or iDVD, all pieces of software that I use, which would cost money if I were to get an equivalent on a Windows box. And even then they wouldn't work as well. I also don't need to suffer with installing FreeBSD/Linux on the box, because the pre-installed OS X already has the *NIX functionality I require, and the prettiness of a nice GUI. These are additional perks, yes, but time is money. Especially since I use

    26. Re:Celeron != G4 by lucas+teh+geek · · Score: 1

      You know the old saying Knowledge is Power. It's true.

      well then, I'm sure you'd agree that knowing the ins and outs of OSX in addition to what you already know could only be seen as having more power :P

      --
      TIAEAE!
    27. Re:Celeron != G4 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a crock of poooo!! There is a MASSIVE difference in the way these cpus work... jeesus what egg did you hatch out of... You wanna see the difference? Check MIPS on an INtel cpu and then test drive applications (opengl for example) Now do the same on a PPC.. The PPC has about half the MIPS but performance in benchmark is superior!! An Ibook has about 700 mips! An AMD athlon 2000 mghz has about 2700-3000 mips.. However benchmark them for opengl? right.... suckers...

    28. Re:Celeron != G4 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>>>I'm yet to see a benchmark that proves me that the price per (volume/speed) - whatever unit of comparison you wanna use - justifies me buying a Mac.

      Price/performance is important, but if your time is valueless enough to come onto /. and bitch about it, chances are your opinion should not count.

    29. Re:Celeron != G4 by cbr2702 · · Score: 1
      The real irony here is that most of the flagship processors for an architecture ostensibly designed for pumping up clockspeeds (RISC) don't actually have particularly high clock speeds.

      They don't? 2.5Ghz isn't a high clock rate? 2.5Ghz is an instruction every 2.5 billionths of a second[1]. In 2.5x10^-9 s, light (at 3x10^8 s/m) moves 3/4 of a meter. And electrons are substantially slower than light.

      [1] There is a (1024/1000)^3 ratio but I have ignored it.

      --


      This post written under Gentoo-linux with an SCO IP license.
    30. Re:Celeron != G4 by SIGPUNKT · · Score: 1

      sending CISC instructions to the CPU which are then converted into RISC is faster than RISC because the CPU can figure out good ways to rearrange the ops Which is what the compiler should be doing. And what a good RISC compiler does. The benefit is obviously that a better compiler will give better performance. It's easy to change compilers, a bit trickier to rewrire your CISC CPU when somebody finds a new optimization. Compile-time optimizations for a RISC CPU involve grouping and reordering instructions to ensure that all pipelines to all execution units stay full. This is appropriate to ALL programs, not just graphics. A lot of CISC compilers still seem to think that moving loop invariants is "edgy"...

      --
      Where am I to go, now that I've gone too far?
    31. Re:Celeron != G4 by fireboy1919 · · Score: 1

      You don't know what "Just in Time" means, do you?
      Here's an overview of it.

      You can only reorder so much. If the order of execution depends upon data - for example, programs that accept data from the users, from a database, from chaotic systems, or from other programs, then you can't predict it at compile time. Of course, you may not believe this, but that doesn't make it any less true. Maybe one day you'll learn this.

      As far as "a lot of CISC compilers," I can only assume that you're referring to gcc and Microsoft, because the other two players in optimization, IBM and Intel, have already moved way beyond that.

      --
      Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
    32. Re:Celeron != G4 by Tassach · · Score: 1
      Get an off the shelf product, like After FX, Maya, Lightwave or Photoshop and run a series of performance tests in both computers.
      Nice that you picked some typical programs that everyone uses.

      Graphics processing is a compute-bound problem. No one (sane) is going to argue that commodity x86 doesn't give you the most bang for the buck for raw number crunching power, which is why clusters of x86 boxes have basically replaced the traditional Cray-style supercomputer for everything except a small class of esoteric problems.

      What you seem to be forgetting is that for most applications, CPU speed isn't the performance bottleneck -- I/O is, in one of it's many forms. Memory I/O is a major bottleneck in modern systems, which is why having a huge on-die cache is so important. It doesn't matter how fast your CPU is when it's sitting idle waiting to get data back from system memory (or even worse, the disk drive). Even low-end modern CPUs are so overpowered compared to the rest of the system that CPU speed doesn't really make much difference when it comes percieved performance in desktop applications.

      When a user says "my computer is slow", what they usually mean is that "it takes a long time for a program to come up after I click the icon". Putting a faster CPU in their box isn't going to improve their observed performance, because the CPU isn't what's causing the problem they're seeing -- thier disk drive is. I've found that 95% of the time a faster disk drive is a better investment than a faster CPU for perking up a sluggish system.

      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    33. Re:Celeron != G4 by linuxpyro · · Score: 1

      What, the Darwin part of it? If I want to learn Open Darwin I'll go download it and run it myself. I don't need Mac OS X to use it. The new stuff added in OS X is mostly proprietary anyway. It's what Apple knows about, and what I'd just be a simple user of. I'd still be dependent on some big corporation. With Linux I have the community to turn to for help, as well as various companies. I'm not totatlly boxed in. I'm sure there are a lot of ins and outs to OS X, but still I couldn't get to know it like I can my GNU/Linux box.

      --
      Saying "I'll probably get modded down for this" in a post is the best way to get it modded up.
    34. Re:Celeron != G4 by SIGPUNKT · · Score: 1

      So you're saying that a CISC CPU will actually recompile my code like a hotspot-style JVM? It'll keep track of my execution profile across context switches and reoptimize execution paths based on data acces patterns? Gosh, and all those RISC guys have going for them is branch prediction with speculative execution.

      Care to give me an example of a modern CISC CPU with this marvelous ability? Is this one of the Sun MAJC chips? Or is is possible you don't know a JVM from a CPU? Or VLIW from CISC? Your ass from a hole in the ground?

      I mean, surely someone as smart as you knows that CISC makes ILP more difficult, which leads to issues with threading latency and bus scheduling on multi-CPU (and now multi-core) systems. I mean, they covered all that in your community college course, right? Personally, I miss CISC CPUs. I remember hand-writing assembler for the VAX-11, now there was an instruction set! What other CPU had a CRC instruction? Or the infamous EDITPC (edit packed character)? Or a single instruction to load a process context? And what modern architecture has the FPD bit for restartable instructions (or restartable instructions, even)? Oh, and I do know what JIT means. I also know that, while PBO has been around for years, no CPU does it: the code has to be specially instrumented and run so that statistics can be generated and the resulting profile applied to a subsequent optimization pass (read: recompile and re-link). Now why don't you go cry to your homeroom teacher and let the big people talk, ok honey?

      --
      Where am I to go, now that I've gone too far?
    35. Re:Celeron != G4 by lucas+teh+geek · · Score: 1

      i never could understand fanboys. owning a computer of type A does not restrict you from owning a computer of type B as well; there is no clause in apples licencing saying you cant own an intel pc with linux on it since you own a mac. knowing both is better than knowing one

      --
      TIAEAE!
    36. Re:Celeron != G4 by drsmithy · · Score: 1
      They don't? 2.5Ghz isn't a high clock rate?

      When compared to P4s at, what, 3.6Ghz, 3.8Ghz these days ? No, it isn't.

    37. Re:Celeron != G4 by linuxpyro · · Score: 1

      True. But that doesn't mean that I'm going to go out and buy a Mac simply to learn it. Maybe if I really had the cash to spend. But right now I can do just fine with what I have, so I really have no reason to buy a Mac. If, say, someone else in my family decided they wanted to get one, I would gladly network it, and learn the system, not only for my own curiosity but to help them out.

      --
      Saying "I'll probably get modded down for this" in a post is the best way to get it modded up.
    38. Re:Celeron != G4 by timmi · · Score: 1

      To the best of my knowledge, it has long been known that RISC is faster than CISC, but the main reason why people created CISC computers was because CISC could make-do with less memory, (which was insanely expensive at the time, my dad spent over $1000 USD to upgrade an IBM PS/2 from 1MB Ram to 5MB)

  48. Put a Mac-mini in an XBox =XBox2 by xtermin8 · · Score: 1

    You could even set up darWine or some other sort of emulator on it and tell people its a prototype for the XBox 2. Nah..., that's just too evil!

    1. Re:Put a Mac-mini in an XBox =XBox2 by abdulla · · Score: 1

      Apple could start there own console, or team together with Nintendo, they have the marketing and the smarts to pull it off.

    2. Re:Put a Mac-mini in an XBox =XBox2 by argent · · Score: 1

      Apple could start there own console

      They did. It's called the "Mac mini".

    3. Re:Put a Mac-mini in an XBox =XBox2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IMO, Apple and Nintendo are very alike, as companies. They both want quality products instead of "amazing specs".

      Besides, Zelda and Metroid are only available on Nintendo, so they've got me on their list as a customer, no matter what Microsoft and Sony do.

  49. what about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are some pretty small ultra sub notebooks out there that are pc's and they include screen + power source!

  50. Info? by evil_posmaster · · Score: 0

    He has a bunch un unrelated picks - doesn't even show the "stuff" inside the case. Just makes up a "plausible story" This is just like the PC in a G5 case...

    --
    -- I'm stuck in the middle and I won't get lost again - Devin Townsend
  51. What About Heat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Nehemiah runs cool, but with minimal airflow...

    Fitting the parts into the box is one thing, getting it to run for extended periods is another. Apple puts a lot of work into thermal modeling, and this drives a lot of their component selection and layout. This guy glued together a bunch of off-the-shelf components.

    There is mention of adding an additional fan. Well, where do you put it, what does it blow over, and where does the air come from and vent to?

    Do we believe this thing won't cook itself to death? And if we need to add a fan will it be as quiet as the Mac (which is pretty close to silent)?

    I'm skeptical.

  52. Naaah. by Faust7 · · Score: 2, Funny

    the result of this experiment is clear: Mac: 1, PC: 0.

    Nonsense. Give Dell or HP a little time and motivation, and I'm sure they could pull it off. Hell, maybe IBM has a patent rotting in a drawer somewhere to help this kind of thing.

    The result of this experiment is more like:

    Lame tinkerers with way too much time: 0
    Everyone else: 1

    1. Re:Naaah. by Dominic_Mazzoni · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nonsense. Give Dell or HP a little time and motivation, and I'm sure they could pull it off. Hell, maybe IBM has a patent rotting in a drawer somewhere to help this kind of thing.

      You've got to be kidding. IBM just sold its PC hardware division. Dell doesn't make motherboards, they just put things together - and there aren't ANY shipping motherboards that fit into a Mac mini case...the only one found in this article was a pre-release unit, and even with that one, there was no room for a CD-ROM drive of any type.

      I'm sure there will eventually be an equivalent PC this size, but the fact is that it's impossible with any existing technology, and Apple has a huge head start. It will be at least a year before PCs catch up in this particular niche market, and Apple will continue to innovate...

    2. Re:Naaah. by waltsj19 · · Score: 1
      Give Dell or HP a little time and motivation, and I'm sure they could pull it off.

      Dell and HP are more designed towards putting computers together and marketing them. The problem with creating a PC-mini would be the development of hardware that's small enought to fit in the small case and still perform. This said, I don't doubt that some company will come out with a *decent* PC-mini; however, I think it will be awhile and I don't think it will compete with the Mac mini.

    3. Re:Naaah. by nutshell42 · · Score: 1
      The niche market of "full fletched PC that has to be smaller than a Shuttle". Big market I'm sure.

      And be serious, unless Apple introduces a media-PC based on the Mini the next innovation for this product will be in about 3 years when they're gonna upgrade it to a G5. 2-3 years is their cycle with minimal upgrades in between.

      I toyed with the idea of buying one. It's just as cute and slick as the new smaller PS2 (and I couldn't resist buying one of those) and would come with OSX but I'd need it as a router/server (in the hallway where it can be seen so size/look matters somewhat) and a better suited Shuttle (more RAM, more HD, SATA, no CDRW though, but I don't need one) comes 50 cheaper even if you take into account Apple's student prices. =(

      --
      Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
    4. Re:Naaah. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You obviously have never designed a motherboard or a PC. It is not impossible with existing technology, the truth of the matter is the Mini-MAC uses many existing PC technologies. The only difference is in the chipset which is designed for the CPU. Break open a Mini-MAC and you will see all of the components used in any standard Intel-based portable.

      The Mini-MAC is innovative because of the form-factor. Any of the major PC vendors could work with their supply base and design an Intel-compatible version of this form-factor.

    5. Re:Naaah. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      and there aren't ANY shipping motherboards that fit into a Mac mini case.

      You Mac fanboys are so clueless. There have been small PC motherboards for decades. Do a search for PC/104 and stop thinking you know what PCs can't do becaue you own a Mac.

    6. Re:Naaah. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When a Mini PC is equal to a MiniMac Hell will freeze over!!! Apple has a distinct advantage over the x86 PCs. They control a larger portion of the Mac firmware. Apple doesn't have to deal with a canned PC BIOS or off the shelf chipset. The existing x86 processors are also notoriously power hungry. Even the low power x86 processors end up in laptops as first priority. Neither the Pentium 4 or the AMD Athlon is geared toward a mini-itx or lower form factor. All of the low power chips such as the Pentium M are being gobbled up by laptops. The Pentium 4 and x86 is constantly getting more power inneficient. x86 processors have to be custom built for low power. AMD and the x86-64 is a disaster of titanic proportions. The x86 architecture is also much older and bloated than the PowerPC. The Mac OS is better than the Windows OS and the GUI is better than X-Windows in Linux. The MiniMac is a petite Unix Workstation whereas any mini-itx is just a Unix Wanabe. Even Sun has never created anything as small as Apple that can be claimed as a Unix workstation. The Altivec floating point unit also differentiates the Mac Mini from its Mini-itx or x86 brethren.

      The low power high performance chips for the x86 mini-itx market really doesn't exist. Thus far Intel has ignored the mini-itx motherboard market. Via is one of the proponents of mini-itx. The mini-itx won't exist until Intel makes it exist. AMD doesn't really make chipsets a priority and depends mostly on Nvidea or 3rd party chipsets. Transmeta doesn't even have a presence in desktop motherboards or mini-itx. Via and the Nehemiah don't really count as it is an underpowered processor derived from a Cyrix dinosaur derived from a 386 competing against a modern RISC G4. The main x86 processor manufacturers such as Intel or AMD are ignoring the small PC market that Apple has made the MiniMac for.

      Apple has an advantage over PCs because they can pick and choose more of the components for a Mac motherboard rather than having a commodity cookie cutter motherboard. Apple can create custom gate logic chips for it's computers and has done so quite often such as the Mega II for the Apple II. Apple has the advantage of integration in it's PCs. If you look at the Xbox it is a PC ancestor and not a marvel of integration. If you make a PC board you need a BIOS and a chipset notably from Intel, NVidea, AMD, SIS, or Via. PC computers have to choose a chipset that is more standards compliant and can't customize the chipset as much as Apple can. Apple can choose a G4 processor which has much lower power to higher performance than most of the low power x86 chips such as Transmeta (the niche processor for laptops) or Via. Apple can also create its own firmware and bootloader and logic and can pick and choose which chips and how it wants to package them. Apple controls the Mac OS and doesn't have to make sure that the resulting computer is compatable with Windows and the thousands of Windows PC configurations. Apple crammed in a ATI Radeon processor into the MiniMac and could choose what type of built in graphics processor they wanted to integrate with the motherboard which is something few PC makers have leverage over. Apple can also tell IBM what types of features it would like in the PowerPC which is something that few PC makers can have with the x86 and Intel and AMD. When a computer maker buys an x86 it is usually what AMD or Intel decides and designs for the PC maker. Dell doesn't go to Intel and dictate what type of x86 processor it wants and has to buy off the shelf Pentiums or AMDs. Apple gets to decide what types of features it wants in the PowerPC and how IBM will make it and the general evolution or it won't be a Mac. Damn it!!!

      The results speak for themselves. The MiniMac is one of the smallest form factor PCs. The Mac is crammed with features such as a DVD, G4 and 1 GB of ram and a Unix style operating system and a 80 GB hard drive. The dimensions are 2 inches high 6.5 inches wide and deep and 3 pounds. The MiniMac also has a f

    7. Re:Naaah. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Do a search for PC/104 and stop thinking you know what PCs can't do becaue you own a Mac.

      The difference is, you're going to pay as much for the PC/104 motherboard as you will for the entire Mac Mini. And it'll come with a slower CPU and little to no onboard ports. You'll have to pay extra for another PC/104 module for those.

  53. Re:My agrarian experience with Sun's NetPC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What a crap troll. You replaced 'Linux' with 'Sun Solar IS' on an original, and didn't even update the licence. You fail it, retard.

  54. The Beast by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    I'm sorry, but that thing you link to is four inches deeper, and almost a whole inch taller than the Mac mini. Who would want a beast like that?

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:The Beast by dfghjk · · Score: 1

      Amazing how important a small computer is now that Apple has one. Wasn't so important years ago when SFF PC's existed and Apple was pushing repulsive iMac's.

      When Apple introduces a G5 mini in the same form factor then they'll have really done something. Fact is that the G4 is optimally suited for such an application since it cares far more about power/heat than it does about performance.

      Don't forget about the sizable external power supply when boasting about the mini's size. When both parts sit on your desk it isn't nearly as impressive. And yes, I have one. Yawn. OS X is stupid, that I now officially know.

  55. Misleading Post, tsk, tsk, tsk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First he didn't fit a PC into the Mac Mini, he fitted a nano ITX board into the Mac Mini, this board IS a prototype of what is to come with this new boards.

    Second there is no real hack about it is just a switch and you are done.

    As a final word I want to express my surprise of how many people get fooled by Kevin Rose, this guy just rips off every project out there on the web and he doesn't even give credit to the real authors, for me there is no doubt Kevin Rose is a pirate (far from a real hacker) and one of the most mediocre ones.

  56. Bullsh__ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    One guy working in his lab with spare parts can't recreate what a giant company did, and it's a victory of Macs over PCs? Please, fool.

  57. Re:Apparently they never heard of the Cappuccino P by nobodyman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While I agree that a Cheap-o OSX box is awesome in-and-of itself, I disagree that Kevin misses the point. Many people have accused the the Mac Mini of being a poor value because it matches the price of an entry-level Dell pc but doesn't include a keyboard or display.

    The point of Kevin's article (or at least, what I took away from it) was that it's damn hard to match the value of the mini when you consider it's size. Even with the Mocha PC it starts at $495, and that is without RAM, a hard drive, CPU, or even a CD-Drive!.

  58. Last time somebody did this... by mrbrown1602 · · Score: 2, Informative

    You know, the last time somebody gutted a Mac and put a PC motherboard in it, and had the gall to post it to Slashdot... I believe that person was lynched, if I'm not mistaken.

    1. Re:Last time somebody did this... by magefile · · Score: 1

      Informative? Methinks the mods are on crack.

    2. Re:Last time somebody did this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually I think informative is ok, kevin rose is a hack (not a hacker), yesterday, a guy gutting a mac to convert it into a pc was a wacko, today, is a hero.

  59. Please read the GPL carefully! by glrotate · · Score: 1

    In fact, any sourcecode stored on the same system as GPL softwares must be released under the GPL. This is a big issue at my firm and is forcing us to return to Macos 9.

    1. Re:Please read the GPL carefully! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You really need to hire a better fucking attorney ... and if this _is_ what you think then you'll be out of business soon anyway. I'd start looking for a new job.

    2. Re:Please read the GPL carefully! by goMac2500 · · Score: 1

      Uhhhhh.... What? Thats completely wrong. Apple themselves don't even release quite a bit of the source in Mac OS X. The GPL says any code CONTAINING other GPL code must be released. So unless you're taking GPL code and copy/pasting it into your programs its not an issue. And Mac OS X uses linking to link against GPL libraries, so you can use them but not actually have to use their code in your program, meaning you don't have release your source. Maybe you need to read the GPL carefully yourself...

    3. Re:Please read the GPL carefully! by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      My company has a related problem. All of our software was written using MS Visual Studio, turns out that anything you compile with MS's tools is owned by MS. Luckily we sold the entire company to MS and got out of the software business.

      Too bad there isn't any rich GPL company that you could sell your assets to and get out of the business.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    4. Re:Please read the GPL carefully! by Stevyn · · Score: 1

      Calm down ;) ...I've seen this similar troll post for the past few days now. He changes operating systems, but the rest is still the same. I don't know why people would bother wasting their time and other peoples' time with this crap.

    5. Re:Please read the GPL carefully! by goMac2500 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I did a quick look through his posts after I replied. He made a similar post about Windows being good or something.

    6. Re:Please read the GPL carefully! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup. 100% incorrect.

      Any code that is GPL that you directly put into your software requires that your software be GPL. Any software or external bits that do NOT use GPL code, and you can release it however you like.

      I'm certainly hoping your comment was posted in ignorance rather than malice. If it is in malice, I certainly hope the shills could do better than that.

  60. Nice but superficial... by frostman · · Score: 1

    It's cool that he did this, and of course Nano-ITX is the only way to do it with off-the-shelf parts. It would be nice to compare the Mac Mini to a Nanode, which is at least in the same league style-wise (IMHO).

    But if you want to really compare platforms you need to take the processor into account, and for that it would be more realistic to put the Pentium-M up against the G4. And maybe also run BSD on it :-). I don't know if anyone does a nano-ITX mobo that would take a Pentium-M but one might hope...

    As an aside, I think it's funny how the kids spammed up his comments section with FreeMiniMac MLM schemes.

    Still think I'm going to buy one though... maybe when Tiger ships and someone has a sufficiently cool iKVM.

    --

    This Like That - fun with words!

  61. I'm with you by SuperKendall · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I would like a Mac mini myself, but my plans are pretty much to buy one when budgets allow I cannot believe how many people are suckered into this weird pyrami scheme and then flail around wildly seeking other victims to torment.

    I would say that time would be better spent hawking things you really do not need on eBay in order to raise funds.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:I'm with you by generic-man · · Score: 1

      That eBay idea sounds pretty good. I think I'll sell info about how you can get a free Mac mini so that I can buy one myself!

      --
      For more information, click here.
    2. Re:I'm with you by lspd · · Score: 1

      Hysterical

    3. Re:I'm with you by Halo5 · · Score: 1

      That's what I did. I sold my Mini ITX system (with various accessories) and made a little over $600. It didn't cover the entire cost of the Mm since I got the higher-end model and I installed a 1Gb RAM upgrade, but it was close enough.

      Of course, I couldn't wait for those auctions to end before getting one so I had to break out the ol' mastercard. Well worth the price, tho!

      --
      665: The mark on the forehead of Satan's slightly less evil brother, Stan.
    4. Re:I'm with you by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      What? You don't want to trade in all your friends and self-respect for a free computer?

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    5. Re:I'm with you by msim · · Score: 1

      I have to agree 100%. I was going to post something on the page saying that all those "cl1ck meeeee" links were pitiful and if they *really* wanted one they'd get off their arse and go out and BUY one. (un)fortunately the page wouldn't let me make a submission, i am suspecting my work proxy decided to do something the server didn't like.

      Either that or it's been slashdotted good'n'propper ;-).

      --

      Life is like a box of chocolates, you never know when your gonna get food poisoning.
    6. Re:I'm with you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >I would say that time would be better spent hawking things you really do not need on eBay in order to raise funds.

      Problem is, I'm *already* doing this... to pay for my 3rd gen. 10GB iPod. :D

  62. computing power per square inch by Trogre · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I assume they mean "computing power per cubic inch".

