Slashdot Mirror
Intel Flaunts Mac mini Knock-off
Rollie Hawk writes "Remember how the Mac mini was designed by Apple to steal PC customers? Now Intel wants to steal them back. Adopting a shockingly similar lunch box shape and light-weight design, Intel's upcoming Mini PC features all the sleekness and portability (physical, that is) of the Mac mini with none of the Mac benefits. Well, at least it will probably have a faster processor. Now if only someone would make a Cobalt Qube knock-off for me."
Intel can make whatever shaped/sized box they want, but it's still going to ship with Windows for Joe Consumer. A box that can get easily 0wned is what people are growing weary of. Mac Mini targets those folks as well as iPod users (not necessarily separate groups there). This knock-off once again misses the point.
What makes this interesting is how well it runs Linux. Otherwise.... pfffft!
If Intel is truly the industrial leader (true)and innovator (questionable), then they should come up with a radically different concept PC to compete with Mac mini, and yet can target the same audience. Having a carbon-copy of Mac mini is the same as saying :
their design is superior, the only thing special about ours....we use a x86 cpu!!
Reminds me of Creative Zen looking awfully similar to the iPod mini, but much uglier colors.
Sounds like what you'll find a lot of at a CES. Seriously, there was something called The Brick ages ago, so this still isn't anything new. And what about all this Mini ITX stuff which has been around for years? Next...
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
That case looks JUST like a Mac Mini. Almost identical. It reminds me of the iMac knockoffs (I'm talking about the original iMacs which came in one colour (Bondi blue) and looked vaguely like a gumdrop) that came out shortly after the launch of that product.
With spending like this, exactly what are "conservatives" conserving?
Why is it so hard to make a decent-looking case that doesn't look like someone riced it up with stupid lights or clear plastic? I just ordered the parts to build a PC, and the hardest part was finding a case that didn't look like crap. I wasn't successful.
"The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved." -- John Ashcroft
Unless the Intel processors are cool enough to run without noisy fans or melting any DVDs placed in it, it's not going to make it as a media box.
Why does this or the Mac Mini qualify as news?
Mini-ITX boards and their tiny cases have been around for years. Nano-ITX, while relatively new, was announced many months before the Mac Mini or this empty box from Intel.
Getting excited because certain manufacturers suddenly uses an existing technology does nothing more than show bias toward a company. At the very least, the post could fake some credibility by talking about trends towards smaller computers.
The whole poing of the Mac Mini is that it's a small affordable system that comes preinstalled with; an OS, a Photo Editor, Movie Editor, Music Player, DVD/VCD designer, and Music Composition software. Additionally most Macs comes pre-installed with Apple Works and World Book Encyclopedia.
Not to mention the splendor of no Adware or a major risk of viruses.
Um last I checked a PC of equal capabilitys with the software that Apple bundles was found to be 700 dollars, well over the asking price of a Mac mini and even a shuttle PC cant come close to the size of it (or the price since the smaller form stuff is more money)
Likewise in a typical wintel fashon you completely glossed over OS X relitivly bug free and virus free workspace. Likewise just about everyone forgets that more software doesnt mean more quality. Everyone bitches that macs dont have any software when the REAL truth is
Macs dont have any games
Well hate to break it to you but I use Vectorworks and Office at work, and I honestly couldnt tell you the last time I had the time to play counterstrike.
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
This is really interesting. Since I've seen (and eventually bought
Same with desktops. Why can't somebody come up with a decent design? And why are the Apple guys able to just get it right? And not just once, but most of their stuff looks really amazing. It's not like there aren't any designers out there
EagerEyes.org: Visualization and Visual Communication
Mention that the next time someone talks about how outrageously expensive Macs are. Design costs money. Designers cost money.
Yes, a hunk of plastic has more OS flexibility than a PowerPC processor. Yeah, really flexible.
It's only functionality is a clock. That's all it can do. There's no CPU, no motherboard, nothing. It's a mockup of a PC designed to compete with the Mac mini.
GPL Deconstructed
is that the maketing position for the Mac Mini is to convert Windows iPod users who are sold on the Apple brand but think even the iMacs are too expensive.
Who, exactly, is the target market for the x86 Mini? PC's are already dirt cheap, and we know that shrinking down the form factor like that will only raise the price over existing desktop PC's. They aren't going to convert Mac users, because Mac users a) don't buy on price alone, and b) already have a Mac option in that category, so they will buy the Mac Mini.
Logically, for Intel to compete against the Mac Mini, they need to develop an iPod killer, not another desktop system.
What the hell is happening to the PC industry? It used to be all about making better faster machines with more features and now the trend is to make smaller machines with less features?????
What happened was that people got fed up with big ugly boxes that used a lot of power to make a lot of noise and heat. Especially since few people apart from gamers need the processing power of new machines. Being small, unobtrusive, less energy hungry, cool and quiet are also features you know, stuff that a lot of people are obviously willing to pay for. Hardly marketing spin.
Being bitter is drinking poison and hoping someone else will die
Maybe it's shifting towards adequetly powered machines with features that actually work all of the time.
computer is a tool, not a toy, when did we see a shift from functionality to marketing spin?