    Otherwise what area are they talking about? Footprint? In that case my 1.5 metre tower case would have more computing density than your desktop G4.

    --
    "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    1. Re:computing power per square inch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you could turn the mac mini on its side and make its footprint something like 6.5x2. Could your tower top that? ;)

    2. Re:computing power per square inch by Trogre · · Score: 1

      Sure, just tilt the case 45 degrees about 2 axes.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    3. Re:computing power per square inch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, but my laptop could.

  63. Re:Apples to Oranges by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ARRRRGGGHHH.... Are You telling me that my Tux is in fact a Windows ???

  64. Re:Apparently they never heard of the Cappuccino P by ocelotbob · · Score: 0, Troll

    Did you bother reading the whole page? Or is your knowledge of PCs stuck in 2001 so you can claim mac superiority? Face it, the mac mini is nothing new to the PC market, it's only got Apple's marketing machine and mac users' selective amnesia behind it.

    --

    Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses

  65. Re:Detailed Instructions... [-100: troll] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    [opens Mac Mini] Nope no useless crap in here...

    [looks at beowulf cluster] Yep, there's a lot of useless stuff that's so outdated we don't even call them Beowulf clusters anymore.

    Things change...adapt or perish. Beowulf clusters were based on a *specific* set of software underpinnings that were tied to Linux. There hasn't been a true Beowulf cluster (that could outperform a Mac Mini) in almost five years. I don't think anyone is going to give much credence to someone stuck in the past who can't embrace the future.

  66. And a flood of "What's the point?" ensues by System.out.println() · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What did it cost him to put a PC into the space Apple engineers er...engineered so precisely for their own hardware?

    - Wireless
    - Bluetooth
    - Optical drive
    - Probable heating issues later
    - SODIMM slots = more expensive RAM
    - OS X, iLife, etc.

    Also, Rose doesn't mention the cost of his parts, but I'd guess that, for the specs of the baseline mini even without the optical drive it would likely come to WELL over $500. That mobo in particular looks to be fairly pricey.

    I'm not asking "What's the point?" but rather, saying "There is no point." This is just a geek's homebrew project, and a waste of a perfectly good Mac mini.

    1. Re:And a flood of "What's the point?" ensues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      he didn't meantion the cost of parts because he got a priceless pre-production nano-itx board.

    2. Re:And a flood of "What's the point?" ensues by OverlordQ · · Score: 1

      Yes because he had the same ammount of time, capital, and engineers to invest to make a mini-pc just like Apple did.

      --
      Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    3. Re:And a flood of "What's the point?" ensues by mako1138 · · Score: 1

      And he had the ability to buy in bulk, enough clout and cash to get a custom design produced by computer makers, and a marketing juggernaut. Oh, and a hero-worshipped CEO.

    4. Re:And a flood of "What's the point?" ensues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're abysmally stupid. If I were you I'd kill me.

    5. Re:And a flood of "What's the point?" ensues by SilentChris · · Score: 1

      "There is no point."

      Sure there is. Every geek I've talked to has said "Mac mini looks great, but it'd be even greater if it used standard PC components. The only two things he missed are:

      1.) Heat - Putting the laptop drive on top of the heatsink was not a smart idea.
      2.) Optical disc - I'm sure if he found a decent slimline he could've rammed it in.

      What this article does is shows Dell/HP/et al that there's a clear group of people interested in something like a Mac mini with PC parts. It's up to them to decide to build it. I can't see anything bad because of this.

    6. Re:And a flood of "What's the point?" ensues by fermion · · Score: 1

      As mentioned elsewhere, the Mocha, the closest commerical competitor, costs well over $1000 in this configurations. At this size the Wintel machine is not a good value at all.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    7. Re:And a flood of "What's the point?" ensues by System.out.println() · · Score: 1

      Mac mini looks great, but it'd be even greater if it used standard PC components.

      If Dell/HP/et al had built a cheap, tiny machine like the mini, all of my friends would say "If that ran Mac OS X, I'd be all over it."

      Clearly we're on polar opposites as far as the crowds we hang around with. :)

    8. Re:And a flood of "What's the point?" ensues by System.out.println() · · Score: 1

      If I were to take the Apple engineers' salary into account, I'd have billed Kevin for the time he spent working on this project. I'm sure that would have brought the grand total up to about $2500.

    9. Re:And a flood of "What's the point?" ensues by SilentChris · · Score: 1

      Exactly. I like OSS. Mac OS X basically mocks OSS (open the kernel and underlying BSD (which was open anyway) and leave everything else closed. Pfft.

    10. Re:And a flood of "What's the point?" ensues by a1englishman · · Score: 1

      What this guy demonstrated was that what Apple has created is a very well engineered box. They didn't just take off the shelf parts, and shove them into a 6.5x6.5" box. This took a lot of engineering to get all the parts in, and the heat out.

      PC parts are all designed to fit within standard cases. They all work well under these circumstances. They make it easy for manufacturers and hobbiests, alike, to assemble. Neither group is too keen on the tiny chasis concept. They're harder to get into, and harder to build because of the issues of heat.

      I like the idea of tiny boxes, especially with the advent of high speed busses like USB 2.0 and IEEE 1394. Rather reminds me of the old Commie 64.

    11. Re:And a flood of "What's the point?" ensues by System.out.println() · · Score: 1

      Rather reminds me of the old Commie 64.

      You were a Communist in 1964?

    12. Re:And a flood of "What's the point?" ensues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's abysmally illogical. If I were you, I'd go rock-climbing with a quadriplegic to spot me.

  67. Re:Apparently they never heard of the Cappuccino P by Jason+Mark · · Score: 1

    Interestingly to make a *mostly* comparible Cappuccino, costs over $1,000. That's for a similar MHZ clock speed, but I don't know what the deal is with Video Ram, so it might cost more...

  68. Form factor and price point by Akito · · Score: 1

    I didn't see it mentioned in the article but the mini has a small form factor and a small price tag.

  69. Re:Apparently they never heard of the Cappuccino P by beelsebob · · Score: 3, Informative

    Yes, unfortunately they're all bigger than the mac mini and incomplete. When you add all the other bits you'll need (a hard drive for example) they're way more expensive.

  70. "Per square inch"? by cortana · · Score: 1

    It should be per cubic inch. :)

  71. Um, what's the point of this? by Craig+Maloney · · Score: 1

    This has about as much charm and practicality as the home lobotomy kit: yeah, I could do it, but WHY?

    1. Re:Um, what's the point of this? by System.out.println() · · Score: 1

      You could do a home lobotomy?

      Impressive.

  72. Grotesque by This+is+outrageous! · · Score: 1

    Less RW than a floppy. No wireless. Lame.

    --
    This is...

    O
    U
    T
    R
    A
    G
    E
    O
    U
    S

    !

  73. Does anyone else find it irritating... by daveschroeder · · Score: 1

    ...that (as of this posting) 28 of the 42 comments - 66% - to the blog post referenced in the summary are people spamming their "free Mac mini" referral links, some totally brazenly?

    Since these schemes are classically mathematically pyramidal by nature, how long before this bullshit overtakes blogs and forums just as the "MAKE MONEY FAST" shit on USENET did?

    1. Re:Does anyone else find it irritating... by Nik13 · · Score: 1

      Ever since the free iPods site, every forum I go to is just full of these in either sigs or actual posts. In some cases I've seen people register to a forum just so they could post about it... And now it's free iPods, free iPod minis, free flat screens, free iMac minis, free this, free that. Definately annoying. There was a story on /. not long ago about people getting rid of internet because of spam and such. I think this is gonna soon be the next biggest reason. I'm more sick of free whatever sigs than ads on tv - and that's hard to beat.

      --
      ///<sig />
  74. Apple, the VW Bug of computing. by MikeFM · · Score: 0, Troll

    Macs always seemed more like VW Bugs than Porsches to me. Granted that the new Bugs are nice, as are Macs, but they're no Porsches. I think the computer world is still waiting for a contender that would be comparable with a Porsche.

    The Mac Mini is kind of cool but it's still not that impressive. It's just another small form factor computer. I'd be surprised if we don't see a PC variant with better specs within a few months. The nano-itx form factor is supposed to be even smaller than the Mac Mini and if the mini-itx form factor is any guide then there will be lots of crazy companies trying to dump more power into the little amount of space available. As long as you use an external power supply, a laptop hdd, and no cd/dvd then fitting into this amount of space is no big deal. I'd one up the Mac Mini and leave out a hdd altogether and use a CompactFlash drive which is obviously a lot smaller as well as being more reliable. Perfect for a set top box or something like that.

    One thing about the SFF community is that they're not that interested in the computing horsepower available so much as being small, reliable, cheap, low poer/heat, and being something of a fixed standard. SFF is great for hacking out interesting new products. Unless Apple is going to sell the Mac Mini motherboard without the extras (casing, hdd, etc)it's really not going to be that convient to build into other products.

    Other than the SFF community who are they targeting? Are most Mac/PC users going to give up significant amounts of horsepower to save a couple inches of space? If they are then will they be willing to trade a little more horsepower in order to get the even smaller nano-itx systems?

    Just who, other than Mac cultists and SFF geeks, is going to buy a Mac Mini?

    The only idea I have is that they are going to try to produce their own set top box or game console but then I have to wonder why they're selling this as a stand-alone product. Apple could be an interesting player in the set top box and console market. They probably couldn't compete in the number of titles available or raw power but by intergrating such a unit with their iPod/iTunes franchise they could have a winner. A deal with Nintendo could be beneficial to both parties if they wanted to try that. Otherwise I fear the PlayStation 3 and XBox 2 will kill Nintendo as a console producing compay and that Apple would have little hope of competing with them.

    --
    At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
    1. Re:Apple, the VW Bug of computing. by dswensen · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Just who, other than Mac cultists and SFF geeks, is going to buy a Mac Mini?

      People who hate Windows, don't want to get caught up in the learning curve or zealotry of Linux, and have been waiting for an inexpensive Mac to become available.

      Ever since I got my Powerbook, I've had several friends ask to look at it and use it, and said they'd really like to switch to OS X if only the hardware was affordable. Now it is.

    2. Re:Apple, the VW Bug of computing. by bsartist · · Score: 1

      Bugs are nice, as are Macs, but they're no Porsches.

      Well, in a way Bugs *are* Porsches. They were designed by Ferdinand Porsche before he left VW and founded the company that's named after him. Take a look at the really old Porsche Speedsters from the '50s - they share a *lot* of design elements with Bugs.

      --
      Lost: Sig, white with black letters. No collar. Reward if found!
    3. Re:Apple, the VW Bug of computing. by King_TJ · · Score: 1

      I'm not even sure many people would agree on what would qualify as a "Porsche of computing" anyway?

      The Mac Mini is Apple's experiment in departing from their usual ways and offering an inexpensive "starter OS X" system. So comparing the *Mini* to a VW Beetle might be fine. But saying all Macs are like that seems a bit "off" to me.

      When I think of a Porsche, I think of a fast, costly car, that isn't necessarily all that practical - but isn't really supposed to be either. It's fairly elegant, carries significant "status" by virtue of the brand name, and caters to a niche market with specific tastes in automobiles.

      How is that too far off from most Mac systems, as a rule? A system like a PowerMac G5 tower is certainly "fast". (Heck, it's a 64-bit, typically dual-processor system, so right away - you know we're not talking some "average, commodity" PC.) It's certainly expensive too, at around $3,000 for the 2.5Ghz model. Most people consider it as having very distinctive styling, and above average engineering all around. (Multiple thermal zones with many quiet cooling fans, rather than 2 or 3 loud, fast running fans.... ability to take up to 8GB of system RAM, PCI-X card support, solid aluminum enclosure with both an outer and transparent plastic inner door, etc. etc.)

      So what else are you waiting for before you call a PC maker the "Porsche" of computing, anyway?

    4. Re:Apple, the VW Bug of computing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Were you stoned when you wrote that post, because you sure sounded like it?

      Last time I checked there was a Mac-based Porsche (of a kind). You may have heard of it, System X, currently the 7th fastest non-classified computer in the world.

      Apparently you also missed that *ALL* of the next generation game consoles are going to be built around IBM POWER derivative processor designes. Maybe you also missed that those chips are binary compatible with the POWER4 derivative PowerPC 970FX. To say that they wouldn't have a chance of building a game console is a bit naive. Bet on old Billie in Redmond looking over his shoulder as he is already selling Xboxes at a loss to generate market share. If something better came along, there goes the neighborhood. Also the reason why he's delving into the TV over DSL idea with Verizon is to help find some way to make money with Xboxes. Helps hook people on advanced Xboxes that will receive the content. Might also explain why Apple has been interested in satellite and video content providers themselves.

      The Mac Mini is the perfect 'stick-your-toe-in-the-water' product into the digital hub market. See how well it sells, and then show people what it can do with a new service geared toward it. The Mac Mini is the perfect digital hub device (i.e., media center in Windows-ese). Apple already has really good digital audio (ITMS, iTunes, iPod) and a mature digital video platform in Quicktime that even Hollywood is embracing as a standard (front end production and post production). Apple finds a way to work out the DRM issues and the whole thing falls into place.

      Wake up and smell the coffee people!

    5. Re:Apple, the VW Bug of computing. by nadyne · · Score: 1

      Just who, other than Mac cultists and SFF geeks, is going to buy a Mac Mini?

      Well, my dad, for one. He's a sysadmin for a state government, although most of his time these days is going to various departments to try to whip users and their systems into shape.

      I visited at Christmas. I let him play with my PowerBook because he hadn't had the opportunity to use one before. Three hours later, he had drained my battery but had fallen in love with it. We looked at the iMac while I was visiting, and he liked the form factor and the interface but wasn't ready to spend that much.

      I told him about the miniMac when it was announced, and told him to go poke at one when he could make it to an Apple store. He did, and called me on Friday to ask me to order one for him. So I did, and bought some RAM separately 'cause his birthday is coming up.

      (Just to be clear, he only asked me to order one 'cause my company gets discounts on Apple hardware.)

      /nm

    6. Re:Apple, the VW Bug of computing. by LadyLucky · · Score: 1
      Just who, other than Mac cultists and SFF geeks, is going to buy a Mac Mini?

      Me, for one. I've had Mac envy for quite some time, but couldn't justify the cost. I already have a nice wireless keyboard & mouse, and a display. So it's perfect for that. And you get great applications for free with it, which nobody seems to include in the Windows comparisons.

      --
      dominionrd.blogspot.com - Restaurants on
    7. Re:Apple, the VW Bug of computing. by MikeFM · · Score: 1

      The Mac Mini does not seem like a powerful machine. It is quite good for the form factor but compared to a comparable PC of similar price, of any size, it doesn't seem that great. I can't really see a very large market segment of Mac-wannabe users deciding to switch to such a system. Either they really want to go Mac and they'll shell out for the really cool systems or they'll go cheap/geek and go Linux on normal PC hardware or they'll wuss out and just stick to Windows on fairly cheap hardware.

      Some people will try the cheap Mac but I don't really believe there will be a sizable market there unless the cheap Mac is comparable in power to a similar priced PC. Even if you take into account that MacOS makes more effecient use of resources than Windows on comparable hardware it's still pretty wimpy specs for a desktop machine. It doesn't appear to really be targeted at that market.

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
    8. Re:Apple, the VW Bug of computing. by dswensen · · Score: 1

      What can I tell you? It's a $500 computer. I wouldn't expect it to be terribly powerful. The machine is pretty comparably to a mid-level machine, and is more than capable of handling what an end-user wants, except for gaming -- and no one would buy a Mac to game on it anyway. As for Mac-wannabe users, I know of half a dozen in my circle of friends, either Windows or Linux users themselves, who want one.

      What this means for the market at large, I don't know, but I do know that a lot of people for whom Apple's price point was the major obstacle are now seeing that change. I'm not really seeing any sort of contrary evidence from you beyond "well I just don't like it."

      I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens.

    9. Re:Apple, the VW Bug of computing. by MikeFM · · Score: 1

      That's cool. I never knew that. Did he have any hand in the new Bugs? I am actually quite impressed with the new Bugs. I'm tall (6'6) so finding a car with enough space that isn't a SUV is rather difficult. I took a Bug for a test drive and was rather impressed. I'd consider buying one if I was in the market. Luckily being as tall as I am I can drive a 'chick car' without people making to many comments. ;)

      The PT Cruiser is pretty cool too. It also has something of it's own look and is pretty spacey inside. I'd be more likely to buy it I think just because it does seem a little more macho. It'd depend on which one got the better gas milage probably though.

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
    10. Re:Apple, the VW Bug of computing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, it sold out of my local 'puter stores almost as soon as it went on sale. So someone's buying it.

      I'm a longtime PC user and I still miss CP/M. I've always thought Macs were overpriced boutique toys for people who didn't want to get their hands dirty with a real computer. But I'll need another little home machine this year for web purposes, word processing, and maybe a little music. Benefits of the Macmini would be (1) escaping Windows, (2) not worrying nearly so much about viruses and whatnot, and (3) getting something that's unobtrusive and quiet.

      I'll still price out making my own mini-PC first, but $500 or $600 may be hard to beat. Has anyone tried making a smallish PC with the same capacities as the macmini for the same price?

    11. Re:Apple, the VW Bug of computing. by MikeFM · · Score: 1

      Dare I ask. If this thing sells for $500 then what is your discount price? Tell me it's $200 and half of Slashdot might be asking you to order them one too. ;)

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
    12. Re:Apple, the VW Bug of computing. by nacturation · · Score: 1

      I took a Bug for a test drive and was rather impressed. I'd consider buying one if I was in the market. Luckily being as tall as I am I can drive a 'chick car' without people making to many comments. ;)

      You should also ask yourself this: which car would a chick rather be in: a "chick car" or a "stud car"? Make your purchase accordingly. ;-)

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    13. Re:Apple, the VW Bug of computing. by MikeFM · · Score: 1

      I didn't say that I didn't like it. I'm just not your typical consumer. I'm the type of person who would use a 24 hour computer store to go buy CPUs at 3am. Most of my friends are at least partly as geeky as I am. I can see most of us buying a Mac Mini.

      That doesn't make up a large market though. The computer-stupid people who are my clients, and who make up the majority of the market, I can't see buying a Mac Mini though. The Mac Mini seems like a machine who's market will be a fringe of the existing Mac market which is itself fringe. It might get a few new buyers from the geeks and Mac-wannabes but probably that isn't a huge number of people.

      For example, the iPod is a product that has wide mass appeal. Almost everyone listens to music and understands the concept of a portable music device. The iPod is the Porsche of portable audio devices. Do you really see anywhere near as large a market for the Mac Mini?

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
    14. Re:Apple, the VW Bug of computing. by MikeFM · · Score: 1

      The PT seems to have more back seat space. That settles it for me. It's impossible to 'park' here in Las Vegas. Everywhere you go they have security guards in the empty parking lots making sure nobody misbehaves. A large backseat with dark windows could help.

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
    15. Re:Apple, the VW Bug of computing. by bsartist · · Score: 1

      Bleh - did some googling, and it seems I had my timeline mixed up. :-( Dr. Porsche the elder was big on the racing circuit around the turn of the century, and had an engineering/consulting firm with his name. His firm was hired by the German government in the late '30s to design the VW - the name of the model at the time, not the name of a company. There was no company, actually - the factory and everything else was owned by the government.

      After the war, the factory was privatized and the name of the only model was adopted as the name of the new company. Porsche's son, also named Ferdinand, was heavily involved with starting and managing the new company. Porsche's firm was hired in '49 by VW as design consultants, and received a royalty on every car VW built.

      The two companies are still closely related. The VW-Porsche 914 was a collaboration in the late '60s, and the 924 in the '70s. The present-day Cayenne and VW Touareg share a lot of engineering. Until he retired in 2003, Ferdinand Piech, grandson of Ferdinand Porsche, was both the principal shareholder of Porsche and CEO of VW.

      Dr. Porsche only saw the bare beginning of the original Beetle's rise in popularity - he last visited the Stuttgart factory in '50, and died in '52. His son died in '98. He probably saw the new Beetle, but I doubt he had a hand in designing it - he was 88 when he died, so he would have been 80 or so when the idea was first proposed.

      Links:
      http://www.autohistory.org/feature_6.html
      http://www.grandprix.com/gpe/cref-piefer.html
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porsche

      --
      Lost: Sig, white with black letters. No collar. Reward if found!
    16. Re:Apple, the VW Bug of computing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Just who, other than Mac cultists and SFF geeks, is going to buy a Mac Mini?
      Quite a number of people. It's a solid, well-priced machine, which, with the iLife software bundled in, will have first class support for people's digital cameras, camcorders, and iPods right out of the box. Besides geeks, who cares whether it's UNIX or Windows under the hood? To most people, it's all about the software they touch and use... and Apple has some winners there.
    17. Re:Apple, the VW Bug of computing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the computer world is still waiting for a contender that would be comparable with a Porsche.

      You're gonna be waiting for quite some time, my friend. A fast PC is basically a Viper. Seriously terrible fuel efficiency to make up for the fact that they couldn't engineer a powerful AND sleek engine. I'd say a Mac is the closest thing to a Porsche you're gonna find. And to be honest, Porsches aren't that nice aside from the aesthetics, so I think they're actually rather comparable. But now we're talking apples and oranges....

      The Mac Mini is kind of cool but it's still not that impressive. It's just another small form factor computer.

      Um... in case you haven't noticed, that's exactly what the Mac mini intends to be. A small form factor computer that just works. And it does it very well. I just received mine.

      The nano-itx form factor is supposed to be even smaller than the Mac Mini and

      Dude, I know this is Slashdot, but for god's sake read the article before you spew this BS! The PC he stuck in the Mac mini WAS a nano-ITX! (Pre-production model donated by VIA.) And he STILL couldn't get the CD drive in there, even after chopping up the heat sink and placing the HDD ontop of the heat sink. (I smell melting plastic and burning HD platters!)

      As long as you use an external power supply, a laptop hdd, and no cd/dvd then fitting into this amount of space is no big deal.

      Um... uh... yet the Mac mini DOES have a CD/DVD drive in there. You're gonna one up WHAT?

      I'd one up the Mac Mini and leave out a hdd altogether and use a CompactFlash drive which is obviously a lot smaller as well as being more reliable.

      Whatever you're smoking, I need it! CompactFlash is NOT more reliable when you continuously write to it, which you'll be doing if you plan to do anything more than booting the system.

      Perfect for a set top box or something like that.

      Except again, the Mac mini is more than a TiVO. It's a full blown computer. You know, things like word processors, spread sheets, VIDEO EDITING AND 8-TRACK REAL-TIME AUDIO RECORDING!!!

      Unless Apple is going to sell the Mac Mini motherboard without the extras (casing, hdd, etc)it's really not going to be that convient to build into other products.

      And I think Apple is perfectly comfortable keeping it that way.

      Other than the SFF community who are they targeting? Are most Mac/PC users going to give up significant amounts of horsepower to save a couple inches of space?

      This verges on Taco's iPod review. Lame. I bought a Mac mini. Faster than my TiBook, and perfect for my desktop. I also bought one for my mother as a birthday gift, to replace her aging beige G3. I don't exactly think she's gonna lose power compared to a PowerMac G3/266 MT with 64Mb of RAM and 10Gb of HDD space, no USB and no FireWire. (She DOES have UW-SCSI though. Mmmmmm.) A friend of mine bought one too. He had always wanted a Mac, but since he wasn't sure if he'd use it as his main machine, he wasn't willing to spring for a full G5 tower. THIS was his calling, and he jumped at it. The list goes on. This may very well be Apple's best selling desktop computer yet, even bigger than the iMac.

      You really should learn your history here. Apple introduces the Mac Classic, a re-vamped Mac SE in the day and age that the IIci was sporting a 16Mhz 68030 and 8-bit color video on 14" monitors. It was old, and slow. Who would buy it!? Students, schools, and people that wanted a Mac in their bedroom. A lot of people. Apple releases the iMac. Who in the world is gonna want an all-in-one, slow G3 in fruit colors!? Well, you probably recall this one as being a hot seller that brought back Apple from the graves. Apple releases the iPod. Less space than a Nomad. No wireless. Lame!? I'm sure Taco is regretting that comment each and every day, as he's reminded of it. Apple opens the iTMS. No one'

  75. For the next project: by mctk · · Score: 1

    For an even more useful comparison, how about computing power per unit density, all restricted to a $499 budget.

    --
    Paul Grosfield - the quicker picker upper.
  76. As Long As We're Being Pointless by Ginnungagap42 · · Score: 1

    he should stick one of these on it: http://ohlssonvox.8k.com/fdd_raid.htm

  77. Said it before, I'll say it again by gelfling · · Score: 1

    Go get a surplus laptop machine. Junk the display, remove the entire case, separate the machine from the keyboard. Remove the battery. Take what's left and drop it in a cheap plastic box with cutouts for the power supply, the CDROM, PCCards and whatever ports you have. Hopefully you'll have a USB port. Plug in your power supply, monitor, USB keyboard.

    Voila a 'desktop' PC no bigger 12x3x0.75 inches

    1. Re:Said it before, I'll say it again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      12 inches?

      The Mac mini is only 16.5 x 16.. centimetres. I'm not sure why you have "said this before and will say it again," because it doesn't seem like a very useful thing to do.

    2. Re:Said it before, I'll say it again by gelfling · · Score: 1

      Stuffing a PC into a miniMac case is......

  78. Re:Apparently they never heard of the Cappuccino P by ocelotbob · · Score: 1

    Uh, the mocha 5043 is smaller than the mini. 5.75" x 6.18" x 2.28" is smaller than 6.5x6.5x2 . And a 40GB hard drive is not that expensive; adding one still makes the mocha price competitive with the Mini.

    --

    Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses

  79. Call me cynical but where's the proof? by nickovs · · Score: 5, Insightful

    None of the pictures on the page show the PC mobo going into the case. The picture called fit.jpg shows the mobo sticking out at the bottom left. The last couple of shots show no indication that the case has anything in it other than a normal Mac Mini.

    I'm not saying that these guys haven't done what they said they've done but it would have been good to have some pictures of the back of the machine with the ports or perhaps some re-assembly shows so we could see just how tight the fit is.

    --
    If intelligent life is too complex to evolve on its own, who designed God?
    1. Re:Call me cynical but where's the proof? by Langley · · Score: 1

      I agree, plus they never boot the system up. He might as well have kept the parts in their original boxes.

    2. Re:Call me cynical but where's the proof? by Speaker+to+Sendmail · · Score: 1

      Concur. Loudly. Note that even the photos linked from the words 'cut down the back I/O cover' show the unmodified cover and the port arrangements of the ITX board. No modifications show anywhere.

      Nothing he describes is obviously impossible (though are Mac power supplies really that compatible? Didn't used to be) but there are no images that couldn't be produced by disassembling a mini, setting some PC parts on top of the case bottom, then putting everything back the way it was.

      I hope I'm not being an ass to someone who worked hard on this, but the lack of visible modification in the pictures makes me very doubtful. Until proven otherwise I'm going to assume that Mr. Rose remembered the furor caused by the PC-in-a-gutted-G4 hoax and decided to yank on some chains. And did a damned good job of it, too.

    3. Re:Call me cynical but where's the proof? by Speaker+to+Sendmail · · Score: 1

      Er, maybe I should start defrosting some crow. From what little I can find about the nano-ITX, looks like the daughtercard on the left of the assembled photo (pins up) is the DC-DC Power supply, And there's a screencap on mini-itx.com that's significantly more plausible than any of the stills. Did anyone here actually see the video?

    4. Re:Call me cynical but where's the proof? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I saw the episode last night. And while he did show the innards and all the ports, he did say one thing that no one has mentioned yet, "There is a heating problem."

      He stated that there was a heating issue when morphing the Mini to a PC. He said the Mini was built with air cooling technology, but this hack he did wasnt.

      With that in mind, PC=0, MacMini=1.

      PS- Anyone notice how badly the quality of Screen Savers has gone down to?

  80. A quote from yesterday by spudchucker · · Score: 1
    Does the iPod need more security? no Does it crash alot? no Does it run perfectly fine? yes! Could you please stop being silly and instead try and do something worth while. We're still looking for a cancer cure, aids cure and countless other things we need today. Even if you're not smart enough to work on that sort of thing, you could always do charity work or earn extra money to donate.
  81. This is Sofa King by bedouin · · Score: 1

    We Todd Ed

  82. Ahh... Kevin's First Slashdotting! by reiggin · · Score: 2, Funny

    Kevin's first slashdotting... Sara must be so proud!

  83. "expensive apple" becoming a myth by meza · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Face it people, apple makes cheap and affordable computers in the middle range, and have done for a while. I've been looking especially for a small laptop, around 12". And which one is the cheapest I can find? Thats right, apple ibook. All the other manufactures sell their small laptops as "ultra portable" and takes out a higher price then for their 15". But with apple the 12" laptop is there smalles and thereby cheapest laptop.

    I'm not an Apple zealot. The only thing that has brought me into thinking of buying an ibook is the price. But if you have a better deal, please prove me wrong. I really need an affordable small laptop.

    1. Re:"expensive apple" becoming a myth by argent · · Score: 1

      Face it people, apple makes cheap and affordable computers in the middle range

      I'm a big OS X fan, and I've had several Macs (there's four beige G3s and a G4 in the house right now), but the Mac mini is the first one I could justify buying new (or even "recently used")... because Apple does *not* make "affordable" computers anywhere except the high end.

      The Mac mini is affordable, but it isn't cheap, it's about $100 more than competitive Windows-based machines... but that's a major improvement: unless you're pirating Windows it's the first Mac that isn't about twice the price of a comparable PC I could put together myself (on specs, anyway... there's really no "comparable" PC to any Mac, because you can't run OS X on one and, well, that's a deal-breaker).

      The eMac's display is unacceptable. For $800 I expect a Trinitron tube... if I bought an eMac it would end up under my desk hooked up to my $40 used Dell display... which is incomparably better than the tube in the eMac.

      The iMac, well, it's gorgeous. But it costs like a good laptop.

      The iBook? 1024x768? No PC card slots? And that keyboard is awful. The iBook hardware is about the worst laptop hardware I've seen.

      Powerbook? The keyboard's better, but the screen resolution is still poor. For the price of the 12" Powerbook I can get a Thinkpad with the best laptop keyboard in the world, and more pixels than the 17" Powerbook. No thanks.

      IBM collaborated with Apple on one of the early Powerbooks. I wish they'd do it again.

  84. Yea, was thinking that too. Notebooks. by cbreaker · · Score: 1

    Notebook computers are fast too; they have fast Macintosh notebooks and fast x86 Notebooks; you can get Athlon 64 notebooks now.

    And nevermind the hogwash about "more surface area to cool" like someone else mentioned; a notebook has a lot less height for all the components, and instead of putting the CD-Rom on top of the guts, they put them on the side. I don't see how the cd-rom and battery compartments are going to help cool the unit.

    --
    - It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
  85. You mean by commodoresloat · · Score: 1
    Louder and hotter than a Mac Mini. No Firewire.
    Lame.

    Seriously it's a fair point -- who the hell would actually want to use this thing? I understand that it's cool to do something new or unexpected with a piece of technology, but why go out of your way to make something so much worse than it is? Hell, this would be a lot cooler if he put an aquarium into the mini.

    1. Re:You mean by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other words, "Blah blah blah I'm just another stupidass Mac zealot". Geez, stop being so obsessed about the damn platform you use. Nobody gives a shit.

    2. Re:You mean by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      This was a lame hack. It would be like you got a new SCSI HardDrive with a 18GB disc and replaced the insiders with a 4GB disc and then being proud of that fact. Lame.

  86. nanode by kaiser423 · · Score: 1

    Seriously, the nanode is almost exactly the mac-mini. If only via had been able to produce the board on-time, it would have been first to market. Now it's going to be a couple of months behind.

    1. Re:nanode by 10Ghz · · Score: 1

      Nanode is taller and it's slower as far as the CPU and vid-card is concerned.

      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
  87. Re:Apparently they never heard of the Cappuccino P by beelsebob · · Score: 1

    Except that you still have to add the slot loading DVD/CD-RW drive and the operating system.

  88. Laptops are bigger! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Really? I think there are scores of laptops out there that would spank it.

    Except that laptops are bigger!
    Lets compare my dell d600 and the mac mini for example:
    Mac Mini: 6.5 x 6.5 x 2 = 84.5
    D600: 10.1 x 12.4 x 1.2 = 150.2

    1. Re:Laptops are bigger! by puetzk · · Score: 1

      bust the screen off and then it's probably close. So yes, the mini is basically an iBook stacked up vertically. But it's still cool :-)

      --
      The Matrix is going down for reboot now! Stopping reality: OK. The system is halted.
    2. Re:Laptops are bigger! by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Remember, the Dell crams a a few things into that space that the Mac Mini doesn't. Like a screen and a keyboard.

    3. Re:Laptops are bigger! by crayz · · Score: 1

      And so does the PowerBook and iBook. I think a mini is a bit harder to do, given how vertically compressed everything is

    4. Re:Laptops are bigger! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, if I bust the screen, the keyboard and the battery, we have:

      10.1 x 12.4 x 0.8 = 100.2 (dell w/o screen&keyboard)
      - 0.7 x 2.7 x 4.9 ( = 9.2 for the bat)
      = 91

      still bigger than the mac mini ;)

      Mac Mini: 6.5 x 6.5 x 2 = 84.5

      My point was: mac mini is damn good packaging, even if we compare to laptops.

  89. I wonder.... by commodoresloat · · Score: 2, Funny

    Do you think this will void his Apple warranty?

  90. Obligatory warranty question by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 1

    So, if I gut my Mac Mini and shove a nanoITX preproduction board in the case and cut a big hole on the back of it to accomodate for the different port layout, does that void my warranty? I want an official Apple spokesman's word on this, not some third-party Mac enthusiast rumor site. Come on, someone's got to know.

    --
    You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
    1. Re:Obligatory warranty question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I work for an Apple cert. repair center. . . so let me tell you that any and all physical dammage is not covered by AppleCare.

  91. Remember by Jozer99 · · Score: 1

    I don't know if all you mac-heads remembered, but this guy used OFF THE SHELF components. The Mac Mini motherboard is custom made for the case. You could build a motherboard for a 2.2 GHz Pentium M, 8X DVD Burner, and 128 MB Radeon 9700 Mobile in the same case, if you were an all powerful Taiwanese MB manufaturer and you thought there was a market for Mac Mini to PC Mini converstion parts. With the stuff that is off the shelf, it is in no way shaped to fit in that little wierd case, so you have a lot of wasted space. The Mac Mini is basically an iBook without the battery, LCD, and keyboard. No one is claiming that the iBook is the most powerful 4 lb laptop.

    1. Re:Remember by The+Famous+Druid · · Score: 1

      I don't know if all you mac-heads remembered, but this guy used OFF THE SHELF components.

      Actually no, he used a pre-release version of a motherboard that the manufacturers let him have because they wanted publicity.

      --
      Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum videtur (anything said in Latin sounds important)
    2. Re:Remember by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, that was -incredibly- insightful!!!

    3. Re:Remember by Jozer99 · · Score: 1

      Ok, the Nano-ITX is not off the shelf here yet, but if you live or travel to taiwan, you can get them, and it is a matter of time before they come here. My point is he was using a general purpose motherboard and parts, not custom built stuff.

  92. Target audience by chia_monkey · · Score: 3, Informative

    "Just who, other than Mac cultists and SFF geeks, is going to buy a Mac Mini?"

    Good question, and thanks to a disaster with my PowerBook Saturday, I have my own input. Had you asked that earlier, I would have said the target audience was rather vague...perhaps people that wanted to test out the Mac, the Mac cultists, and a handfull of switchers. It's the price point that erases all the "well the Mac is too expensive" excuse that many people have.

    After a nasty power issue with the laptop, I've had to take it in for repairs. Aw criminy...what to do? Can't really afford a new G5 or anything...ayeee! But wait...only $499 for the Mac Mini? That's a perfect solution. I can just use that temporarily, it's got a decent processor, is small...yeah...that's the ticket. And then I can use it as a database server when I get my PowerBook. Totally beats buying a G5 (even though I want one) or something used off of eBay.

    --

    "He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts...for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang
    1. Re:Target audience by MikeFM · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a good plan for you but do you think that is really Apple's target audience? It's just a Mac for those emergency points when your 'real Mac' is in the shop? Macs are pretty reliable so that'd seem a small market segment. :)

      They made this thing so either they have a target audience in mind or they are using it to test out a small form factor concept for something else they have in mind.

      The mention the other day that Apple might do something with the new Cell processors that'll be in the PlayStation 3 gives me ideas. According to that article the Cell processor is part of the POWER family and will be available to Apple and other companies and they'll be much more powerful than anything currently on the market while staying at a low price point. If Apple could fit that into a Mac Mini form factor THEN they'd have something. ...Just some random thoughts on where Apple could be going with this concept.

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
  93. Re:Apparently they never heard of the Cappuccino P by ocelotbob · · Score: 1

    Linux is free. And for the Mac mini to compete, you've got to add an irda adapter, a serial convertor, and a parallel convertor. It's price comparable. I was saying that they were similar products that existed at similar price points. The mac has a slight price advantage now due to the fact that this is segment of the market that hasn't really been tapped before, but the advantage will be short-lived. Finally, I personally prefer tray-loading, as the mechanism is more reliable and I can play damn near anything on it.

    --

    Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses

  94. Missing the point by dustmite · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You're missing the point, like most people on this forum, seemingly. Fact is, outside of the tiny minority of humans that constitute the "geeky" market segment, the vast majority of people who buy computers really honestly couldn't give a crap about either "raw horsepower" or "small form factor". They just want a computer that is NICE TO USE and is not overly expensive. Read that part in caps again ... PCs just do not fit the bill (certainly neither Windows nor Linux), Mac Mini does.

    You can do whatever you like to a PC, make it fast, small, whatever, doesn't matter, because no matter what you do it will still be "just a PC". Until someone makes a decent, usable operating system for the PC platform, I'll stick with the Mac, because I'd actually like to be able to use a computer for more than a few hours straight without wanting to put a brick through the screen.

    I'm sorry for you if you think that only a "Mac cultist" would think Mac's have a vastly better designed operating system that is also more aesthetically pleasing .. obviously you haven't even used a Mac. Windows sucks no matter how much "raw horsepower" you give it, and Linux is not ready for Joe Public.

    1. Re:Missing the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh-Oh, someone is handicap!

    2. Re:Missing the point by Mr2001 · · Score: 1

      They just want a computer that is NICE TO USE and is not overly expensive. Read that part in caps again ... PCs just do not fit the bill (certainly neither Windows nor Linux), Mac Mini does.

      Your bias is showing. Windows is nice enough for most people to use. It's only a relatively small group of zealots who think otherwise. OS X looks a little cooler than Windows XP, but that's like saying Anna Kournikova looks a little hotter than Heidi Klum - most guys would happily settle for either.

      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    3. Re:Missing the point by CerebusUS · · Score: 1

      Windows is nice enough for most people to use. It's only a relatively small group of zealots who think otherwise.

      Yes, but that relatively small group is growing with each and every major exploit that comes out, and every time Joe Sixpack has to take his computer into the shop (again) for another $95 session removing spyware and viruses from his machine.

      It would be great if Linux was to the point where it was an option for this, but it's not. Apple takes the best parts of unix and combines them with a simple, intuitive interface and decent support. And now they do it for $500. Personally, I'm impressed by that.

    4. Re:Missing the point by dustmite · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you think the differences lie only in looks, then you are revealing a rather stark lack of knowledge about OS X and, well, operating system design in general .. sounds more like you're just repeating a mantra that you heard from others, which makes you no less "biased" than me. The fact is, OS X really is a better designed operating system, it really is "good engineering" as opposed to Windows which really is sloppy so-called "good enough" engineering. Just like Ferrari really is a better engineered car, and nicer to drive than, say, a Ford. Or would you call someone a "zealot" for wanting to drive a Ferrari over a Ford, or claim someone "biased" for stating that Ferrari is better engineering? I mean after all, a car's a car right? They're all "nice enough", they all have four tyres and a steering wheel, a Ferrari only "looks a bit better", right? Riiight .. you keep telling yourself that, but believe me, standing there obviously advocating mediocrity doesn't make you look smart. I don't know why you apply a different standard here. Or perhaps you really believe that it's OK for mankind to aim for mediocrity in computer design, but of that's the case you probably shouldn't have anything to do with either computer design or the advocacy of specific systems.

      You are probably right though that Windows is "good enough" for most people (if you ignore all the virus/spyware/security problems), but that's all it is, "good enough". It's certainly not "nice". It puzzles me how people like you can stand there and actively defend mediocrity. (Is it that you feel you have to defend your own personal choices? I mean, you presumably use Windows, so saying "Windows is a poor choice" implies *you* made a poor choice, perhaps you are rationalising your choice?) I don't get it ... "You should buy Windows, even though it looks worse, and you'll need to install anti-virus which slow down your PC, and you'll be cleaning spyware every other week, etc. etc., this is the right choice!"

      Still, you are probably right that most of the things that annoy me about Windows stem from me being an 'advanced user', and are in features that most "Joe Public" users don't use (for example Windows SMB networking, which is *genuinely* bad from any kind of engineering perspective). But most users don't use it, and even fewer use it all the time.

      Anyway, if you're going to be comparing platforms, I suggest you at least make sure to have some genuine knowledge of the platforms you're comparing next time. Claiming that the difference between XP and OS X is mainly looks makes it pitifully obvious that you don't.

    5. Re:Missing the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a professional with a Windows (and DOS, and Unix, and VMS) background and I occasionally have to provide tech support on my wife's Mac. I just recently installed OS X and have to say it has its good points and its bad points. Some aspects of it are just indescribably delicious. It's pretty, it's fast and responsive even on a c. 1999 machine. The apps, when done well - which is not always the case - are minimalist masterpieces. On the other hand, some things are just... not quite finished, not very professional, not quite working right. For instance, byzantine, very unintuitive and badly organized config options. For instance, I had to resort to a hack to get her external LG CDRW drive working with iTunes, took hours of research. For instance, she lost her master password, or admin password, or root password, or whatever the hell it is - who KNOWS, they've done their best to muddy the distinctions. I guess it's the "main user who has wide ranging admin powers". Anyway, when I got this fixed up - basically by putting in the install CD and using a "reset password" feature - the "keychain" was totally screwed up, every single web page started asking for a keychain password, her email client also. Seems that the OS kept her old, forgotten password in the keychain rather than resetting it as well. Again, took some messing around - and she, the Mac user of the household, was completely unable to cope. So my point is, Mac OS X: lots of promise, and already whupping Windows and Linux ass on many fronts but not nearly as intuitive as Mac fans believe. It needs lots of work in surprisingly obvious areas, and it shows signs mostly not of incompetence but of incompleteness. It's beta software really. Damn nice, and destined for greatness but not there yet. Certainly heading in a different, and VASTLY more correct direction than Windows or Linux.

    6. Re:Missing the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're missing the point, like most people on this forum, seemingly. Fact is, outside of the tiny minority of humans that constitute the "geeky" market segment, the vast majority of people who buy computers really honestly couldn't give a crap about either "raw horsepower" or "small form factor". They just want a computer that is NICE TO USE and is not overly expensive. Read that part in caps again ... PCs just do not fit the bill (certainly neither Windows nor Linux), Mac Mini does.

      You can do whatever you like to a PC, make it fast, small, whatever, doesn't matter, because no matter what you do it will still be "just a PC". Until someone makes a decent, usable operating system for the PC platform, I'll stick with the Mac, because I'd actually like to be able to use a computer for more than a few hours straight without wanting to put a brick through the screen.

      I'm sorry for you if you think that only a "Mac cultist" would think Mac's have a vastly better designed operating system that is also more aesthetically pleasing .. obviously you haven't even used a Mac. Windows sucks no matter how much "raw horsepower" you give it, and Linux is not ready for Joe Public.


      I'd love to know where your perception of Joe Public is coming from.

      I happen to sell PCs while going to school. Based on my experiences, Joe Public wants a lot more than what the miniMac can offer.

      Joe Public expects a DVD burner these days. Most of the time, Joe Public wants two optical drives, so he can quickly copy from disc to disc. He almost never knows what dual-layer is, yet knows he wants it fairly often as well.

      Joe Public wants a big hard drive. Joe Public may have a broadband connection already, or may be getting one in the future. Joe Sixpack is probably downloading things already. Music, movies, tv shows, games, programs, pictures, video clips, etc. A lot of those $95 spyware removals stem from using Kazaa, bearshare, or limewire. What about digital photography? With 5 megapixel cameras under $300 now, those digital pictures can take up a lot of room pretty fast. Digital camcorders? Even more disk space needed.

      Joe Public wants to be able to continue using programs from his last computer. I've seen a couple people get upset that their old Windows 3.1 programs may not work on XP. But, for the most part, those programs will install onto their new computer, and they'll be happy.

      Joe Public may want expandability. Even if he can't perform the upgrades himself, he wants to know he can add another hard drive, a better video card, or maybe wireless networking. The video card is especially important if he, or his children, may use the computer to play games. The Radeon 9200 didn't provide an impressive performance gain with 128 MBs of memory. How well will Battlefield 1942 or Doom 3 play on the same card, but with a fourth the RAM?

      I have no doubt that the idea of a small, quiet box may appeal to some people, but in most cases, not enough to sacrifice what I've already mentioned. As for those curious about exploring alternative OSes, Linux will remain the most popular, because it's free and doesn't require the large commitment of purchasing an entire new system.

    7. Re:Missing the point by Mr2001 · · Score: 1

      If you think the differences lie only in looks, then you are revealing a rather stark lack of knowledge about OS X and, well, operating system design in general .. sounds more like you're just repeating a mantra that you heard from others, which makes you no less "biased" than me.

      Indeed it would... if that were the case. Since it isn't, should I expect an apology?

      It puzzles me how people like you can stand there and actively defend mediocrity. (Is it that you feel you have to defend your own personal choices? I mean, you presumably use Windows, so saying "Windows is a poor choice" implies *you* made a poor choice, perhaps you are rationalising your choice?)

      Nope. I've been using Linux for about 10 years. I've owned Macs. I've used OS X, but admittedly not for very long. I hated Windows as much as any Slashbot... until XP came out, which convinced me that MS had finally gotten something right. (See, I don't even spell MS with a dollar sign anymore.)

      "You should buy Windows, even though it looks worse, and you'll need to install anti-virus which slow down your PC, and you'll be cleaning spyware every other week, etc. etc., this is the right choice!"

      I've never gotten a spyware infestation, even though I used IE until last year. Nothing about MacOS's design makes spyware or viruses inherently any less of a problem than on Windows - blame the browser and the user's behavior, not the OS.