As soon as Joe Consumer wanted one in the living room instead of just the home office. Why is this a bad thing? Miniaturization will just increase the pervasiveness of computer hardware in general. There *needs* to be a paradigm shift in the PC industry. These things need to go from tempremental monsters that need more attention than my two year old, to appliances on par with my Tivo. To an extent, Mac is successfully in this transition state already. (no - I'm no fanboy, don't even own one, but I think they're well made)
Because we all know that the only OS a PowerPC can run is OSX...*rolls eyes*
I'll turn into a supernova and burn up everything. Well I'll turn into a black little hole and you'll turn into string.
I don't have one. I'm saying that people here and elsewhere complain a lot about how expensive Macs are but nobody seems to take into account that there were some pretty high up designers that made all this pretty machinery and someone has to pay THEM for their work.
I never said that *I* think Macs are too expensive. I think you get exactly what you pay for - a superior machine both in design and execution.
Equivalent in what way? A PC is more than its processor speed.
...
I think you'd have to also consider usability, security, size, noise, longevity, style, included software, included hardware
Macs usually lose on the included hardware aspect, whilst winning on everything else. However most people seem to judge a computer solely by the included hardware, and those people are fucking retards because of it.
I can buy a computer that is extremely fast, quite noisy, by default comes with an insecure OS, although that is alterable with effort and time, or I can buy a computer that is quite fast, quiet, comes with a more secure OS, has full Unix accessible from within, and just happens to look pretty damned nice as well.
What's inside matters to a point. Beyond that, other factors become the main reason to get something.
I hate to say it, but perhaps being the perfect geek isn't everybody's ultimate goal in life.
Maybe I'm just getting old, but I start valueing good design and thought put into things. I also value the fact that my computers now are almost perfectly silent - I don't want to sit next to an open case with whirring harddisks and fans anymore. A silent and well-designed computer serves me much better than one that has 100 times the power - that I'm not using anyway.
EagerEyes.org: Visualization and Visual Communication
Right - buy a Mac Mini for 500 bucks and you get XCode included for free. Buy a PC and you have to shell out a thousand more just for a copy of Microsoft Visual Studio. That makes a Mac FAR cheaper for me, as a C++ developer.
Has the PC industry really gotten that bad so that they don't do anything but copy Apple?
As any Apple-watcher will tell you, this has been SOP with the Wintel world for decades now.
The only thing dumber than the folks surprised at Intel's shameless copycat effort are the ones who mistake that empty plastic box for a fully-functional, shipping, ready-to-go-on-your-desk computer.
--R.J.
Electric-Escape.net
"A computer is a tool, not a toy, when did we see a shift from functionality to marketing spin?"
Actually this is a shift to functionality. The Mac Mini comes with everything the average person needs. FireWire for dumping video and hooking up your iPod. Ethernet for networking. A good but not great video card. USB for hooking up mice, keyboards, scanners, memory drives and game controllers. You can add an airport to the Mini as an option. The only thing I see missing from the Mac Mini is a video in.
As a tool these new computers are complete and simple. They are more functional for most people.
You see I have been in computers a long time. I can remeber when you had many players in the market each one very different. Back in the 8 bit days you had Commodore. Atari, Tandy, Ti, Apple, and Sinclair. Each had it's own OS if you want to call it an OS. You had many different types of CPUs z80, 6502, 6809, and the TI chip. Even fast forward to the late 80s and you had Amiga, Atari ST, and Mac pushing to innovate. The PC you have now SUCKED compared to the Amiga, Atari ST, and Mac. The PC only won because of marketing spin. Look at a PC from 85 and look at the Amiga. The Amiga was cheaper, had better graphics, stereo sound, would multi task, could have a hard drive partition bigger then 33 megs and access more than 640k of ram with out doing all sorts of strangeness. A pc at the time was a 286 running at maybe 16 mhz and ran DOS 3.3, maybe windows 1 but no one really used that. The idea that PC industry has gone from technically driven to marketing drive just now is very very funny. It has been all marketing for the last 20+years.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Please spec out an AMD64 which does all that while running under 22db of noise off an 85W power supply. Make sure to include firewire, USB2, and a DVD/CDRW. It doesn't need to look good, but cram it into a mini-ITX case.
Get back to us when you can do that for under $500.
A plastic box the size of the Mini to inspire partners. Heck it is not even a prototype, just a plastic mock up.
Intel would be a lot more inspirational if they showed up with a circuit board prototype for a small form factor that comes in with a reasonable dollar cost and heat envelope.
A hunk of plastic when intel doesn't really offer a solution that fits in the plastic seems kind of pointless. Does intel offer any explanation of What processor/chipset would power their partners? A prescot would melt anything that size unless that was the heatsink.
Only really leaves Dothan solutions, which intel doesn't really sanction or price for desktop usage.
The only PC form factors close to this are micro-itx (non intel but shipping/working) and nano-itx (also non intel and maybe non shipping).
Maybe Intel is inspiring it's partners to think about using Via Epia solutions.