      Look, you claimed Windows isn't nice enough for people to use. The fact that most Windows users don't find it unusable proves otherwise, and I maintain that only a zealot claims Windows isn't nice enough to use. Whether there are better operating systems out there is another debate.

      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    8. Re:Missing the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sounds more like you're just repeating a mantra that you heard from others, which makes you no less "biased" than me. The fact is, OS X really is a better designed operating system, it really is "good engineering" as opposed to Windows which really is sloppy so-called "good enough" engineering.

      Sounds to me like you don't know much about either operating system from a technical level, since other than the typically-stupid sports car analogy that Mac users tend to pull out faster than their wallets for anything with an Apple logo, you have provided no actual information regarding your assertion. Your post is completely devoid of anything resembling a technical analysis, and given the typical Mac user's understanding of their platform or any other, I wouldn't be surprised if that was about as close to a technical argument as you are even capable of.

      P.S. Please tell Apple to stop using SMB with their operating system. Thanks.

    9. Re:Missing the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He baselessly claimed that OS X is "good engineering," while NT is "good enough engineering," and went on to impune your technical capability without even establishing a modicum of knowledge of operating system design. To put it bluntly, any further attempt to reason with him is pointless since he's just going to project his own mental problems onto you.

      "You're just spreading some mantra"
      "Porsche | BMW : Ugo :: Mac OS : Windows"
      "MacOS X is good engineering, while Windows is not" ...

      You know the Mac zealot bullet points. It's impossible not to, since they come to every forum on the Internet and spew them out to exercise their sense of superiority that stems entirely from the image associated with a material possession. You know how the conversation ends. It doesn't end well.

    10. Re:Missing the point by dustmite · · Score: 1

      Hate to break it to you, but you're way past "Joe Public" there .. you're selling mostly to geeks/gamers etc., who are mostly relatively non-technical (i.e. not programmers/engineers) but are still relatively "hardcore" (e.g. can put a PC together, install system drivers etc.). That's what, 10% of people? The other 90% outside of that culture honestly really couldn't give a crap about sitting downloading private movie collections via p2p in their free time and recording them to DVDs, blah blah blah, because really, most people do actually have 'better things to do' and don't want to be using the computer when they don't have to. Look further, you'll start seeing these people, trust me. I know it's hard to imagine when you're part of that crowd, but you'll probably start seeing it when you hit the working world.

      BTW, Mac systems do support DVD writers (I think even the Mac Mini does IIRC), digital cameras, big hard disks, in fact everything you've mentioned except the games. (There's also Virtual PC software to run any of your Windows apps, including old Win 3.1 apps, although obviously that won't work for games).

    11. Re:Missing the point by dustmite · · Score: 1

      Replying to yourself now, are you .. shame. Look, I have an engineering degree and over twelve years experience doing c++ (and some assembly language) development mostly on Windows at various levels of the system, from user interface to threads to networking to 3d graphics (OpenGL and Direct3D) amongst other things, have cross-platform application and system driver development experience for Mac, Linux and Windows, so if you want to debate about this academically, go ahead, please, do feel free to point out any of the aspects of the "superior Windows operating system design", so that I can debunk you in as technical, academic, in-depth and "non-zealous" a manner as possible. Or, gee, I could bring up a few retarded aspects of Win32 design, such as the Win16Mutex (global system mutex, really bad idea, race condition nightmares between DirectX and sockets API calls for example), these are mistakes that have not been made in Mac architecture design, these are objective facts and have nothing to do with zealotry, but feel free to go ahead and try debunk facts. If you want to keep calling me a zealot, I will call you on that, and if you can't back up your stance on PCs, I guess that makes you a PC zealot.

    12. Re:Missing the point by MikeFM · · Score: 1

      Mac OS is BSD with a fancy GUI on it. It's not vastly better designed than it's free cousins because it is virtually the same thing in most aspects. It may be more aesthetically pleasing, to some people, but that really varies from person to person. I've used Macs, Windows, Linux, and a bunch of other OSs for years and I've yet to see much in the way of good UI design out of any of them, Windows is just suck ass, Linux (KDE & GNome) has the illness of trying to copy the Windows and Mac OS UIs, and Mac OS likes to make things easier by hiding what's going on and covering it all with rose colored glasses (you'd think we were toddlers and it was our mother). So anyway.. Mac OS is good but it's not THAT good.

      If you're wanting to put a brick through a computer screen it probably means you're tech support and are trying to help a user with their Windows box as they try to figure out why they get infected by a virus everytime they look at kinky-teenage-asian-chicks-with-mutant-barnyard-an imals-from-star-trek.com. ;)

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
    13. Re:Missing the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      PCs just do not fit the bill

      Sorry, that's complete BS. From that statement alone I could guess that you primarily use a Mac.

      I'll stick with the Mac, because I'd actually like to be able to use a computer for more than a few hours straight without wanting to put a brick through the screen.

      One of my home machines has been running without a reboot for three months straight. The other has been on for two weeks, but only because I make a point of turning it off every now and again.

    14. Re:Missing the point by cowbutt · · Score: 1
      the vast majority of people who buy computers really honestly couldn't give a crap about [...] "small form factor".

      Not to diminish your other points, but actually, they do; a few of my married friends have been banned from bringing any more beige boxes into the marital home. ;-]

    15. Re:Missing the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Mac OS is BSD with a fancy GUI on it. It's not vastly better designed than it's free cousins because it is virtually the same thing in most aspects.

      It has the same userland (unix) tools and many parts of the kernel are similiar, yes. What does this mean to the average user, though? Nothing. Sit your grandmother-or-other-older-relative of choice on an OS X -equipped Mac and then on, say, a FreeBSD box with your favourite DE/WM and see how many differences [s]he is able to find.
    16. Re:Missing the point by Kjella · · Score: 1

      They just want a computer that is NICE TO USE and is not overly expensive.
      (...)
      Until someone makes a decent, usable operating system for the PC platform


      How much of what "is" a Mac is the operating system? There's been a decent, usable OS for PCs since Windows 2000. What Windows doesn't have is the equivalent of the i* programs. I don't use any of the Microsoft equivalents (Internet Exploder, Lookout Express, WiMP etc.) and good riddance. If I could run the Mac package on top of Windows, as well as all the Windows programs I'm addicted to, that'd be great.

      Kjella

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    17. Re:Missing the point by vingt · · Score: 1

      some things are just... not quite finished, not very professional, not quite working right. For instance, byzantine, very unintuitive and badly organized config options. For instance, I had to resort to a hack to get her external LG CDRW drive working with iTunes, took hours of research.

      Google is your friend. And iTunes works quite well with the equipment that Apple lists as supported. And then quite well with those that are supported by the hack. But if it's not on the former list, don't disparage Apple for the need for the latter, be grateful to the makers of the patch. Which takes most people about 15 mins** to find, less than two minutes to download, and less than one minute to apply.

      ** I'm trying to give the benefit of the doubt here, but "hours of research"? The first link I get in a Google search on "iTunes support LG burner" nets me a MacFixIt link that points out the answer, one more link away.

      For instance, she lost her master password, or admin password, or root password, or whatever the hell it is - who KNOWS, they've done their best to muddy the distinctions. I guess it's the "main user who has wide ranging admin powers".

      How did she lose her password? It was written down? It got swept under a rug? Eaten by the dog? Where is it now?

      Anyway, when I got this fixed up - basically by putting in the install CD and using a "reset password" feature - the "keychain" was totally screwed up

      Perhaps because the alternative is that anyone with physical access and enough time to reboot would immediately have access to anything and everything that's been deemed important enough to be stored in the Keychain. Those passwords shouldn't be the same anyway, in the interest of good security.

      , every single web page started asking for a keychain password, her email client also. Seems that the OS kept her old, forgotten password in the keychain rather than resetting it as well.

      Ideally, it should have deleted the damned thing upon the forced reset but that's probably overkill for a consumer OS.

      None of these have been examples of "not quite finished, not very professional, not quite working right" features, or even of "byzantine, very unintuitive and badly organized config options". I'm not saying that there aren't such examples but these simply don't illustrate/support your complaint...

    18. Re:Missing the point by emilymildew · · Score: 1

      Decent != superior. Just something to keep in mind.

    19. Re:Missing the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "vastly better designed" as in "slower than anything else"?

      Windows and Linux perform pretty well in 128MB, and zip along in 256. OS X meanwhile is horribly slow in 256 unless you're only running one small app!

    20. Re:Missing the point by DrSlinky · · Score: 1

      Hate to break it to you, but you're way past "Joe Public" there .. you're selling mostly to geeks/gamers etc., who are mostly relatively non-technical (i.e. not programmers/engineers) but are still relatively "hardcore" (e.g. can put a PC together, install system drivers etc.). That's what, 10% of people? The other 90% outside of that culture honestly really couldn't give a crap about sitting downloading private movie collections via p2p in their free time and recording them to DVDs, blah blah blah, because really, most people do actually have 'better things to do' and don't want to be using the computer when they don't have to. Look further, you'll start seeing these people, trust me. I know it's hard to imagine when you're part of that crowd, but you'll probably start seeing it when you hit the working world.

      Maybe your problem is too much time in the working world. I work in a corporate chain electronics store. Open your paper sunday morning, you'll see the company's flier in there.

      Yes, I deal with gamers. I also deal with little old ladies who want to keep in touch with family. I deal with young families, looking for ways to enrich their children's educational development. I deal with poor people who can barely afford a PC, but feel they can't afford to fall behind the rest of society. I deal with the general public. If people who need me to install a dimm or their copy of Norton IS are hardcore, I'd like to see who falls into the novice category.

      BTW, Mac systems do support DVD writers (I think even the Mac Mini does IIRC), digital cameras, big hard disks, in fact everything you've mentioned except the games. (There's also Virtual PC software to run any of your Windows apps, including old Win 3.1 apps, although obviously that won't work for games).

      Yes, as an option. Price just shot up $100. But it's only a 4x drive. Saying Americans don't like the idea of "faster" with a straight face is pretty much impossible. Big hard disks? Not likely. Biggest offered is a 80 gig. Funny that Apple has doesn't feel the need to mention whether it's a 4200 or 5400 rpm drive. Yes Virginia, there is a difference.

      Virtual PC is called "software emulation." It's far from perfect, and definately not the same as using the real thing. And as you said, it doesn't work for games. Try explaining to your 8 year old the virtues of the Mac when they want to play The Sims. But, please, wait for me to finish my soda before telling me that The Sims is a "hardcore" title. I don't want to throw away another keyboard.

  95. Remember the defiled G5 by line-bundle · · Score: 1

    This article reminds me of a previously defiled G5 found at
    http://www.overclockers.com/tips1133/.

    Obscene. (something about failing to learn from history and repeating it).

    1. Re:Remember the defiled G5 by ocelotbob · · Score: 1

      Yes, such a waste of perfectly good hardware. I mean, the nano-itx motherboard deserves a better case than that.

      --

      Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses

  96. Ferraris/Fieros.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, but you don't gut a Porsche first.

  97. Custom vs off-the-shelf by philipsblows · · Score: 1

    If Kevin could start with specs for a PC motherboard and have one built to the proper dimensions, with the proper heat sink and/or fan and clearance for the proper optical drive, would this have been more fair?

    In other words, Apple started out by spec'ing a mobo size (just slightly smaller than mini-itx, as someone already pointed out), and they went from there. If they had to use off-the-shelf G4 PowerPC mobos, would they have come as close as Kevin did?

    At the end of the day, a broad range of formfactors and features is just better for us. If someone comes out with a suitable motherboard for mini-mac-like designs based around x86[-64], we win again.

  98. Wrong by Too+Much+Noise · · Score: 1

    You seem to be missing the point - along with a loty of Mini apologists around here. This was not done to replace the Mini. There's such a thing called the Do It Yourself culture that Apple users will never understand. It's about the satisfaction of doing something with your own hands, the harder the better. Just because from your chair you don't see a point does not mean there's none.

    Yeah, and about the part with it costing more - OF COURSE it costed more. First, he BOUGHT THE MINI. Second, it's ridiculous to compare production costs of a corporation with homebrew assemblies of non-commodity parts (no, I don't think n-ITX will qualify as commodity; for the matter, laptop drives almost don't, either) Apple will buy bulk and get better prices even if you used the same freaking parts, were all of them available.

    Whatever happened to 'news for nerds' - you actually get a story that would qualify and most of the the comments might as well have been 'he should have given me the Mini instead of commiting this sacrilege' Get over yourself, the world is bigger than your computer screen.

    1. Re:Wrong by System.out.println() · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Me: This is just a geek's homebrew project....

      You: You seem to be missing the point...

      --

      Second, it's ridiculous to compare production costs of a corporation with homebrew assemblies of non-commodity parts

      When it was first announced and the first reaction was how cheap it was, the backlash consisted of a lot of "You can built a more powerful system yourself for $200" responses. (that all fell short in one way or another, I might add) Now that the shoe's on the other foot, it's "ridiculous".

      --
      Apple will buy bulk and get better prices even if you used the same freaking parts, were all of them available.

      And then more than make up for it with their profit margins. Your point?

      It's about the satisfaction of doing something with your own hands, the harder the better. Just because from your chair you don't see a point does not mean there's none.

      Hard work done for the sake of hard work is the same as pushing a boulder up a hill. Sure, you might enjoy the exercise. Personally, I'd rather use the crane to move the boulder up and then get my exercise doing something that has more benefit in other areas at the same time.

    2. Re:Wrong by Chanc_Gorkon · · Score: 1

      But what is the point? I am a geek as much as the next Slashdotter, but I see no point in cramming a nITX board and hardware into what used to hold a perfectly good Mac Mini. The Mac Mini is STILL better because it's a complete system where this pointless excercise serves no purpose. Now I DO do some things that my friends at work think are pointless.....like stream music from my PC or Mac to my PDA or streaming video to my PDA from a PC elsewhere in my house. Doing home video editing seems pointless to some people too (especially the ones who have no kids or nieces or nephews). Some people even think ripping every CD I own is pointless but at least all I listed served a purpose. I would spend time to make a nice case because it would serve a purpose.

      --

      Gorkman

    3. Re:Wrong by Mornelithe · · Score: 1

      The point is, he had fun doing it. It was an interesting project for him, even if he failed.

      All the stuff you listed is pointless, too, if you look at a big enough picture. But you, personally, get some enjoyment out of either doing it, or out of what doing it provides.

      Presumably this guy likes tinkering with electronics. If that's the case, then that's the only motivation he needs. Is that really so hard to understand?

      Masturbation is pointless, but that doesn't mean it isn't enjoyable.

      --

      I've come for the woman, and your head.

    4. Re:Wrong by Powercntrl · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      No, I get the point. Kevin Rose is an arrogant, spoiled fuckhead. He could have easily proven whatever profound point he thought he was making by cramming his leet 0-day 'prerelease' motherboard into a cardboard box of the same dimensions as the Mac mini. Then he also could have cheated by making it a bit taller and adding a DVD/CD-RW drive like the real Mac mini.

      Look, PC component manufacturers and people like K.R. can jizz on themselves all day long over the Mac mini's formfactor and still miss the bigger picture. What Apple accomplished was producing a machine that's as easy to use and afford as it is to integrate into your living space. It's more than just some hardware specs crammed into a small case.

      As for what Kevin did being News for Nerds, it's not. You can run VirtualPC or Remote Desktop Connection on OS X and make people think your Mac houses PC hardware without ever cracking the case. It's not as if what he did added any real additional capability to the machine. I find it rather fitting that Kevin's blog is being filled with ponzi scheme spam - it's only natural that garbage attracts maggots.

      --

      ---
      DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
    5. Re:Wrong by Too+Much+Noise · · Score: 1

      Me: This is just a geek's homebrew project...

      so why then bring on the pointless cost comparison? As I said, the guy already paid for the Mini, ALL of the rest was extra cost. As TFA says, he wanted to know how much x86 computing power HE can fit in that particular case[*] He wasn't hunting for a price comparison.

      Now that the shoe's on the other foot, it's "ridiculous".
      [...]
      And then more than make up for it with their profit margins. Your point?


      Maybe you can enlighten me about which shoe is that. Bear in mind that what the guy did was not assemble a PC from standard components, following teh standard recipe - he wanted to fit them in a box for which there's no standard/optimized build procedure. Non-standard means expensive and suboptimal - witness the fact
      that he had to get a pre-release nano-ITX mobo+CPU combo to make it happen, with the side effect of too large a cooler. How does this compare with Apple custom-designing the mobo specifically for the Mini? Answer: it does not.

      My point, if you really need this re-spelled out is: this was not a price comparison - merely someone's curiosity. Your post tried to argue "there's no point" through "there's no financial profit" which in these circumstances is silly.

      Hard work done for the sake of hard work is the same as pushing a boulder up a hill. Sure, you might enjoy the exercise. Personally, I'd rather use the crane to move the boulder up and then get my exercise doing something that has more benefit in other areas at the same time.

      Again, just because you see it that way does not mean that's the only perspective. Unless you personally heard the guy saying "and in the end it was pointless" how is your personal preference of any relevance for the his work's value in this case? All you are saying is "Were I the one to do this, it would have been pointless" So I assume you're not an engineering geek, your curiosity goes in a different direction - fine. But why would that grant you the authority to make value judgements on how someone else applies his curiosity?

      [*] more specifically, for that section area of the case (which is why he went for the VIA mobo, with all that it implied)

    6. Re:Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      There's such a thing called the Do It Yourself culture that Apple users will never understand.

      Hmmm...maybe you should look inside my G5 PowerMac. Apart from the motherboard (sorry, 'logic board') and CPU module, there's not too much original equipment left in there that hasn't been replaced, upgraded or tinkered with.

      Sometimes PC hackers get better jobs and can then afford better computers...but the urge to pull the computer apart and mess with the insides doesn't leave, Apple or not.

    7. Re:Wrong by JDLazarus · · Score: 1

      Hard work done for the sake of hard work is the same as pushing a boulder up a hill. Sure, you might enjoy the exercise. Personally, I'd rather use the crane to move the boulder up and then get my exercise doing something that has more benefit in other areas at the same time.

      This is like saying "cross country mountain biking is pointless, as you can just send an ORV/Dirtbike up the hill and take practically the same ride down." It's simply not the case. If you enjoy doing something, then it is not pointless. You did it because you enjoyed it, wanted to, and - best of all - Because You Could.

  99. IWill ZPC by CoolGuySteve · · Score: 1

    This thing seems more comparable to a Mac Mini in terms of price/performance. While the intel video chipset may suck a lot more, it's not like you'd be playing many 3D games on a Mac anyways. You'd probably have to file off the ugly ass contouring as well to make the IWill look decent.

    I don't work for any of these companies, I was just browsing for something else and thought this was sort of cool.

  100. yep, probably true. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You might be able to fit a PC into the same box later.

    And maybe not, if no one decides to make one.

    But despite all this "ifs" stuff, it's stuff currently "Mac: 1 PC: 0".

  101. Better idea: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not build a cluster of the Mini Macintoshes into a massive pc case, it would be much more useful. Can any one say Mini System X?

  102. A fairer comparison would be: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Find a notebook with a 16.5cm^2 motherboard, and stick that inside.

    That way, he keeps the optical drive, has the 2.5" HD, likely has a P4, Athlon, or Centrino CPU and comparible - if not identical video, and see where that goes.

    Even the cheapest,most crap Dell laptop costs more than the Mac Mini, plus it's got lame-o graphics.

    You get a free but most likely useless LCD screen in the deal, but still.

    I just don't see a way to get that kind of power at that size on the PC side right now. Keep your eye on Sager and Asus.

  103. PC104 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get a PC104 board with a dothan + intel networking chip (centrino) on it.

    Nothing interesting here.

  104. You Are Confused by cmcguffin · · Score: 0

    RISC vs. CISC describe differences in richness of instruction set.

    Given a RISC and CISC machine that runs at the same clock speed, the CISC will provide better performance, becuase it will (in theory) do more with each instruction.

    For example, a CISC archicecture might provide a multiply-add instruction, whereas the RISC archictecture might only provide separate multiply and add instructions.

    In theory, because RISC is "simpler" than CISC, RISC can be made to run at higher clock speeds. But if my CISC Celeron ran at the same clock speed as my RISC PowerPC, the Celeron would likely outperform the PowerPC.

    Your box analogy is (sort of) right for data parallel (e.g., SIMD) operations, such as the PowerPC's altivec. It's not a RISC vs. CISC issue. As proof, note that Intel's MMX/SSE provides similar functionality.

    1. Re:You Are Confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. Simplistically your argument sounds right, but there's actually a lot more at work here. Briefly, CISC architectures make it difficult to schedule instructions efficiently, where the equivalent RISC instructions would be trivial to schedule. Of course, neither x86 nor PowerPC is strictly CISC or RISC anymore, so the entire argument is sort of outdated.

    2. Re:You Are Confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, yeah, my post was certainly an Old School RISC vs. CISC argument. But the parent's assertion that RISC == data parallel was evern more misguided. :)

    3. Re:You Are Confused by Thalagyrt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, you are confused. While it's true that it will do more with each instruction, those instructions will take multiple cycles. In RISC architecture each instruction takes one cycle (with a few exceptions). In CISC, some instructions take up to 5 cycles to complete. Basically, one instruction != one clock cycle.

      --
      Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo!
    4. Re:You Are Confused by mmkkbb · · Score: 1

      the correlation you speak of has no basis in reality. what you describe is closer to a description of pipelining than anything else.

      --
      -mkb
    5. Re:You Are Confused by dustmite · · Score: 1

      It has nothing to do with pipelining, and what he/she said is correct, I think you've missed his/her point; in CISC architectures the number of clock cycles per instruction varies depending on the complexity of the instruction, whereas in "traditional" RISC architectures you had 1 instruction per clock.

      See here for examples: http://www.arl.wustl.edu/~lockwood/class/cs306/res ources/helppc/asm.txt.html. Pipelining only came in on the 586 (i.e. Pentium).

    6. Re:You Are Confused by cbr2702 · · Score: 1
      Pipelining only came in on the 586 (i.e. Pentium).

      Nope. The SPARC 1 had pipelinging as early as 1992. The main problem with it was it did no branch prediction and had no way to flush the pipeline if it went the wrong way. So binaries got much bigger as compilers had to add extra empty instructions after jumps to make sure the chip didn't excecute code on the wrong side of the branch.

      --


      This post written under Gentoo-linux with an SCO IP license.
  105. Almost there by TampaDeveloper · · Score: 1

    Now if Mr. Rose could just get a PC to run OSX, he'd be all set...

    1. Re:Almost there by ocelotbob · · Score: 1
      --

      Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses

  106. -1 Wrong by dustmite · · Score: 1

    I suggest you take your own advice and re-read the GPL, carefully this time, you couldn't be more wrong.

    BTW most useful OpenSource code is LGPL, which allows you to link to the compiled libraries without releasing any of your source code at all.

  107. PC competition for I-Mini MAC? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When MAC announced their "I-Mini" McIntosh, 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 "I-Mini" McIntosh. 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?

    1. Re:PC competition for I-Mini MAC? by iroll · · Score: 0, Troll

      hey trolly, cut and paste is so weak... why not write a new troll from time to time?

      --
      Repetition does not transform a lie into the truth. - FDR
    2. Re:PC competition for I-Mini MAC? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To Whom It May Concern,

      The Mac Mini is a real computer. Be nice to your wife.

    3. Re:PC competition for I-Mini MAC? by valkraider · · Score: 1

      I wonder if he is done copying his 17meg file...

  108. And the point is?! by Anita+Coney · · Score: 1

    To make an even crappier Mini? Less powerful CPU. Less powerful graphics system. No DVD drive. Yep, great job there Kevin!

    --
    If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
  109. PC competition for I-Mini MAC? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When MAC announced their "I-Mini" McIntosh, 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 "I-Mini" McIntosh. To match price I had to configure with a much bigger shuttle-stylecase.

    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?

  110. What a stunning display of ignorance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "The CISC-based Intel/AMD processors are not as efficient at getting work done as the RISC-based PowerPC processors."

    You're so far off the mark, its hard to know where to start.

    Okay, lets start with this...

    There is no such thing as CISC and RISC processors these days. Even the intel compatible chips are RISC based and they emulate the x86 instruction set.

    What you're saying was true, oh around the time the mac had the PPC 603e CPU.

    Second. AMD chips run much slower than Intel chips. Yet they're wicked fast. The AMD Opteron is simply king of the hill right now. They have all the architectural advantages of the G5 (even 64 bit), but they're 40% faster. So AMD is simply king.

    And I have a new G5, but for basic stuff like running PAR's and uncompressing large files, my Dell 3.2ghz P4 simply runs rings around my iMac G5 1.8ghz.

    There is a mhz (or ghz) myth, yes. But with all that said, state of art AMD chips simply are faster than anything the PPC line has right now. Check the benchmarks.

  111. Re:"Nothing for you to see here. Please move along by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That whole girlfriend thing ...

  112. Re:Apparently they never heard of the Cappuccino P by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's abysmally stupid. If I were you, I'd kill me.

  113. He's full of it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think he's as full of it as the guy with the "G5 mod".
    Show us a pic of the back of the mini, cut up with the MB's connector, shot at an angle so we can see the top and side of the mini at the same time.

  114. Re:Apparently they never heard of the Cappuccino P by johnny6vasquez · · Score: 1


    I've owned a pIII-1000MHz Cappuccino since 2001 (I now have a second one) and most noticeable difference to the Mac Mini is the fan noise. There is a very small fan that cools a copper heatsink over the desktop processor mounted inside the Cappuccino. Due to the size constraints of the case, they move the required volume of air to cool the desktop CPU by having a fan with high rpms. High rpms of the fan make it sound like a hairdryer going off on your desk.

    The sound really gets to you after a while, it's a very high-pitched whine that carries and is hard to drown out. I ended up hiding the unit behind a couch and making a sound baffle for it because it was so loud. Eventually I got a laptop that is way quieter. I'm still glad I got the Cappuccino because it was perfect for what I needed it for: using with my monitor at home, chucking in my courier bag for my bike ride to work, and then using with my monitor there. Also, at the time it was way faster than any laptop available and had the added bonus of being cheaper.

    I just wish they'd included the earplugs.

  115. google lists 5900+ suckers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    shows there is a sucker (typically dumb greedy Americans as the scam is only available in USA) born every minute

    http://www.google.com/search?q=link%3A+www.freemin imacs.com

    1. Re:google lists 5900+ suckers by LocoSpitz · · Score: 1

      Following that link gives me this advice from Google:

      Did you mean: link: www.freemenpics.com

      Hmm...

  116. Re:Apparently they never heard of the Cappuccino P by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    I wouldn't want the crappy keyboard dell gives you anyways. Those just end up in the trash in about 2 days around here. Apple has saved me the effort of throwing away a junky stock keyboard.

    A super low-end LCD for "free" is kinda neat though. Not that I'd use it on the system, it might be fun to plug into the router or playstation.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  117. He tried to..hahah...he tried..haha by zoid.com · · Score: 1

    What the hell .. he tried to ruin a $500 piece of art by inserting a $200 piece of crap. Why would anyone ever do such a thing? I smoked my last cigarette on Dec 31, 2004 and I used my last Windows based PC on Jan 15, 2005. I'm not sure which one makes me feel better. The Mac Mini has put the fun back into computing. Almost like the first time I played with a palm. Well worth the $500.

  118. Not even close... by MerlinTheWizard · · Score: 0

    Unfortunately, this is a sad joke. It doesn't come even close to the Mac Mini's computing power (the 1.42GHz G4 processor is much, much faster than the Via C3 1GHz, which, for a lack of a better word, sucks); the items required don't even ship yet (the nano itx motherboard), and when they do, it's going to be very expensive. Then the graphics card in the Mac Mini is much more powerful than the integrated graphics controller on the Via board, which is barely adequate for very basic use. Apple is a heck of a lot ahead of time for now. Everyone who has toyed with the idea of making the smallest PC computer possible will have to agree. There is just no PC motherboard yet which can fit the bill. Not to talk about cooling, which would be way to huge to fit in a small box like this and get the same amount of processing power than a 1.4 GHz G4. I'm constantly looking for that rare beast, but it's never coming. I thought the new BTX standard would get us closer to it, but no! The micro-BTX size is even larger than a micro-ATX. VIA has nice stuff, but it really lacks of processing power and I just don't see it going anywhere in the long run.

  119. Pioneer 106s/120s by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He could use Pioneer 106s/120s as a basis for the DVDROM drive.

  120. Why the fuss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apple managed to put an old G4 into a new case. Ohh Wow, the wonders of innovation never cease.

    Do these people go apeshit about those Ataris or C64s inside a joystick as well?

    1. Re:Why the fuss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I know, IHBT, but in case you didn't notice, the Mac mini is:

      1. About the same size as a mini-ITX PC.
      2. Cheaper than a comparable mini-ITX PC.
      3. More powerful than a comparable mini-ITX PC.
      4. Prettier than a comparable mini-ITX PC.

      That's pretty fucking impressive. It makes the Mac mini a very attractive choice for those who want a Linux-running server or media-center PC.

    2. Re:Why the fuss by game+kid · · Score: 1

      If you never posted this I would've never seen Looking Glass. I can imagine that hotness running smoothly on a Mac Mini too...after I drool over the OS X GUIs.

      --
      You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
  121. Mini comes with S-video adapter by xtermin8 · · Score: 2, Informative

    The mini comes with an S-Video/composite adapter, a TV-out adapter for a little extra, just like their laptops.

    1. Re:Mini comes with S-video adapter by vranash · · Score: 1

      It's really just an iBook G4 sans the screen/touchpad/keyboard, be a nice little box to run as a linux server if you dropped in an 80 or 100 gig drive :)

    2. Re:Mini comes with S-video adapter by CableModemSniper · · Score: 1

      Really? It DEFINITLY comes with the S-Video adapter out of the box? Excellent. I was worrying about having to buy one.

      --
      Why not fork?
    3. Re:Mini comes with S-video adapter by nuggetman · · Score: 1

      No, it's an extra $19 investment
      Have one for my powerbook
      works great

      --
      ...and that's all there is to it.
    4. Re:Mini comes with S-video adapter by CableModemSniper · · Score: 1

      I thought I was gonna have to pay for it, but the great-grandparent filled me with hopes that you just dashed. *tear*

      --
      Why not fork?
    5. Re:Mini comes with S-video adapter by Golias · · Score: 1

      It comes with a DVI-VGA adapter, so if you have a VGA-S adapter lying around, you're golden.

      If not, your dream of $499 OS X on the TV set have been dashed, and you will be forced to pony up a whopping $518.

      Then again, if the slashbots are to be believed, you need to add 1 GB of memory and cluster it with three more of them just to "make it useful" anyway.

      (Hint: When Mac's were shipping with 128 MB, everybody on Slashdot was insisting you "need" at least 256 MB to run OS X at all, and that was not true either. OS X has gotten better about memory use with each .x revision, not worse. You can run it just fine at 128, better at 256, and avoid disk swapping entirely at 512. If you run a lot of memory-pig apps at once, there's a speed advantage to going up to a GB as well, but for the typical lightweight user who only wants to browse the web, listen to MP3 files, do e-mail, etc., the 256 MB base config is plenty.)

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    6. Re:Mini comes with S-video adapter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually... the Mac Mini logic board is based on the eMac board, not the iBook.

  122. Why dont people understand default pages? by sublimespot · · Score: 1

    when will people learn that the whole point of having an index page (index.php) is that you DO NOT need to show it on the URL. Since it is the default page, it is implied and you do not need to show it

    ex: http://www.kevinrose.com/index.php
    becomes: ex: http://www.kevinrose.com/

    or with parameters...

    ex: http://www.kevinrose.com/index.php?option=value
    b ecomes: http://www.kevinrose.com/?option=value

    I dont mean to pick on Kevin because I see this on most major websites around the net.

    1. Re:Why dont people understand default pages? by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

      actually index.html is the index page.

    2. Re:Why dont people understand default pages? by BlacKat · · Score: 1

      Actually servers can be configured to use ANY name as an index page, or get this... even more then one with priorities!

      So you could specify "index.php index.html", for example, in the server configuration and it would look for the .php file first, and if not found look for the .html file.

      As long as the server is configured correctly you do NOT need to specify the index document as it is added automatically by the server. ;)

    3. Re:Why dont people understand default pages? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OTOH, when posting a link to /., it might be a good idea to specify the document in the URL. Let's say the admin specified "index.html index.htm default.html index.php", it will look for index.html first, then index.htm, and so on until it hits an existing document. By specifying the existing document at once, you may save the webserver from doing a little extra work - and when the /. horde attacks the server, it may actually make a difference.

  123. You're on the road to hell, boyo by jet_silver · · Score: 2, Interesting

    That's why I bought my iBook, and because of the iBook I bought a MDD G4. Hell, I figured OSX was just a curiosity, and I ran OpenBSD on the iBook for a while, but then... I had to try OSX... and got hooked. If you start right out with OSX you'll be amazed, like I was when IPhoto recognized my camera without configuring -anything-. That's what did it for me.

  124. I noticed those as well... by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    I was on eBay the other day to see how much new Mac mini's were going for - and found onl one Mac mini for sale, but seemingly thirty or fourty offers for "inof on free Mac minis"!!

    Worse than that is that some of the item descriptions are really deceptive and lead you to think you're bidding on a real Mac mini. eBay buyers are pretty much staying away in droves though.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:I noticed those as well... by generic-man · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That probably has something to do with the fact that the Free Mac Mini ads specifically say "DO NOT BID! JUST CLICK MY LINK ALREADY!"

      eBay can't be making much money off these listings (since they don't get to extract a Final Value Fee) and they're in violation of the Gratis Internet terms of service. I really wish eBay would crack down on these listings which pollute its service.

      --
      For more information, click here.
    2. Re:I noticed those as well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's really irritating is that some people clearly don't read the full item descriptions and bid these listings up to $30 or more! If people read carefully (as one always should on eBay), there would be no problem. I don't mind people selling links for $0.01 or whatever; just because something can be found for free doesn't mean it shouldn't be sold. I do have a problem with people bidding these things up and getting ripped off; it would be nice if they made all of their "link auctions" buy it now only to discourage naive people from cheating themselves.

  125. Mac Mini v2? by lux55 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    1. Re:Mac Mini v2? by Farrside · · Score: 1

      That picture made my chest constrict, making it hard to breathe and leading to me feeling faint.
      How the hell is that guy going to get OUT of there?!?
      Yuck.

  126. ITS NOT OFF THE SHELF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Off the shelf? Since when is a yet-unreleased ITX board an off-the-shelf component?

  127. I don't want to start a holy war here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...but you're a fucking moron, and I hope your wife divorces you when you don't give her what she asks for. Or at least gives the mailman a mice mouth hug while you're at work.

  128. Who said this quote? by Snap+E+Tom · · Score: 1

    "This is like listening to the Beatles sing an Oasis song."

    Because I think this quote is very appropriate right now.

  129. Always important by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Having a small computer has always been a goal for a lot of people. For me I've always had a laptop (because I value the compact size and ability to move) and was just about to buy a mini ITx box as I wanted a decent HTPC.

    Then the Mac mini came out. It offers a desktop that people can really move around the house or take other places easily, kind of the poor-mans laptop that you can only carry where you get video. The overall sales of laptops indicates that a lot of other people value small and perhaps the mini is a desktop some people would consider that would otherwise be getting a laptop.

    I'm sorry you are unimpressed with OS X, I suggest you give it a little time, or sell it on eBay for a handsome profit. What exactly do you find "stupid" about it?

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  130. Strong Bad's Rhythm 'n' Grammar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey DUMBASSES! The possessive of "it" is "its", not "it's".

  131. Not yet by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    I probably have some friends I could stand to trade in, but as of yet my self-respect is still worth more than $500. :-)

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Not yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about your soul? Once you've joined the ranks of the cookie-cutter Mac zealots, surely you won't need it!!

    2. Re:Not yet by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      I wonder if Microsoft would buy it, I hear they are collecting souls. Satan's work you know.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  132. sounds right to me by denisonbigred · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Hmmm, lets see. With OS X we already have a workable model available for purchase. With Windows, we have to rely on a guy 'working in his lab with spare parts.' Sounds like Apple 1, PC 0 to me... for now.

    --

    "There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals."
    1. Re:sounds right to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OTOH, you can buy a "normal" full-power 3 slot minitower PC for a reasonable price, where Apple's starts at $1500 and you couldn't buy the spare parts even if you wanted to.

      As long as cheap machines == bizarro form factor at Apple, the final score is PC 98%, Apple 2%.

    2. Re:sounds right to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As long as cheap machines == bizarro form factor at Apple, the final score is PC 98%, Apple 2%

      What exactly is it you'd want to add to a mini that its form factor does not support? Please enlighten us, because afaik, between the combination of the firewire and usb ports it will take any functional customization you might want.

  133. Who? Just about anyone wanting a new computer by SuperKendall · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Sure a lot of Apple fans will buy one (though I've not ordered one). But that was most of the sales the first few days.

    Since then the wait for a new order is still quite long, so many people do seem to be ordering them.

    So who would buy a Mac MINI?

    People wanting new computers and tried of PC's. People wanting new computers that already have bits (like monitors) but don't want to spend a lot. People with laptops that would like a backup computer. People who want a computer in the entertainment center.

    There are a lot of people that can see a reason to buy a Mac mini. And it's cheap enough that a lot of people figure "why not?".

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  134. You're all taking this too seriously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "So, I decided to take it upon myself to create the fastest PC possible with the size constraints of the mini's small form factor."

    You're all taking this far too seriously and missing the point of the whole excersize, he was just trying to see how fast a PC in this experiment (yes, it's an experiment, not an entry into a "World's Fastest Computer" competition) he could get in the size of the Mac Mini - a goal he initially achieved.

    Sure, mhz for mhz the Mini Mac is more powerful than the PC board crammed into it's shell, and that's not surprising given that the Mac was specifically designed to be that small and include the optical drive, the PC mainboard used in this expeirment is a prototype of an off-the-shelf mainboard you can put into whatever you want, with almost any PCI card or drive(s) you want.

    Lighten up, guys! Computers are inevitably going to get smaller and faster, these are still the early days.

  135. CD ripping is I/O bound nowadays by tepples · · Score: 3, Informative

    They also rip audio CDs to MP3s at nearly the same rate.

    I/O bound! I/O bound! No Compact Disc Digital Audio ripper will go much past 48x max (really about 36x over the entire surface of the disc) because a drive that spins the CD much faster than that will break it.

    The only negative is the total GHz for PPC CPUs available is lower.

    Which can translate to lower current drain and thus a lower electric bill.

  136. Now THIS is marketing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    VIA people must be in serious back-patting mode

    either that or he is a corporate whore...or both

  137. Decoder die size by tepples · · Score: 1

    The CISC/RISC divide stopped being such a big deal with the release of the original Pentiums because they decoded CISC instructions into RISC-like internal instructions, allowing them most of the same advantages.

    Not exactly. About half the non-cache die area of a modern Pentium or Athlon CPU is spent on the various stages of decoding and scheduling i386 bytecode, and the smaller set of general-purpose registers of i386 (8) vs. ARM (15) or PPC (31) introduces more loads and thus more data hazards for instructions after a load. A simpler instruction set could make the decoder smaller, thus decreasing total die size and making the CPU cheaper to build (higher yield) and cheaper to run (less current drain), or allowing more space for L2 cache.

    1. Re:Decoder die size by ArbitraryConstant · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Not exactly. About half the non-cache die area of a modern Pentium or Athlon CPU is spent on the various stages of decoding and scheduling i386 bytecode"

      Perhaps with the original Pentiums, but it's much smaller than that now.

      There's also disadvantages to RISC; binaries tend to be bigger (x86 has variable sized instructions) and that uses up some of the larger cache that RISC chips tend to have. Also, the really highly performing RISC chips spend a LOT of die space on scheduling instructions (G5 is a good example of this).

      Evidence is strong that x86 chips are competitive in terms of power consumption and performance. For example, the strongest mobile processor is currently the Pentium M, which uses less power than G4s and performs almost as well as desktop processors. Opterons are comparable to G5s for server tasks. POWER scales to much bigger machines, but machines that big are quite rare.

      Except for a very few areas, one should choose a platform based on other criteria (you like MacOS better, you need to use Windows specific software, etc).

      --
      I rarely criticize things I don't care about.
    2. Re:Decoder die size by cosmo7 · · Score: 1, Funny

      There's also disadvantages to RISC; binaries tend to be bigger (x86 has variable sized instructions) and that uses up some of the larger cache that RISC chips tend to have.

      Also PowerPC processors are big-endian, so they need more space to store things. Motorola tried to compensate for this by adding L2 cash - a special kind of rebate when you buy the processor. They also introduced out-of-order execution which means that even when the processor is broken it still works.

    3. Re:Decoder die size by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also PowerPC processors are big-endian, so they need more space to store things. Motorola tried to compensate for this by adding L2 cash - a special kind of rebate when you buy the processor. They also introduced out-of-order execution which means that even when the processor is broken it still works.

      You are clueless. Please mark parent post as Troll.

    4. Re:Decoder die size by ArbitraryConstant · · Score: 1

      "Also PowerPC processors are big-endian, so they need more space to store things. Motorola tried to compensate for this by adding L2 cash - a special kind of rebate when you buy the processor. They also introduced out-of-order execution which means that even when the processor is broken it still works."

      This is probably a troll, but for the record:

      That is absoloutely not the case. Motorola added the large L2 cache primarily because of the slow bus.

      Also, big and little-endian architechtures take up the same amount of space for a value of a given size. They just pack the bits in different orders.

      Also, everyone has out-of-order execution, and all it does is reorder instructions to run more efficiently.

      --
      I rarely criticize things I don't care about.
    5. Re:Decoder die size by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a joke. Laugh. At the very least ignore it. Geez.

  138. An Idea by RavenChild · · Score: 1

    He could install osX in PearPC and request repair for it "running slow".

  139. Give me a break... by Agram · · Score: 1
    People who hate Windows, don't want to get caught up in the learning curve or zealotry of Linux, and have been waiting for an inexpensive Mac to become available.
    Right. You just forgot to add: ...and people who really want to get caught up in the zealotry of Apple.

    Seriously though, if you tend to burst from your personal bias and yet you want to appear at least somewhat objective, then my suggestion would be to try to put at least some effort into doing so. Otherwise you'll just end-up sounding stupid.

    Cheers!

    1. Re:Give me a break... by dswensen · · Score: 1

      Actually, I own and operate Windows, Apple and Linux machines. I like OS X a lot, and am not ashamed of it, but neither do I belong to their cult.

      Seriously though, if you want to troll, then my suggestion would be to try to put at least some effort into doing so. Otherwise you'll just end-up sounding stupid.

      Cheers!

    2. Re:Give me a break... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After all, anyone who dares suggest that OS X is in any respect better-looking, more stable, or more user-friendly than the other well-known desktop operating systems is automatically a Mac zealot.

    3. Re:Give me a break... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks like he got you to bite.

      Cheers!

    4. Re:Give me a break... by IdntUnknwn · · Score: 1

      When one makes statements about objectivity, it would be very wise to appear objective yourself. Otherwise you'll just end up sounding stupid.

    5. Re:Give me a break... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, he can really sit back and smile at a day well-spent. What a clever fellow.

    6. Re:Give me a break... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think his post was more a rebuttal of your "zealotry of Linux" point. As a Windows user I get preached at by both sides, but the Mac zealots are far worse than their Linux counterparts.

  140. Funniest line in the article by b-baggins · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The heat sink was too large for the case...

    I'll bet that thing sounded like a wind tunnel when you turned it on.

    --
    You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
  141. Celeron != G4-Sparc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Where would that be? Primarily in graphics. However, for your average multiuser system, CISC is a better idea."

    Sparc still kicks ass.

    Besides this whole conversation is silly. There use to be a clear distinction between RISC and CISC. But not anymore. CISC has some RISC features. And RISC has some CISC features.

  142. Tinkering is not lame by Party+Remover · · Score: 1

    Lame tinkerers with way too much time

    I'll bet someone once characterized a young Leonardo daVinci in that manner...

  143. Car analogies rarely work, however... by TheLittleJetson · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I think of Apple as more closely matched to BMW. It's a brand whose primary goal is to build a reliable piece of hardware that is enjoyable to use. It's easy to form an opinion about it, but until you get behind the wheel/screen, you just won't get it Much like BMW, Apple has recently put a lot of effort into aesthetics, and therefore the brand has been making its way into the "luxury" market, while keeping its core goals (quality, enjoyable use) intact.

    BMW's aren't the fastest cars on the road, but they're still plenty fast. Anyone with some mechanical skill can turbocharge a Dodge Neon or something and end up with more bang-for-the-buck, but it's just not the same.

    ...now that that analogy is wearing thin, let me address a couple points...

    I'd be surprised if we don't see a PC variant with better specs within a few months. -- Me too! Apple always has a bunch of companies rushing to implement a knock-off of it's current design. (I'm not saying that Apple never takes other peoples ideas, I'm simply saying that when they announce something big/cool, other companies copy it in droves. There are too many examples to list, but here's a few: System7, iPod, Titanium PowerBook, etc.)

    Other than the SFF community who are they targeting? Are most Mac/PC users going to give up significant amounts of horsepower to save a couple inches of space? -- I don't think the Mac mini is meant to be the fastest, most upgradable machine they have. In fact, I would speculate that most people buying a Mac mini are buying it as a second computer. I think it has 2 target markets, one of which is more important than the others:
    • The important one: non-mac users who are flirting with the idea of switching. Maybe they use Macs at work or school, and a PC at home. Perhaps they have an iPod and iTunes, and enjoy the experience, and want iPhoto, iMovie, iEtc. I think this is the critical target group, because this is like training wheels for the switch to Mac. If they like the Mac experience, they may end up switching, or if they don't divorce the PC, at least they could become a long term Apple customer, possibly buying more Apple products in the future. For this group, processor speed isn't all that important. This computer is just to organize their photos, music, and "digital life". Since the price of entry is so low, it's hard for these folks to say no at this point.
    • The other group: those who want a net-appliance. Anyone who may have bought a Cobalt Qube is probably eyeing the Mac mini right now. A set-top box, a home router/server, etc. It's good for little projects like that. Again, processor speed isn't as important as it would be in other applications.


    ...they are going to produce their own set top box or game console... -- Apple has a nasty habbit of coming up with ideas a few years before the market is ripe for it. The video game console is no different: at one point they planned to release the Pippin, which was somewhere between an XBOX and WebTV as far as featureset.... I don't think this ever made it into production.
    1. Re:Car analogies rarely work, however... by MikeFM · · Score: 1

      I've never especially had the feel that Apple was an innovator. They, like Microsoft, follow behind the bleeding edge and repackage and sell the slightly 'done' technology. The big difference is that Apple sees technology as a medium for expressing beauty whereas Microsoft sees technology as a medium for making bucks.

      Likewise SFF computers have existed for a long time and some are even smaller than the Mac Mini. The SFF market would have gone where the Mac Mini is leading even if the Mac Mini hadn't came to market. So other companies aren't just copying the Apple product. They're copying the same products Apple is copying. Only Apple does such a good job that other companies have to compete with them so they have to borrow some of the features and style that Apple has. So, (whew!) yes, companies are copying Apple but Apple is not leading the pack either. Apple doesn't invent the product, Apple is redefining the product wherever it goes.

      I'm sure the Mac Mini will sell. To those you listed as well as others. I just don't see it having a sizable target market. Which makes me wonder why they bothered. I think they have something more up their sleeve and THAT is what I'm really interested in.

      Maybe Pippin never made it into a product line but that doesn't mean the ideas behind it were forgotten. Apple could reinvent the console now and I think the market is ripe for it. They could seriously challenge the XBox with a Net-aware set-top Mac that was iPod friendly. I'm still thinking they might use the Cell CPU like the Playstation 3 (possibly even being PS3 compatible) and that they could make a good deal by getting Nintendo to release it's trademark games for their platform. Apple has enough style to breakthrough into non-gamer markets. Sony would benefit from licensing technology and strengthening the support of the PS3 (why sell a loss-leader like a PS3 when you can license PS3 Inside to others). Nintendo would benefit from not being squished out of the market by Sony and Microsoft. A console that came with iTunes and that would run the huge library of game titles Sony and Nintendo could bring to offer.. it could crush the XBox.

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
    2. Re:Car analogies rarely work, however... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I think of Apple as more closely matched to BMW.


      Thanks for the analogy! I was going to get a Mac, but now I don't because I don't like Germans and I don't want some company that benefited from Nazi slave labor getting my money.

    3. Re:Car analogies rarely work, however... by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      I think it has 2 target markets

      You missed a market. Clueless users with family for tech support. How many people on Slashdot provide free tech support for their extended family? How many are sick of supporting Windows? How many think it is worth $500 just so that they don't have to waste any more time cleaning up viruses and spyware?

      I imagine mac minis will be christmas and birthday gifts for a number of fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts, etc. It is a cheap way for Mac users to evangelize the platform and reduce their wasted support time.

    4. Re:Car analogies rarely work, however... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The video game console is no different: at one point they planned to release the Pippin, [theapplecollection.com] which was somewhere between an XBOX and WebTV as far as featureset.... I don't think this ever made it into production.

      It did make it to production. Bandai made them, and I purchased one off eBay for the hell of it. It was, however, a mediocre over-priced machine, and I just used it to have some fun. That is, I installed different ROMs, and hacked a bootable MacOS 7 CD-ROM, and installed a SCSI (yes, it was using SCSI) HDD. I also had to hack together a keyboard/controller combo because they used a different connector as the ADB, although electrically it was the same thing. Apple has had some way-too-early concepts that didn't make it in the market, but PiPPiN wasn't one of them. The PiPPiN was an utter failure, and lacked a whole lot of key features. For one, the HDD was never made into a product. It could be hacked on, but there was no product to be bought. (There was, however, a Floppy Drive. It also never had network connectivity, although it could have atleast had AppleTalk.) The software (e-mail and Netscape 1.x browser) was a joke, down right humiliating to use. The great features it DID have, were irrelevant to the target group. I'm not sure how this all happened, but I get this hunch that Bandai butchered it, or Apple and Bandai weren't looking at the same goals and ended up with a half-assed compromise.

    5. Re:Car analogies rarely work, however... by TheLittleJetson · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you're totally right. The $500 OS X machine is definately an attractive sell, and easy to convince others to buy.

      It also occured after my post, how the Mac mini is much like the G4 cube, only with a more realistic business plan. The G4 cube was a horrid failure because it was more expensive than the equivalent G4 tower. People like portability and a small footprint, even enough to sacrifice some speed or expandability -- but not if they have to pay more for it.

  144. Totally correct! by apharov · · Score: 1

    You are quite right about this. I have built a few different prototype systems using VIA ~1GHz CPU's (I work at an embedded system development company) and usually they achieve about the same average speed (VIA processors are better at some things and poorer at others) as a PIII 600 or a new Celeron of similar clock speed. Having a special feature for encryption is of course nice _if_ you really need it but useless most of the time. Overall ultra low voltage Celerons and Pentium M's have more performance/Watt, which is what really counts when there must not be any moving parts in the system and heatsinking must therefore be structural.

    Also, as other people have stated before me putting a nanoITX into the Mac Mini case is really stupid feature-wise. Apple has probably spent quite a lot of R&D money to produce such a compact and powerful unit, it is really in an altogether different class than some hobbyist hacks.

  145. Re:Detailed Instructions... [-100: troll] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're right; it should have been modded Funny.

    I wonder if it's the dirth of software for the Mac that leaves Apple users with nothing better to do than take up the sword and shield against every forum on the Internet.

  146. ha ha, the obligatory troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As soon as I saw the article I knew I'd see one of these. It's actually kinda on-topic here though!

  147. Re:Apparently they never heard of the Cappuccino P by Arcady13 · · Score: 1

    Add irda and parallel? Why not add an 8 inch floppy drive and a punchcard reader? Apple already dropped parallel in 1984, and last shipped a Mac with irda in 2001. Why would they add such outdated crap back on? And what do you really need a serial port for?

  148. Yeah, but its the typical Mac-fanboi argument by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Let me start off by saying I own a powerbook, 4 iMac's (one of them a G5), and I'm going to buy another PB when Apple gets its act in gear and puts a G5 in it. I recommend people get Macintoshes, particularly people who don't like "playing", they just want to do some work with their computer.

    Mac fanatics will always say "There is a myth of megahertz" when challenged on the relative speed of PC's versus Macs. Which sounds like a fine argument, but when you point out something that is real and verifiable (i.e. Photoshop on a PC is faster than Photoshop on a Mac), then they fall back on the "Well, speed isn't everything, we just want to get stuff down, and Windows sucks".

    Pick your argument.

    I personally tell most clueless users that "Consumer Reports recommends a Mac, and here's a copy of the article".

    That's enough.

    If someone says to me "Well, PC's are better, cheaper, faster", I say "You're right. Go buy a PC".

    Honestly, as soon as some geek fanboi says "...the megahertz myth...", I already put them in the "f*cking clueless" box where you pay no more attention to that person.

    1. Re:Yeah, but its the typical Mac-fanboi argument by midknight32 · · Score: 1

      *shrug*

      There definitely are some aspects where PC's aren't faster even at significantly higher clock speeds.

      One very recent example... I was using both my athlonXP 1500 (running at over 1.3GHz) and my powerma G4/400 (sawtooth/AGP) to rip a bunch of my CD's this last weekend. Both were using iTunes at the same setting, and the XP machine had a faster system bus, memory and CD-ROM drive.

      Yes, I know, iTunes may not be as optimized for Windows as it is for Mac OS X (though after several generations of iTunes for windows I don't think there's that much a difference anymore) and doubling/tripling the clock speed doesn't mean twice as fast a computer due to the various performance bottlenecks, and this is hardly scientific (though I did have a large, fairly random sample base) but...

      ...The 400 MHz G4 not only kept up with the 1.3GHz WinXP machine insofar as encoding speed, but regularly was slightly faster. Most of this was due to the better vector processor, granted, but still.....

  149. Is the mini really that cheap? by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 1
    I saw the "$499" mini, and I was thinking, what the heck, I'll get one, might be nice to go with the other 6 Linux/Windows "PC" machines I have...

    So I went to the Apply web site and first off, you click on the $599 version, because who doesn't want a faster CPU and more hard disk.

    Then I click on a few other essentials, like bluetooth, wireless lan, a keyboard and a mouse, a modest memory upgrade, then... gee this is $1000!

    And it still doesn't have a monitor.

    For me, that moved it from the toy-to-play-with category to the who-cares category right away.

    But I am rambling.

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    1. Re:Is the mini really that cheap? by wootest · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Completely missing the point. Show me a small form factor PC - I still think shuttles are small, and they seem to be really popular by now - with all your *essentials*. Bluetooth, WiFi/802.11/wireless, DVD/CD-RW, USB2, Firewire, keyboard, mouse, 'modest memory upgrades' and all. Does it come out below $1000? It just doesn't work the same way for small form factor computers as it does with ordinary desktop boxes. What's great about it isn't that it comes without keyboard, mouse, monitor and an amount of memory that doesn't suck. What's great about it is that it's cheap enough so that you can get it now and upgrade at least parts of it later on. You know, the stuff that people have been asking of Apple for ages. And that it's small. It's the perfect Mac to 'mod' into something else. Buy a few of them for your software business and use them as build farms - Xcode has built-in distributed building. With external USB2 and Firewire devices, it can morph into stuff like file servers or media centers. And there's already people mounting it into cars and doing cheap dedicated hosting ("condos") with whole racks of the thing.

    2. Re:Is the mini really that cheap? by bwy · · Score: 1

      What's great about it isn't that it comes without keyboard

      Speaking of, does anybody know what key on a Win32 USB keyboard would automatically be mapped to the "Apple" key by OS X?

      I've been wondering about that for a bit. Obviously any mouse will work- but I've never tried any old keyboard.

    3. Re:Is the mini really that cheap? by wootest · · Score: 1

      I think that the Windows key maps to Command/Apple. The placement's a bitch, because Alt is to the direct left of space bar on Windows keyboards and in between Ctrl and Command on Apple keyboards. There are tools, such as uControl, that enables you to remap this, however.

  150. and now for my next trick... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i'll be gutting an iPod and sticking a Zen mp3 player inside...

  151. That familiar fanboi refrain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    "And everyone knows you need a 1.5 GHz processor to run notepad.exe."

    Ah, the old "Well, my computer is fast enough" argument. Stupid argument. Faster is always better in computers. Always. Its better for gaming. Its better for computation. Its better for pretty much anything.

    "My guess is a 1.42GHz G4 would hold up pretty well against a 1.5GHz Centrino especially if they have the 2MB L3."

    No no no. As a fanboi, use this argument first, and when people point out that a 1.5Ghz centrino will run comparable applications significantly faster than a 1.4ghz G4, THEN, and only THEN you use the "well, my computer is fast enough" argument.

    I mean, both arguments are bullshit, but at least get them in a logical order.

  152. Re:Apparently they never heard of the Cappuccino P by oPless · · Score: 1

    Let's also not forget the PSUs they supply with those PCs (at least the UK specced ones) are a complete waste of time, and fail fairly rapidly, and consitantly.

  153. These Pee Cee morons just don't get it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's the point? You still have the friggin virus's, malware, adware, crap ware, shit ware and its still a FRIGGIN PEE CEE!!!

    The Mac does so many things a Pee Cee can't do.

    WHY CAN'T THESE MORONS JUST ADMIT THE MAC IS THE SUPERIOR PLATFORM???

  154. Re:Detailed Instructions... [-100: troll] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Touche! You got me there.

    It's spelled dearth, by the way.

  155. MikeFM, the idiot of computer users by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What a dill weed. How about Pee Cee's are the VW of computing and the Mac is the Porsche... The mini can be used anwywhere, for kids, wives, home entertainment, 2nd or 3rd computer...
    Think.. Why would anyone want a Pee Cee with adware, shareware, malware, shitware, crapware, virus's, etc....

  156. WARNING: Phishing Sites! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WARNING: www.freeipod.com referrs one to sign up for an eBay account. I those sites are phisher scams in disquise.

  157. The guts of a Mac mini by bonch · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Anyone whose taken apart their mini to upgrade has already seen how remarkably simple and elegant (the classic Mac elitist term, but it applies) the innards are. It's a tight fit, and yet the mini compares performance-wise with any other iBook G4 released last year. I use the 1.42Ghz model with 512MB of RAM, and it is speedier than my somewhat equivalent giant PC tower (the look of which suddenly became obsolete the very day the Mac mini was revealed...it's sad to see the tiny white Mac mini sitting on top of a giant, ugly gray tower from Gateway). I actually use the mini to do multitrack recording at 24-bit/96kHz through Logic Express, and it handles it fine. It's also a blast to program with, even for making UNIX apps if you want to.

    You start to wrap your head around it more easily when you start realizing it's really an iBook without the keyboard and LCD, but the fact it's even smaller than a laptop blows your mind. Trying to put a PC in such a size failed--he couldn't even include the CD drive. The mini really is an entire home computer in a tiny box, but the real trick is that it actually doesn't suck. That's what seperates it from the rest--it's a real, usable computer that takes up less space than my laptop yet doesn't suck.

    1. Re:The guts of a Mac mini by BancBoy · · Score: 1

      I thought it was an eMac without the CRT, not an iBook without the LCD...

      --
      [UID-HeinzIntel]
  158. Mac-stercard by Gamefreak99 · · Score: 1

    Old Computer: $300
    Linux: ~$.10 (cd and internet)
    Throwing out your computer because Linux drives you insane: -$300.10

    Some people can use Linux, for everyone else there's Macintosh.

  159. Missed the Point by Mark_MF-WN · · Score: 1

    You missed the point. He was trying to demonstrate the value of the iMac Mini, by showing what a comparably sized PC would be like (eg: not good). So he perfectly achieved his point.

  160. What's wrong with that? by game+kid · · Score: 1

    I meant definition 3. Granted that Kevin Rose didn't just change software but a whole board and architecture (and granted again that it was toward Windows from Mac and x86 from PPC/whatever Apple use now), but it's sad that hacker has such a negative stigma now; I'd love to be called one. (Definition 3 anyway.)

    --
    You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
  161. Umm, no.. by MadAnthony02 · · Score: 1

    What kit cars do is take a cheap car (Fiero/VW Bug/ect) and make it look like something cool, for way less than it would cost to get the real thing.

    What this guy did was took what some would argue is a superior machine, and made it into a less-functional PC with no DVD burner and no ability to run OSX.

    It's especially painful for those of us who are still waiting for ours on backorder (mine from Amazon is slated to ship late march).

  162. It was a joke people, calm down. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Read the -1 post he was responding to.

    Some of you people need a humor injection.

  163. Re:Apparently they never heard of the Cappuccino P by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The mac mini performance is on par with a PIII. Why are you comapring it to a real machine like a mocha?

  164. Look here! by Burning1 · · Score: 1

    Porsche 914 with a Chevy V8.

    It's more like this mini conversion than you might imagine.

  165. Need one for my car PC! by frostw · · Score: 1

    Personally, I'd rather have seen a proper review of the Nano ITX board. Forget the 'sticking it in a different case' bit.

    --
    http://www.sydney-webcam.com
  166. Good point by Pan+T.+Hose · · Score: 1

    The thing that really anoys me about the PC form factor is the monitor cable. They are all way to thick and clunky and they only carry the monitor signal. I want sound, Usb and firewire to all plug into the same port, plus the monitor is probably a better site for the wifi antenae. What we really need is to get rid of the monitor cable altogether and have a fibre optic like they use for dolby digital.

    Apple has some nice LCD monitors with the features you describe: they are 17- and 20-inch, they have wifi antennas, sound input and output, USB, FireWire and Ethernet ports, DVD burners... OK, let's just face it: PCs suck.

    If I could have all the peripheral plug in points built into the base of the monitor I don't much care what the box looks like. It can go in a cupboard.

    Or it can not even exist... Seriously, I think I'm going to buy one of those babies.

    --
    Sincerely,
    Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
    "Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
    1. Re:Good point by Zeinfeld · · Score: 1
      Apple has some nice LCD monitors with the features you describe: they are 17- and 20-inch, they have wifi antennas, sound input and output, USB, FireWire and Ethernet ports, DVD burners... OK, let's just face it: PCs suck.

      Thats a PC in the montor which is cheating. Sony has an almost identical PC.

      I do not want to buy a fully integrated system. At the moment my monitors last for on average two machines. I expect to pay more for my next monitor than my next PC.

      Even at Sony prices which are not cheap, I will spend less for my next system than an equivalent Mac.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
  167. Kevin Rose is a second rate hack. by UberLeo · · Score: 1

    Kevin Rose should never be considered on of the great ones. He can't find his c:\ from a hole in the ground.

  168. Re:"Nothing for you to see here. Please move along by green+menace · · Score: 1

    Depends on what kind of hacker you are talkin about. Sk3etard-l33t or just some dude who likes technology and has fun messing around with it. Maybe I just relate to Kevin cause I like to drink 40's when I am "hacking"...

    gr33n men@(e

  169. Mac MINIs suck! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, that's a --macMiniScore;

    http://www1.us.dell.com/content/products/features. aspx/featured_dp_notebook1_1?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs

    2.6 GHz, 512 Meg RAM, 30 Gig, 14 XGA

    If you buy one of these instead, you get so much more. And if you remove the LCD (to use for other purposes), and cover the keyboard with duct tape you'd basically have a Mac Mini-ette...a streamlined PC version of the Mac Mini. And to boot, it runs on its own power! Take it with you! Bugger that!

    If you don't think PC manufacturers could make a similar and more powerful device you are quite misinformed.

    Please go away now Mac freak.

    1. Re:Mac MINIs suck! by deaddeng · · Score: 1

      If it can't be infested with spyware, it's not a real PC.

      --
      --- .085 as cool; proving that a little knowledge is dangerous
    2. Re:Mac MINIs suck! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shared video memory, smaller HDD, no FireWire, no DVI, more than a mac mini, and windows. Why do I want that piece of crap?

    3. Re:Mac MINIs suck! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, it weighs more (3x as much!) and has a crappy software bundle!

  170. Re:No CD/DVD, and slower CPU, and what video? by argent · · Score: 1

    Agreed, if he doesn't at least have the functional equivalent of a Mini in there, he hasn't created a PC equivalent of the Mini. I was ready to post the same comment, but you beat me to the punch.

    Also, a 1 GHz Pentium-compatible CPU isn't really comparable to a 1.25 GHz G4. Neither is a VIA or S3 video card equivalent to a Radeon 9200...

  171. Nehemiah 1Ghz Processor? by Halo5 · · Score: 5, Informative

    I sold my Mini ITX (1Ghz Nehemiah) setup on eBay so that I could purchase my Mini Mac without losing any money. After having used both, I can state this difinitively: In no way does the Nehemiah come close to coming close to being as fast as the G4.

    Never mind the media encoding/decoding capabilities of the G4. It doesn't even come close in regular desktop use. Not even with Linux installed. To even do half what the G4 can do encoding/decoding wise, you'd have to add a PVR card (which won't fit in that case).

    If the guy is doing this to build the "fastest PC possible with the size constraints of the Mini's small form factor," he should have left the G4 in there (unless PC=Intel/AMD in this case).

    I'm all for hardware hacking, but I hate to see a perfectly good machine go to waste. I hope at least that he retrofitted in a non-destructive way so that he can put the original machine back together again. Some people just have too much money... :)

    BTW, If I was a VIA executive, there's no way that I would loan out a Nehemiah for review so that it could be pitted against the G4. Nothin' but bad news there. Somebody outta get fired over that one!

    --
    665: The mark on the forehead of Satan's slightly less evil brother, Stan.
  172. Re:Apparently they never heard of the Cappuccino P by David+Rolfe · · Score: 1

    Even though it's been mentioned that Mocha costs more, I'd like to point out that it is not only bigger and louder, it costs MUCH more for a similarly spec'ed out machine. Try it yourself from one of my sibling poster's links here.

    The Mocha bare bones with 2.0GHz Celeron (I won't start a war over whether that's 'better or worse' 1.4GHz G4), 256MB ram, upgrade 40GB 5400rpm (smallest the Mac comes with), upgrade slot load CD-RW/DVD-Rom (cheapest the Mac comes with), upgrade the OS to Win XP Home (cheapest GUI option, even though Pro would be fairer to OS X). This setup comes out to over $1000. The Mac mini, with the bigger drive, and the DVD burner is still under a thousand. You could squeeze in the wireless on the Mac Mini and STILL be under $1000.

    So I guess ask yourself ... when it comes to small machines: Is having a '500Mhz' more juice worth: Having a bigger enclosure, having a louder enclosure, using more power, and paying twice as much for it. If you upgraded that Mocha all the way out, you'd pay way more than twice as much and not have twice the horsepower, plus you'd still have crappier video :) BUT... you would have an eighth inch stereo-in, which is the one true advantage the Mocha has inbox. I guess you could save the $500-800 and just buy a USB iMic. Oh oh, or you could use that money to buy a sweet Firewire audio device and still break even.

    --
    Read Heinlein's 1953 Revolt in 2100, now more than ever.
  173. Re:Apparently they never heard of the Cappuccino P by micolous · · Score: 1

    USB does the same functions that serial and parallel do for the Cappuccino PC. Serial devices have become very rare on a consumer end. The only serial devices I have are some old mice, modems and an IR dongle, which the current model uses USB. Printers and scanners that used parallel connectors now use USB exclusively.

    irda has been superceded by Bluetooth, which is availible for the Mac Mini as an optional extra.

    The slot loading drive is smaller than a tray loading drive. Apple went to the slot loading drives in 1999, with the iMac, and that was later echoed in the Powerbook and iBooks. There are some weird CDs out there that will give you problems, I'll give you that, but not many for it to be a major issue.

    --
    SSdtIGFzIGJvcmVkIGFzIHlvdSBhcmUK
  174. Wow, you're a fucking prick by Quattro+Vezina · · Score: 1

    Wow, someone decides to have some fun and cobble some stuff together, so you decide to call him an ``arrogant, spoiled fuckhead'' and ``garbage''.

    You're a horrible person.

    You'll never amount to anything more than a nasty, bitter asshole. You make me sick.

    --
    I support the Center for Consumer Freedom
    1. Re:Wow, you're a fucking prick by Powercntrl · · Score: 1

      Wow, someone decides to have some fun and cobble some stuff together, so you decide to call him an ``arrogant, spoiled fuckhead'' and ``garbage''.

      He's well-deserving of the title. Does he have a right to take a $500 computer and gut it? You bet. The moment he puts it on the Internet for all to see, however, he's no longer someone with some free time and a bit too much money to burn - he's flaunting his wastefulness. It didn't take any real ingenuity to accomplish his modification - just money. If he doesn't mind sharing his wastefulness with the Internet, why should he mind when people waste his bandwidth and page space with spam?

      You can see it as him having fun. I see it as analogous to him buying a bottle of fine wine to dump down the drain and refill with Coke so he can look sophisticated while drinking an inexpensive, common beverage. I'll have mine in cans, thanks.

      --

      ---
      DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
    2. Re:Wow, you're a fucking prick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A Mac Mini is about as close to fine whine as the sweat off my balls is.

    3. Re:Wow, you're a fucking prick by Gadget_Guy · · Score: 1
      He's well-deserving of the title. Does he have a right to take a $500 computer and gut it? You bet. The moment he puts it on the Internet for all to see, however, he's no longer someone with some free time and a bit too much money to burn - he's flaunting his wastefulness.

      It is as arrogant as somebody buying a Windows computer and then install Linux on it. How dare they waste an expensive operating system? Or maybe as arrogant as buying a computer to play games when it should be used for business purposes only.

      But really, it would be more arrogant to think that you can judge him and dismiss what he wants to do with his computers. And what if his next project is to install the Mac inside a guitar? All of a sudden he has a working $500 computer again. Is he still arrogant because the sums all add up again?

      What is so bad with wanting to Think Different?

    4. Re:Wow, you're a fucking prick by Gadget_Guy · · Score: 1
      And what if his next project is to install the Mac inside a guitar?

      Something like this

  175. I'm having Macca's for lunch by fireman+sam · · Score: 1

    Does anyone else think that the Mac mini looks like a plastic lunch box?

    --
    it is only after a long journey that you know the strength of the horse.
  176. Heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It will be at least a year before PCs catch up in this particular niche market, and Apple will continue to innovate...

    yeah, and watch Apple's marketshare stay right where it is.

  177. no, it's not lame in general... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...but it is when you don't even achieve a noteworthy goal - he had to put the dvd drive outside the case! hooRAH! kind of defeats the purpose doesn't it?

  178. pc on a chip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought you could get pc's on chips these days.

    Can't you just stick one of them in the box? Heck, if you insulate it enough, you could probably even keep the rest of the mini's contents in there and still be able to run it as normal, with a decent OS.

    It's not like the bits he put in there were equivalent anyway....

  179. Code size by tepples · · Score: 1

    There's also disadvantages to RISC; binaries tend to be bigger (x86 has variable sized instructions) and that uses up some of the larger cache that RISC chips tend to have.

    ARM code size is tighter than that of MIPS or some other RISC architectures because of its conditional execution and register shifting that in effect do three RISC instructions at the same time. For even smaller code size when your inner loop is close to filling the instruction cache, you might want to choose the smaller Thumb encoding that takes the most commonly used instructions and puts them in a 16-bit word, yet still much more orthogonal than Ecch86. The MIPS instruction set has a 16-bit encoding as well.

    Except for a very few areas, one should choose a platform based on other criteria (you like MacOS better, you need to use Windows specific software, etc).

    So in other words, availability of proprietary software determines the platform, right? How should disciples of the Church of Emacs choose a hardware platform? Price?

    1. Re:Code size by ArbitraryConstant · · Score: 1

      "ARM code size is tighter than that of MIPS or some other RISC architectures because of its conditional execution and register shifting that in effect do three RISC instructions at the same time. For even smaller code size when your inner loop is close to filling the instruction cache, you might want to choose the smaller Thumb encoding that takes the most commonly used instructions and puts them in a 16-bit word, yet still much more orthogonal than Ecch86. The MIPS instruction set has a 16-bit encoding as well."

      Huh. I knew ARM could do that but not MIPS. Interesting.

      I said that the tendency is for RISC binaries to be bigger than x86. ARM and MIPS have both been heavily optimized for embedded applications, so a) they diverge somewhat from RISC ideals, for example the varying instruction size, and b) they diverge from the tendency with their optimizations.

      I will concede that most other architechtures are better suited to embedded applications, including binary size, than x86.

      I would point out, though, that MIPS performance is so far behind the leaders that it's hardly worth mentioning unless you're talking about one of those massive SGI machines or embedded applications, and ARM is an exclusively embedded platform, so it can be ignored when talking about server/workstation/desktop issues.

      "So in other words, availability of proprietary software determines the platform, right? How should disciples of the Church of Emacs choose a hardware platform? Price?"

      Given that the vast majority of people that use exclusively open source software use x86, I'd say they've already chosen by price.

      --
      I rarely criticize things I don't care about.
  180. Let me get this straight . . . . by kraksmoka · · Score: 1
    It's bad enough that you would defile a perfectly healthy Mac Mini. But you did it just to prove that you couldn't do the same thing with a PC. No CD drive! Terrible. People complained like hell when the iMac first dropped the floppy drive.

    This proves that the Mac Mini is superior in size to performance compared to a Wintel box.Even the newest miniature PC parts still aren't small enough to duplicate the engineering.

    To compare a not yet released motherboard with a slower processor to the Mac Mini. Well you've proven our point all along ;)

    --
    "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." - Rahm Emanuel
    1. Re:Let me get this straight . . . . by DaveCBio · · Score: 1

      There is a huge difference between using generic parts in an open system and a custom made closed system. So, next time compare Apples to Apples.

    2. Re:Let me get this straight . . . . by ocelotbob · · Score: 1

      This is done with COTS parts. There are smaller PCs made by boutique makers, y'know. and they're faster than the mac mini, too. Check it out for yourself, they've been around for years too. Once again, apple's playing catchup in the innovation department.

      --

      Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses

    3. Re:Let me get this straight . . . . by kraksmoka · · Score: 1
      I have a Mocha pc P4/ since my girlfriend couldn't do her job without one, IE windoze specific website. It is loud, hot and slows down frequently because of the soft video. There isn't a video card, only onboard shared memory, the mini has a 32 MB 3d card.

      The mocha is great for what it is, but still, it has a gazillion cords, just like any other desktop, and has proven to be pretty much useless for traveling. We'll see when I get the mini, but I plan on making that the entertainment machine, with eyetv so . . . .

      --
      "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." - Rahm Emanuel
    4. Re:Let me get this straight . . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      God you're a real moron! Your link doesn't work either. Looks like your playing ketchup with yerself...lmao!

  181. I had it backwards... and I like my idea better by sootman · · Score: 1

    The first time I skimmed the summary, I thought it was the other way around--I thought he put a whole Mini into a PC, like those tiny PPC boxes that came out a few years ago that fit into a CD-ROM bay. That'd be cool, and actually handy. Maybe put a KVM inside too and run all the cables out the back. Bonus points if you could make the (15v?) Mac run off the PC's power supply.

    --
    Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
  182. Was I the only one... by Nolkyan · · Score: 1

    Who misread "mac mini" as "ipod mini" and got really hot and bothered? I'm not sure in which way I was "hot and bothered", either.

  183. Via mini-ATX platform: a word of warning by gigi · · Score: 1

    A word of warning to those interested in playing with via:
    Last month (2004-Dec), I bought a $330 'xmachine' system from Directron. It has difficulty booting into Suse Linux. Further research on google indicates that Via identifies itself as a 686-class CPU, but does not support the entire 686 instruction set. Instead of Suse, I had to install Fedora, and suffer a bit of a learning curve.
    Also: the BIOS has does not work with USB keyboards. On the first day, the system froze while transferring a 2-Gig Samba file, I suspect the ethernet driver or controller.
    Otherwise, it's amazingly small. It is much cheaper, and dog slow, compared to same speed Centrino.

    1. Re:Via mini-ATX platform: a word of warning by Simon+Lyngshede · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, the Via CPUs does have the entire required 686 instruction set. What they don't have is the optional cmov instruction. The problem is that gcc doesn't care about the "optional" in the Intel documentation an assumes that any 686 will have cmov, and most 686 cpus does... actually Via is the only one not to include it. They "fixed" this with C3 Nehemiah CPU.

      The C3 is a nice CPU, a bit slow, which means that you'll have to run Linux or and older version of Windows, it isn't fast enough for Windows XP and OpenBSD... in my experience. I ran my 1GHz C3 with a Zalman copper heat sink, no fan, the temperatur never exceede 40 degrees. For a small home server its perfect.

  184. Who said you can't upgrade a Mac? by KajiCo · · Score: 1

    It's amazing how many people say that you can't upgrade a Mac. People who say that are people that have really never used a Mac. With products from Sonnet you can update your old mac into something more current. Sonnet has accelerator cards that can bring your mac from a G3 to a G4, can upgrade your dual G4 by upto 400mhz faster, with out having to change out your motherboard, or buy new ram.

    To upgrade my old Athlon 800 by 400mhz faster, I had to buy a new Mobo, and a new processor, making me look for a new buyer for my old processor. Which I hate to part with so I built another machine with it. With every upgrade there seems to be that I either sell, throw-away, or recycle old parts. With the mac, I just buy a new accelerator card and I get to keep everything else that was in it. So again what's the difference?

    Wait why do I ask? i'll just be tarred and feathered.

    1. Re:Who said you can't upgrade a Mac? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's see you upgrade the LCD in an iMac. Or the video card. Where's that Sonnet 2.5GHz upgrade for the iMac G5? Let's see you upgrade anything other than the RAM in a Mac Mini. Let's see you upgrade the display for the eMac.

      About the only desktop Macs you can buy useful upgrades for (other than, say, a new optical disk for iMacs or Powerbooks) are Power Macs, which are incidentally retardedly overpriced for their performance in any given generation, and after you customize the hardware in them to anything resembling an acceptable level of performance, and toss in a display, the degree to which it has become ludicrous to purchase the computer is somewhere around that of believing in Creationism. I would rather hammer hot iron rods through my penis than spend $1.5k-2k (sans display) for a base computer with 256MB of RAM, a GeForce FX 5200 Ultra, and a 80GB HDD for the honor of owning a Mac where I can actually fucking upgrade it someday. I could put together an entire 939-based Athlon64, with 1GB of RAM, PCI-Express GeForce FX 6600 GT, with 802.11g, Firewire, 10 USB 2.0 ports, a IPS LCD (or DiamondTron CRT) all for the price of a base Power Mac with garbage in it.

      While you can buy a fucking $500 upgrade card for the CPU of a Power Mac, you could buy an entire fucking new motherboard, RAM, and CPU for the PC.

    2. Re:Who said you can't upgrade a Mac? by KillerDeathRobot · · Score: 1

      I would rather hammer hot iron rods through my penis than spend $1.5k-2k (sans display) for a base computer...

      Prove it.

      --
      Thinkin' Lincoln - a web comic of presidential proportions
    3. Re:Who said you can't upgrade a Mac? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, upgrade the soundboard in your mac. Oh wait! You can't!

      kthxbye

    4. Re:Who said you can't upgrade a Mac? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      To me its not about upgrade path, its about price. I spend around 1300-1500 each year on a new computer. With that amount of cash, I can build the biggest AMD/intel based PC I want that is not on the bleeding edge. The cheapest I can get a mac in the same range of speed is around 3000.00 or so my mac wielding friends tell me. They swear its worth it, and I like the UI, but thats still 1500.00 more then I like to spend. People usually counter this by saying the resale value is higher, which might be true, but I tipically dont sell my pc's on ebay. I usually sell them as parts to gamers who want upgrades, and I'm not sure my market would accept a mac.

    5. Re:Who said you can't upgrade a Mac? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FWIW, this anon coward wouldn't think about buying a base computer for LESS than $1500-2k (sans display).

    6. Re:Who said you can't upgrade a Mac? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice troll, except...when was the last time you needed to upgrade the sound board in your PC?

      The only time I've ever needed to was when I wanted something with better quality than the crappy onboard sound on most PC boards. On the ones with good onboard sound, it's not needed. Of course, the Mac Mini probably has decent onboard sound like most Macs, so it's probably not necessary.

      And if you need advanced features, why are you buying a low end machine?

  185. Failed: Mac Mini to PC Hack-Embedded designs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "How else do you think they got it all in there?"

    The same way all embedded systems designers get it "all in there".

  186. Look Again 'Tard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The link you post gives the $495 price for a barebones system. If you follow the "More Product Information" link, you will find out that

    *The barebone system does not include CPU, memory, hard disk and CD drive, It includes the casing, motherboard, CPU heatsink and blower, AC/DC Power supply, driver disk and manual.

    When you price out the cheapest complete system they offer (processor,RAM,CD-ROM, HD, No OS) the price becomes $778.

    If you want to make it weakly comparable to the $499 Mac Mini (40GB HD, Combo Drive, but we'll still hold off on the OS, in case you want to run Linux on it), The price goes up to $873.

    I can't equalize the processor speeds (Mac at 1.25GHz, Mocha at 2.0GHz) or the memory (Mac's is 333MHz, Mocha's is 266MHz), but neither of the Mocha PC's I've priced out will "spank" the $499 Mac Mini, and both cost considerably (over 50%) more.

    Notice that this is still ceding you an awful lot for the sake of argument. The Mini comes fully loaded with a nice OS and great applications (in my opinion) for free. I'm also ignoring arguments about G4 vs. Celeron architectures, even though I believe that the G4 is better (Note also the faster RAM on the Mini.)

  187. Listing fee by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Perhaps this is one reason they recently raised the listing fee... I think no matter what they are still getting 20-30 cents per auction.

    Still, if they want to keep the quality of the service up they should weed them out.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  188. Mac Mini PC by PhaxMohdem · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Looks like a fun project but to me, a 400 mhz slower... inferior processor and no optical drive doesn't seem like a design win to me.

    On another note, about building one of these with high end graphics.... People get so focused on off the shelf cards they forget about a whole nother breed of integrated chips.... for laptops..

    While I highly doubt the mini-itx standard will suffice in powering an x86 counterpart to the mac mini, a custom designed board with perhaps a radeon mobility 9700 or 9800 chipset would run most of the games Lan partiers play at playable framerates.

    To acheive this type of miniaturization with the level of performace as Apple has done, it will NEED a company willing to custom design a laptop board varient to fit a case, that supports such mobile chipsets. Perhaps even the ability to upgrade the mobile graphics card via a slot in the bottom of the unit.

    A dothan and a high end mobility graphics card would prove to be a nice little LAN party animal. but then the issue of $$$ comes into play a PC system outperforming the mini for $499 or less??? I highly doubt it.

    Apple Mini - 1
    PC mini - 0 & Currently TKO'd

    --

    The Property of One's : "The Oneitude is directly proportional to the Colditude of the one." - S.B.

  189. $495 Mocha is for a barebones system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    $495 Mocha is for a barebones system*

    *The barebone system does not include CPU, memory, hard disk and CD drive, It includes the casing, motherboard, CPU heatsink and blower, AC/DC Power supply, driver disk and manual.

    It is interesting to price out the Mocha when you put in your "kick ass" processor, and such trivial things as RAM and a HD.

    I won't even ask you to put in any kind of optical drive.

  190. don't they mean cubic inch? by autopr0n · · Score: 1

    What would be the point of mesuring power per square inch, discouting height? Volume is probably the more intresting mesure here. Building a supercomputer out of Mini-ITX boards would probably be cheaper then mini-macs.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
  191. Re:Apparently they never heard of the Cappuccino P by seifried · · Score: 1

    So you piqued my interest, this Cappuccino sounds nice, physically it's a little smaller, and having a Mac mini and a mini pc might make for some good feng shui or something. But then I looked at pricing.

    The Cappuccino a terrible deal compared to the Mac mini:

    Mac mini basic @ $499.00:
    1.25GHz PowerPC G4
    256MB DDR333 SDRAM
    ATI Radeon 9200 with 32MB DDR video memory
    40GB Ultra ATA hard drive
    Combo drive
    DVI or VGA video output

    The Cappuccino EZ3 is $579 for a basic system (so we're already $80 more expensive).
    Upgrading it to 256 megs of ram is an extra $55.
    Upgrading to a 40gig HD is an extra $20
    Upgrading to a CDRW/DVD ROM is an extra $60

    This comes to a total of $714 (for that we can get the faster Mac mini with upgraded ram or wireless). That's also ignoring CPU upgrades to bring the Intel® Celeron® Processor @ 1.0GHz / 256K Cache Tualatin OEM up to say an Intel® Pentium® III Processor @ 1.26GHz / 512K Cache Server OEM which is ANOTHER $155.

    And the graphics are an integrated Intel i180/815 meaning you don't actually have 256 megs of system ram, a chunk of it will be for the graphics. And there's no operating system (let's be charitable and throw Linux on for free, you can do the same with the Mac mini ).

    So for $215 MORE you get a machine that is much less powerful. If you go with the CPU upgrade you get a machine comparable to the Mac mini for a mere $370 more then the mac mini (or about %74 more). This does not strike me as being a very good deal.

    For pricing on the cappucino see http://www.cappuccinopc.com/checkout/customize-sys tem.asp#

  192. Totally idiotic by MemoryDragon · · Score: 1

    Given that even the fastest C3 currently in existence is much slower than the G4...

  193. Who? Why? by fluch · · Score: 1

    Who wants to transform an Mac into an PC? For what reason?

  194. For all the naysayers - Think Different! by Gadget_Guy · · Score: 1

    At the risk of repeating myself, I thought that this was interesting enough to post as a thread of it's own.

    There have been a great number of people belittling what this guy has done. There are two camps:

    1. He should not desecrate a Mac (the zealots)
    2. This is a waste of time/money - what's the point? (the non-geeks)

    Here is what Apple thinks of this guy. Think Different.

  195. OT: God, see all the blog spam? by EvilStein · · Score: 1

    Did everyone see the massive amounts of SPAM for "freeipod.com" and "freemacmini.com?"

    Gratis should be cancelling the accounts (and referral credits) for ANYONE posting that shit like that in blogs/forums/Slashdot - anywhere. He has HUNDREDS of comments like that now!

    His blog isn't the only one I've seen that has now been cluttered to hell with idiots posting that freemacmini.com crap.

    Gratis are irresponsible fuckers if they continue to do nothing about it. I have yet to see anywhere where you can report spammers.

    1. Re:OT: God, see all the blog spam? by argent · · Score: 1

      Hopefully the Google search-spam-ignorer trick will catch on, and this kind of comment spam will go down...

  196. That's what I've been wondering too by Moraelin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Now I _don't_ believe that the G4 is the super-computer that Apple's marketting makes it sound like. It's a good CPU, but that's about it.

    But a 1 GHz _Via_ CPU? Gimme a break. Those things are a dog, performance wise. They're not just lower MHz, they're also lower IPC (instructions per cycle) even than a P4 Prescott.

    The fact that they only have 64K L2 cache doesn't really help there either. And Via's being still stuck on a 133 MHz SDR bus also doesn't help.

    Also it seems that the article just illustrates what's wrong with all these "I can build a better PC" attempts. E.g., in this case they couldn't also fit a CD drive too in that case, so you have to use an external USB one.

    Which is just missing the whole bloody point. So at the end of it, when you count the PC Mini _and_ the external CD drive, you have twice the desk space needed and nearly twice the volume.

    <sarcasm>Yeah, buddy. Way to go...<sarcasm>

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    1. Re:That's what I've been wondering too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, thats not a close tag.

    2. Re:That's what I've been wondering too by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      The Mac Mini only has a 167Mhz motherboard. Not much of an increase in speed over the Via. Also, 1.25GHz isn't that much faster than 1 GHz.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
  197. How can they call it "Mocha PC"? by RadRafe · · Score: 1
    Even with the Mocha PC it starts at $495, and that is without RAM, a hard drive, CPU, or even a CD-Drive!

    Let me get this straight: it's a computer case with a motherboard inside? How is that a PC?

  198. Options will cost ya, Apple-style by Animaether · · Score: 0, Troll

    Okay, first of all let me bitch about the default USD = EUR conversion that everybody makes.
    Yes, I know, internationalization/localization costs money, and that should be recuperated, blabla. Great, that's funny, because it matters practically jack shit when you're in the U.K. Therefore, 499 euros = 649.444 US dollars = ~ $150 markup or 30%. Nice!

    Next stop, thats the basic model. 1.25GHz, 256MB, 40GB drive, etc.
    Let's check out the extras.
    Apple from 256MB to 1GB = 330 euro
    Dell from 256MB to 1GB = 119 euro

    Apple from 40GB to 80GB = 50 euro
    Dell from 40GB to 80GB = 23.80 euro

    Apple from cd/dvd to RW = 100.01 euro
    Dell from cd/dvd to RW = 71.41 euro

    Apple from no wifi to wifi = 79 euro
    Dell from no wifi to wifi = 59.50 euro

    I'll skip the mouse/keyboard.

    Apple service from 1y to 3y = 199 euro
    Dell service from 1y to 3y = 99.96 euro

    So going the full length of what Apple allows, minus the mouse/keyboard, you get a total of : 758.01 euro.
    With Dell, this is 373.67 euro. That's 384.34 euro less, or about half price.

    Now, I'm not saying the upgrades are their exact equals - certainly the service upgrades, for example, will have different terms.

    But let's face it, you STILL pay a premium for Apple hardware, and 1.3times as much so if you're not in the US.

    That said, it's still a nice box for most tasks where you really don't need any of the above options. A laptop/notebook is still a serious alternative, imho, though. The Mac mini may be small, but it doesn't come with a screen. A laptop, obviously, does. Plus a keyboard, and a touchpad (often a USB mouse as well). And more often than not, wifi built-in, or supercheaply available as a PC Card option.

    1. Re:Options will cost ya, Apple-style by pclminion · · Score: 1
      Wow. Your complete non-understanding of economics and currency exchange rates is staggering.

      I've got a question for you -- since a kilogram weighs more than a pound, does that mean that everything in Europe is heavier than in the United States?

    2. Re:Options will cost ya, Apple-style by Animaether · · Score: 1

      Wow... hey, I know, I must be stupid.
      I must think that because something in Turkish lire (until recently) costs several millions, people there must be f*cking RICH!

      I have a lot more to post here, but I'll try and not seem like an ignorant fool.
      Mr. pclminion, why don't you explain to me how you calculate true cost of goods, and show me just how much of a mark-up Europeans *really* pay for a Mac Mini ?

      If you're not willing... I simply ask readers this. Have are from the U.S. and have you been to Europe recently ? If so.. did you find that things, on average, here are more expensive, about as expensive, or less expensive than in the United States ?

      I'll post the rest of my rant later, depending on your reply - or lack thereof.

    3. Re:Options will cost ya, Apple-style by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well your first post was definitely confusing as hell. But your list comparing Apple/Dell is interesting, and it requires no knowledge of currency conversion.

      I think the best option is to buy a Mac Mini and then buy your own upgrade parts. You can't do that for some things like WiFi and BlueTooth, but you can do it with RAM and HD (and that is where the bulk of your Euros will go).

      No matter which computer you buy, the service plans are a horrible waste of money.

      So buy a Mini, the UK is tiny so you need smaller things :)

  199. Re:Who? Just about anyone wanting a new computer by MikeFM · · Score: 1

    Without a built-in CD/DVD drive? As underpowered as it is? I just can't see that as a mainstream desktop computer.

    For the geeks who want one in the entertainment center I can see it and even for geeks who just want a Mac to experiment with I can see it. I just don't see Ma & Pa America buying it.

    To Ma & Pa America, $500 is a sizable investment. They're not going to spend that much on a computer without some assurance that it'll do everything they need and I don't see how Apple can sell the Mac Mini as the do-it-all throw-in-the-kitchen-sink cheapy computer that Dell sells. I think Apple could produce such a computer, and hope they do, but I don't think the Mac Mini is it.

    --
    At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
  200. Re:Apparently they never heard of the Cappuccino P by waif69 · · Score: 1
    Configuring a CappaccinoPC to be comparative to the MacMini will cost you $1037.00. On both systems I would still recommend upgrading the RAM to 512MB. The memory upgrade will be cheaper with the PC but the TCO will still be lower with the mac.

    The one item that I did not seee in the comments by the other /.ers is the support that one gets from Apple, which rightly indicates that most, if not all /.ers do their own repairs. Most users out there have a hard time doing more than calling the help desk when something goes wrong. This is not meant as a slam to users as most of us frustrate dentists as the users tend to frustrate us, but to simply illustrate a point.

    We could argue this all day, or longer, but in the end, the mac mini will cause the users to hate computers less.

  201. EXACTLY!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I agree wholeheartedly. In fact, I believe we should just create camps where all the Pee Cee users could go. Then we could round them up and they could all live their deranged lives out there somewhere. We could even have a special squad called the Apple Brigade that would go and shove them all in vans.

    We could force the Pee Cee users to make Macs for us and then, when they're done, we could shoot them for fun. I get excited just thinking about it.

  202. Final word on power per inch*inch by tod_miller · · Score: 1

    There wasn't one. He showed how you stick this in together, and didn't even boot it... well if his hacksaw hack didn't kill it.

    The net result: Mac had more power, the G4 at 1,25 will run apps equiv to at least a P4 at 1.5-2Ghz, and try fitting a P4 setup in the case they did!

    The version he made had no CD - why have an exteral cd when you are going for size (and price!)

    I see the mini-mac as a great hardware idea - price seems good, especially since you are paying for the shrinkage factor (it shrinks?).

    So this wasn't a comparison, more of a 'look ma, I can use a hacksaw'. I searched for a 'next page' link, but none was found, an update would be nice. some benchmarks... run pear PC on the intelly version.

    Who knows, not me, I never lost control.

    --
    #hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
  203. Which computer are you talking about? by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Without a built-in CD/DVD drive? As underpowered as it is? I just can't see that as a mainstream desktop computer.

    It comes with a CD-R burner by default, BTO option of a DVD writer! You are confusing the Mac mini with the frankenstein the article spoke of.

    Furthermore when you speak of it being "underpowered" you do not know what you are talking about. I was doing DV editing and Photoshop work just fine on a 667MHz Powerbook. Furthermore, check out this performance comparison of various Macs, including both Mac minis - on default settings the Mac mini outpaces the new iMac G5 for some tasks! It's only constraint is really IO, having a slower laptop disc. The G5's get a lot of press but the G4 was a pretty good chip as well. And again it's going to be a bit faster but far more cheaper than any Mac laptop.

    For most things people do everyday, the Mac mini is more than enough computer.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Which computer are you talking about? by MikeFM · · Score: 1

      Oh! In that case I appoligize on that point. I thought before I'd read it had one but then this confussed me. So a few extra brownie points for the Mac Mini!

      I don't quite buy the performance argument though. It does appear that the Mac Mini does fairly well against other Macs but you can buy a pretty nice PC for $500 (again if you don't want anything near as small). I expect that at some things the Mac Mini might outpace these PCs but that the speed comparison wouldn't be definitive. It's always seemed to me that the Mac was good at certain tasks, especially media related, but that it wasn't always equally fast at everything it did. This has seemed to be an issue from the earliest Macs up into the current time but we'll see.. maybe it won't be trye for the Mac Mini.

      Again, I'm personally going to try one and might buy one but I'm not sure how big a market it'll have. The fact that it will come with a DVD drive though does convince me somewhat that it has a chance.

      For me speed or a DVD drive wouldn't matter. I just need a new Mac to try out software I write on. I'd like to make sure everything I write would work on MacOS as well as on Windows and Linux. ;) So I might buy one.

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
  204. RTFA, actually by Moraelin · · Score: 1

    While he didn't have a custom mobo made to order, he did get Via to send him a prototype mobo, in a form factor not yet released. Sorry, I'm not sure how that counts as "off the shelf components", seein' as you can't actually find it on the shelf of _any_ shop.

    Also, as was said before, I'm not sure that thing even actually runs. Seems more like _only_ an exercise in cramming that parts together in that space. (In which case, it's as much a computer as the cardboard box in which I keep my old boards and such.)

    For example I see _no_ mention of a power supply. Yes, I know, the Mac Mini has an external one too, but it also has the circuitry to get the juice from that to, say, the hard drive. Does his nano-ITX have the circuitry to (A) be powered from an external power jack, and (B) supply that to a standard 4 pin power connector that his 40-to-44 connector for the HDD expects. Because without it, that thing won't even boot.

    Or what's he gonna do? Cut another hole in the side of the thing and run a thick bunch of cables from an ATX PSU through it? (Bearing in mind that a PC PSU alone is bigger than a Mac Mini and its PSU put together, I'd say that alone makes the whole experiment fail to meet its goal.)

    Also let's look at what he's achieved:

    - 1 GHz worth of a slow, low IPC VIA CPU (as opposed to 1.42 GHz PowerPC)

    - 266 MHz RAM (as opposed to 333 MHz RAM in the Mac Mini)

    - integrated crappy Via/S3 graphics (as opposed to a 9200 in the Mac Mini)

    So he's achieved... what? Managed to make a PC far slower than the Mac Mini, and it's actually more expensive than the Mac Mini? A 1 GHz VIA chip and mobo is around 230$ on the site he linked to. Add a HDD, RAM, PSU and a Windows license... oops, our crap machine is actually more expensive than the Mac Mini.

    You know what? I'm not even a Mac fan. Been poking fun at the odd elitist Mac fanboys before, and got modded down for it. But this time I must say the PC side is where the fanboyism is at.

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    1. Re:RTFA, actually by Humorously_Inept · · Score: 1

      In fact, the motherboard should have a power supply onboard. I don't know about the specific model in question, but other VIA motherboards do have integrated DC-DC power supplies which connect to an external brick.

      Now, I never said that this was a worthwhile exercise. In fact I clearly stated that he certainly made no improvements, although goofing around is a reasonable enough justification for the project. It's widely known that VIA processors are slow and I totally agree that there is no reason to compare performance between the Mini and the bastardization because there is no comparison. I said nothing in defense of the PC to that effect. Where price is concerned you're wrong, though, because the PC probably falls in at around 1/2-2/3 the tab, minus the value of the chassis. Let's use Linux for the sake of argument.

      I don't understand how my assertion that getting off the shelf components into that chassis is somehow being misconstrued as PC fanboyism or anything like that. I suspect that the fanboy is in you and for this reason I can't think that jamming a bunch of crap into a tiny space isn't pretty neat just for the sake of seeing it fit. My bad!

      In terms of off the shelf, the point is that the motherboard is a standard form factor product which is designed to be sold as a standalone unit. Whether it's on the shelf now or not is irrelevant. The point is that the motherboard he used is not one that is custom designed for the chassis and that it's a miracle it fit at all. At least it will be on the shelf, which is a far cry from custom designed and never to see a shelf at all.

      I maintain that the project is one of mild interest and that it at least proves that a PC can be built into a very tight space if so desired. If you put MSI or AOpen or Gigabyte or ASUS on the case I'm sure the results would have been much more positive. Whether it would sell into a PC market is a different story. As it stands, you can still buy a cube PC in the Mini's price range that will have similar favorable characteristics.

      --

      ~Someday, I hope to be an aspiring author.
    2. Re:RTFA, actually by Moraelin · · Score: 1

      Sorry if it wasn't clear what I meant. I didn't say _you_ were a fanboy for that statement. The "fanboyism" wisecrack was about the deluge of posts and articles along the lines of "look about what PC you could get for that money/size/whatever, but misses the mark by a mile in every other aspect." I.e., about the article itself, not about your post.

      Can a better PC be built in that space? Damn right. Been saying that before myself. And I'd love to have one with, say, a 2GHz Centrino. (A Via doesn't really cut it, and a P4 is just way too hot for that confined space without being very noisy.) But it doesn't exist yet, and this one isn't it. That's all I'm saying.

      It will most likely take a mobo designed from the scratch for it. Could be one from Asus or MSI or whatever, yes. Or DFI and AOpen, since they already make Centrino desktop motherboards. Or Shuttle, since they already are doing a great SFF business. But it has yet to be designed.

      And articles like the one we're talking about are IMHO just misguided PC fanboyism. They miss the mark by a mile, and in fact if anything they just manage to make the Mac Mini look better.

      It's not hard to make a PC that's better than the Mac Mini in one of the aspects: speed, size, cost or noise. Hitting all 4 marks is, however, the real challenge. And that's where all these "look what better PC you could get instead" fail miserably.

      And to explain it better, the part I call fanboyism is the underlying assumption that even if it missed 3 out of 4 goals by a mile, it's still better for everyone because it's a PC. Now for some tasks, like games, ok, a PC is the only real choice. But assuming that across the board, for _anyone_ and for _any_ task, a slower bigger _and_ noisier machine _must_ be better by definition anyway, just because it's a PC... strikes me as a little fanboyish.

      --
      A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    3. Re:RTFA, actually by phoenix_orb · · Score: 1

      Centrino isn't a processor, it is a chipset^^^marketing spin.

      Are you meaning celeron or P4m?

      --
      Blah Blah Blah.
  205. Au contraire, I wish more did the full comparison by Moraelin · · Score: 1

    I don't see anything wrong as such with doing a price/something comparison, I just wish people did the _full_ comparison. And not just pick the pieces which fit, and quietly hope everyone doesn't notice the missing half.

    The thing is, the Mac Mini niche has _four_ things going for it:

    1. Speed

    2. Price

    3. Size

    4. Noise

    (A die-hard Apple fan will probably also add "5. Usability". But I'm not trying to get into that flame war. Let's assume that both are exactly as usable. Bear with me.)

    No, the Mac Mini is _not_ the absolute winner in either of the 4 categories (well, maybe except size). But the combination of the four is where it's really at. The fact is, there are _four_ pieces to that puzzle, not two, not three.

    That's what all these "but my PC is better" posts miss. They have some contender that is better in one aspect, maybe even two, but then don't come even close in the other two.

    E.g.:

    - yes, one can get a cheaper mid-tower PC, and it may even be _slightly_ faster. (But not by much if it's still cheaper after you factor in the Windows license too.) But it misses the other two criteria by a mile.

    - yes, one can get a smaller PC, for example the OQO. Except it's slower and it costs 2000$ with less RAM and less HDD. Oops, it missed the speed and cost points, didn't it?

    - yes, one can get a more silent PC, and a faster one at that. E.g., a Hush PC (I think they reviewed them on Tom's Hardware). Perfectly silent, since it uses the case itself as a passive heatsink. Except it's bigger _and_ again, costs over 2000$.

    Etc.

    So I'm all for doing such comparisons, if they actually considered _all_ the four factors. It would have saved us all from the deluge of "but my big tower is faster" posts that miss the whole point.

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
  206. In other news.. by presearch · · Score: 1

    I peed in my fridge! And you know what? It worked!
    The fridge is still cold, and I felt totally relieved.
    Next up, the TV. I'll post pictures!

  207. Need a new acronym for /. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Instead of RTFA why not
    LATFP (looked at the f***ing pictures?

    Author's notes DID indicate no CDrom drive could fit... but he could put a CD (any disc) inside if he chose to. "ya, it's got Panther inside, too" :-)

  208. Re:Apparently they never heard of the Cappuccino P by Provocateur · · Score: 1

    If I read the part about "Cheap OS X" being good for everybody out loud, my neighbour in the next cubicle would wonder where I'm surfing lately...

    --
    WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
  209. Re:But... by eno2001 · · Score: 1

    Why yes. Thanks for asking. ;P

    --
    -"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
  210. Great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    So you can basically trick people: here they think you are using a Mac, and you end up using a computer. Great!

    Just talk with a lisp and sing showtunes. You will have the Mac aura down pat in no time.

  211. Re:Apparently they never heard of the Cappuccino P by Gorbag · · Score: 1
    While you can add Linux for free to the Mac Mini, you still pay for the Mac OS. So to be fair you should at least compare to Windows XP Professional. And then you need to add the moral equivalent of iLife.

    Way, way more expensive.

    --
    -- I speak only for myself
  212. He still doesn't get it. by jocknerd · · Score: 1

    It doesn't run OS X or iLife.

  213. Re:Apparently they never heard of the Cappuccino P by Princeofcups · · Score: 1

    If you order your MacMini from MacMall.com, you get a free keyboard, mouse, and Epson printer, albeit by rebate. You even get free shipping.

    jfs

    --
    The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
  214. Re:Apparently they never heard of the Cappuccino P by ivan256 · · Score: 1

    The Cappuccino also sounds like a wind tunnel.

    At my last job we used to use a pair of them as a demo cluster. The idea was that you could fit two of them in a briefcase. Unless you're doing something rediculous like that, I couldn't bring myself to recommend one of those things to anybody.

  215. Re:We do care about design by ianscot · · Score: 1
    As for the looks issue. I keep getting this in response. Who cares?

    Ever had to choose between two car models that were basically equivalent in terms of reliability, longevity and so on -- one of which included much better quality design in the interior? Go look at a Mitsubishi and a Volkswagen. In each class, they're both around average in reliability. VW has a huge edge in design, just everywhere on the car. The antenna, sitting up on the back of the cars right in the middle. You know? Even when the design isn't practical -- VW's glove boxes and storage spaces are sometimes a case of looks over function -- the German engineering thing trips the right synapses. VW can ask for a ton more for whatever they're selling right now.

    People do care about this stuff. They care about the amount of noise their computer makes. They care whether the little knobs on the dashboard of their car give them a tiny measure of pleasure to use. Whether it's enough to make people try a brand of car that only runs on diesel -- that's about the level of question we're looking at, here.

    (But Macs aren't like asking people to spend $6,000 more to drive a gas-guzzling, poor-handling tricked up truck just for image... Oh, people do that too. People can be pretty odd.)

    --
    "Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
  216. How does power consumption compare? by horza · · Score: 1

    I would be interested to know how much power the Mac Mini and a VIA Nehemiah ITX consume (a) when active and (b) when idle.

    If both machines suited my needs and are roughly the same price, this becomes an important distinction for me when building my MythTV front-end.

    Actual numbers, not comments along the lines of "but the hard drive will consume more than the CPU" etc.

    Phillip.

    1. Re:How does power consumption compare? by GreyWolf3000 · · Score: 1

      I believe the nehemiahs use less than 5 watts.

      --
      Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
  217. CUBIC Inches!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Go back to math class, fuckers. You really want to be comparing power per CUBIC INCHES, not square inches.

  218. Well I figure I better get my 2 cents in by Cprossu · · Score: 1

    This thread really has detered from the original article, so let's get back to the subject. Processor He stuffed a VIA Eden nanoITX board which only scales to 1GHZ. VIA's have traditionally been very_slow chips, even bowing to a lower clocked P3 celeron as far as most benchmarks go. While G4's are indeed slow, the eden is still slower. a 1.4ghz g4 compared to a 1ghz eden? no contest Now lets look at other things people were bitching about in this thread.... Expandability. Memory the nanoITX board has 2 memory slots..soDIMM, one underneath the board, and one on top. The Macmini has a single full sized ddr slot. Upgrading the macmini to 1gb would be cheaper than upgrading the eden (which uses laptop memory). PCI/AGP/Graphics Not too much here.....neither the nano ITX nor the mac mini has any type of expandability pci wise, agpwise, and graphics wise. OK next thing Ive been seeing is that since you cant upgrade the vid card in the mac mini, you should also know the dame is true for the via eden, lets compare what we are "stuck" with Mac Mini - Radeon 9200 Via Eden nanoITX - S3 Graphics UniChrome Pro I Dont think there is a contest here... So all in all, if we stick to the article, he downgraded his mac mini =\

  219. Re:Apparently they never heard of the Cappuccino P by Lodragandraoidh · · Score: 1

    I tend to think this is a problem with all HP equipment.

    I bought a 2.4 GHZ PC for my Daughter - and had problems with it powering down unexpectedly. I shipped it back to the company for them to wave a dead chicken at it - I got it back, and it did the same thing!!

    I decided to do a little research, and on a hunch I spec'd out the power requirements of the system, and what was provided by the power supply.

    To make a long story short, the power supply did not have enough wattage to power both the motherboard/cpu and all attached peripheral devices. I ripped out the anaemic power supply, and put an industrial strength model (all the wattage needed and then some) I had laying around. I have had no problems with that machine since.

    Warranties aren't worth the paper they are written on - particularly when the cost is your time and money lost during the time it is in the shop. This experience lead me to build my next machine myself - which I did, to my own specs, and haven't had any problems with at all.

    Right now I am trying to get my wife and daughter to agree to replace their Celerons with the Mac Mini; I have had no luck getting them to cross over to Linux - but I had them salivating over the Mini. This has two benefits: it will allow me to increase the size of my Beowulf cluster (canibalizing their old desktop machines), as well as lower the amount of administration I have to deal with (IE virus hell). After that financial disaster passes, I might get one for my own use (I want a machine to use as a multitrack recording studio) :)

    --

    Lodragan Draoidh
    The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
  220. If you must use units, please get them right... by danimrich · · Score: 1

    How can they be compared in terms of power per *square* inch? Are they that flat?

    --
    where's all that Karma?
    1. Re:If you must use units, please get them right... by pclminion · · Score: 1
      How can they be compared in terms of power per *square* inch? Are they that flat?

      The computing devices themselves (chips) are all essentially flat. The air space in the case is for cooling, which is irrelevant to the question of computing power. Case footprint is a reasonable lower-bound on the surface area of the computing devices. So the numbers are all lower-bound approximations, but the numbers aren't really the point of this exercise (IMHO).

  221. Hello, moderators! by drinkypoo · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Clearly you require assistance. THIS post is offtopic. The parent post details why the previous commenter should stay the fuck away from automotive metaphors they don't understand, and shows the invalidity of the comment. Please pay attention, while metamoderators are more important than you are, you are still important and the voting process is important.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  222. Core Video / Core Image by Steve+Cowan · · Score: 1

    To clarify: Core Image / Core Video is a set of APIs for image processing/enhancement. It will work on all Macs that will run the OS regardless of what video hardware it has.

    It will only be accelerated by a GPU that meets certain criteria however. Eventually if enough software vendors take advantage, it will likely give Macs a tremendous performance edge for photo and video work.

    In this regard it is similar to Quartz / Quartz Extreme, which accelerates all on-screen drawing by giving that task to the video card. But on-screen drawing still happens when you don't have a supported card, albeit handled by the CPU.

    So, the Mac Mini will continue to run Core Image/Core Video-enabled apps, just not with GPU-based acceleration. The machine is not intended for people who require super-fast image processing. It's not as though the Mini loses anything, it just doesn't gain any speed from these new OS technologies.

    I suspect this is why Apple continues to insist on packaging the consumer products (iMac, eMac, Mini, iBook) with inferior video hardware that can't be upgraded. It prevents them from being able to hit the performance levels that Core Image / Core Video will make possible, so users who will benefit most from this technology will be forced to buy the more expensive Power Macs/PowerBooks.

  223. A Hack? by LilMikey · · Score: 1

    I don't understand how this is considered a 'hack'. He took some PC parts, chopped up a case and stuffed 'em in. It's a mod.

    Damnit people, you can abuse the English language all you want but once you start screwing with geek vernacular, that just pisses me off!

    --
    LilMikey.com... I'll stop doing it when you sto
  224. 'It puzzles me ..." by crovira · · Score: 1

    "It puzzles me how people like you can stand there and actively defend mediocrity."

    Actually, it shouldn't. After all, like likes like.

    The reason mediocrity exists, (apart from normalization of curves so that the average IQ of a room full of Einsteins would still only be 100,) is that most people are, well, mediocre.

    That's why 'down-side' zealots exist. Just look at the Iraqi insurgents. Why would anyone want what they want? That's why they have to send some out to blow themselves up in a crowd.

    --
    MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
  225. Nice sig... by Chembryl · · Score: 1

    ... sorry, lame joke:

    --
    - This and all my posts are public domain. I am a Physicist. I am not your Physicist. This is not Physically advice
  226. Could have been better. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Neat little project, but Kevin Rose isn't much of a modder. He basically shoved the thing in there. Too bad they fired Yoshi, he probably would have done a much better job of this.

  227. WHY! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is no good reason to turn a MINI into a PC. This is denigrating the inspiration of Apple with PC filth for no real purpose.

  228. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yellowsnow linux more like.

  229. Try one at an apple store perhaps... by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    I do think youd be pretty happy with the speed, if it's at all possible you should wander over to an Apple store to try one.

    They probably wont have dev tools set up on it, but you can see how most apps run and still play around in ther terminal a bit if you want to try some things there (Applications->Utilities->Terminal).

    I think it would make a great second box to hook into a KVM. Apple seems to push the Belkin box but I've found the ioGear one works better, as far as USB keyboards across both Mac and PC's are concerned.

    Good luck with the evaluation!

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  230. Pippin Atmark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Pippin was released in the US, I have one sitting in my closet at home. Though aside from mine, I don't recall seeing it anywhere outside of MacWarehouse and similar mailorder catalogs a decade ago.

    The white one shown on the linked page is the Japanese version, black was the US' (or at least mine is.) ... and that's not a laptop shown, it's a keyboard + touchpad.

  231. Re:Apparently they never heard of the Cappuccino P by oPless · · Score: 1

    I bought an 12" iBook (2nd hand off a friend who was buying the next size up) for an upcoming project, as yet I've not managed to get started on /that/ project, but I'm completely in love with the laptop!
    Well as much as one can be :) Stuff 'just works' wifi, bluetooth, isync (with MissingSync to synch my ipaq)

    *nix on the desktop is here, and it's called NeXT^W OSX

  232. Upgrading Macs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ummm Bitch Kapoor,
    As an owner of both an iMac and the most recent iteration of a Mac iBook (Mac laptop in your parlance), I can assure you of their upgade potential in the hard drive and RAM departments.
    I have done exactly what you say you've done for your wintel, stuck a a 120GB drive in, took me 20 minutes to clone the old drive into the new one, and 15 minutes to open the iMac fit the new 120GB drive and close the case and boot. At the same time, I also added a slot Superdrive (CDR+DVDR) and upgraded the memory from 128MB to 1GB.
    NONE of these items were from Apple, they were bought from a beige box wintel store, so price should not be an issue there.
    As for the laptops lacking separate page up/page down/home/end keys, I'm not sure what these page up/page down/home/end keys are doing on my "Mac laptop", hmmm, better tell them to go away, they mustn't belong there.
    Oh, yes, whilst you are at it plug in any USB mouse to give you ALL the right/left/up/down/scroll clicks and geegaws you desire.
    And to paraphrase Wittgenstein, I know wherof I speak, on all else I remain silent.
    Bad karma awaits those who don't follow his example.
    PvK

    1. Re:Upgrading Macs by BitchKapoor · · Score: 1
      "I have done exactly what you say you've done for your wintel, stuck a a 120GB drive in, took me 20 minutes to clone the old drive into the new one"


      I specifically said ADD a hard drive, not change it. You added and SUBTRACTED a hard drive. Thus if you had one 120GB hard drive and wanted to get 240GB of space, you'd have to buy a new 240GB drive instead of just another 120GB drive.


      "As for the laptops lacking separate page up/page down/home/end keys, I'm not sure what these page up/page down/home/end keys are doing on my "Mac laptop", hmmm, better tell them to go away, they mustn't belong there."


      Again, I said SEPARATE page up/down/home/end keys; on the current models, those are shared with the arrow keys -- perhaps older models had them, but given the topic of the Mac Mini, I assumed we're talking about new machines.

  233. Re:Mac Mini Conga Line by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Much better site: http://macminiconga.tblog.com, more of an equal oppritunity deal

  234. Does anyone ever trip over their own ego? by charles28c · · Score: 1

    I am a technical guy.. been doing support for 5 years. What is it with the petulant attitude of most Mac and many Linux users? Give the guy a break for having some fun with hardware... some of the criticism is like criticizing a model airplane builder for not flying a real 747. The point, more than anything, was to try out a neat PC based motherboard in the smallest Mac case. It was not to build a better Mac. If anyone really thinks AMD couldn't engineer an AMD64 onto a similar motherboard, keep deluding yourselves. Getting a 64 bit processor into that space isn't very special in the grand scheme,a nd anyone who has seen the inside of a laptop knows any manufacturer could do it. The bigger question for Apple is how practical is such a small computer whether it is Mac or PC, and will non-apple consumers (the target audience) embrace this machine beyond it's initial "cuteness" appeal? For myself, there is no way I would purchase something like that either PC or Mac. If I want something small, a laptop is way more practical (can travel with it), and for a desktop having a mini mac with snaking firewire or usb cords to external drives and devices doesn't fit my description of elegant. Give me a tower with drive bays any day.