How much does design cost? Pulling a few numbers out of my ass, let's say that this took a team of 20 people to design, test, fabricate, etc. this design. Let's say it took them a year, at $100k. (Engineers make more, secretaries make less). That's two million bucks.
According to some news sources, Apple plans to sell around a million of the things. The cost of the design comes out to two bucks a unit.
Supposing I'm off by an order of magnitude, we're still talking about $20 per unit paid to the designers. So I really don't think that it's the design driving the price of the units.
I think that the price of Apple computers is generally driven by basic economics: how much are people willing to pay for them? If that number is greater than the cost to manufacture (including the $2 to $20 for the fancy design), then they do it; otherwise, they don't. The manufacturing cost only sets a lower limit on the price, but it doesn't set it.
People are willing to pay more for Apples, because they like the design and reliability. Some of that comes from spending more on designers; some comes from more expensive components (Apple for years insisted on using pricey SCSI before finally joining the rest of the world in IDE, for example).
A lot of it comes from the price of alternatives; Apple almost certainly looks at the price of a Dell marketed to the same audience and adds 20% or so. People are willing to pay a premium because they're getting a better piece of equipment. Apple has a tendency to tell people that they want a better computer than the one Dell is marketing to them.
Dell will happily sell you the cheapest machine they think you'll buy; Apple would rather sell you a computer that would make you happy. That gives them only a portion of the market, but it's a very cheerful market segment.
Design is the reason they can charge more, but it's not to pay the designers. Designers are cheap compared to the rest of the process. There might be some room for a competitor to Dell to arise with the same philosophy in the Wintel platform, but they'll be stuck with the same small market share Apple gets from seeking the high end, and they'll still be stuck with Windows as the OS, which will limit how much users like the product no matter how spiffy the physical design.
For $500 you could build an amd64 system with "better" hardware that would absolutely knock the panties off a G4 MacMini in terms of sorting, fp/int calcs, ffts and huffman encoding (amond others).
Right, but there are a couple of caveats. That PC will come in the usual cheap plastic case roughly 15 times bigger than the Mac mini, with fans than remind you of a vacuum cleaner, and to get it under $500 you probably have to pirate most of the software.
If it breaks you have to drag it down to the PC shop, wait a couple of weeks, and then pick it up again. When a Mac breaks you call Apple, they send out a prepaid FedEx box, and I'll have it back working within a week.
Even as a unix professional I've come to appreciate these things since they let me concentrate on my work and not fixing computers. I'll give you a splendid example: I recently installed a new Linksys wireless router, and had to upgrade firmware both on that box and on their wireless adapter as well as disabling the Linksys wireless monitor that interefered with windows XP, just to get them talking to each other!
After spending an hour on it, I realized that next time I'll just shell out the extra money for an all-Apple setup. Not because it is better, but if it doesn't work it's Apple's problem and not mine.
The point is simply that a lot of people (including unix performance users) simply think it is worth paying a couple of $$$ extra for nice design, good support, not to mention legal software.
Um, why can't this person just like Windows better.
His advice seems reasonable, my dealings with both Windows and Mac have left me cold. Therefore I think myself lucky to have been able to try them both out *before* I plunked down money for either system.
Equivalent? In what aspect? MIPS? Software? Cost?
-if at first you don't succeed, stay the heck away from paragliding.
Every product could use a little more refinement. But before you say the Mac Mini needs refinement, I challenge you to try out. Get it in the original box, open it up, and try it out. It's a very smooth package.
Compare iMovie to MS Movie Maker and iPhoto to MS Photo Editor and you'll see that Apple has already done a lot of this "refinement" you speak of.
Personally I love the Mac Mini, but I know it's not for me. What I really want is a single processor G5 cube with graphics on an AGP or PCI-E card. I'd pay $900 - $1200 for it.
Your wrong, a mac is alot more than just a fancy box, it's a superor solution in all but one way (Openess), Mac OSX beats any other OS going for desktop productivity, flow and tools (that you don't have to spend days compiling/searching for rpm deps) or configuring.
More secure than windows, better UI than everything and the hardware is equivical to PC specs (don't confuise x86 with the PowerPC they are very diferent beasts), it's not got enough RAM in the Mac Mini but that can be remedied.
I just wish you'd check out the things your slagging off before you posted, but then that is the slashdot way.
I just bought a Mini, its not about the innovation of the computer, I already have an AMD based small form factor computer. I bought the Mac Mini cause it was OSX affordable. No other reason.
I dont want XP anymore for my home/family computer.
Linux isn't ready yet when compared to OSX.
Intel just doesn't get it. I'm not surprised...
Intel, its Microsoft that is going to kill you!
I'm too stupid to figure out how to use a Mac, therefore I don't think anyone else should switch.
Translation:
I'm a dick who insults the intelligence of anyone who "thinks different" than I do.
I use linux, but I have seriously been considering buying a Mac for a while. At least, I was considering it until I actually tried using one. I used it for a whole summer, and learned to hate it. Nothing worked like I expected.
I have no problems with Macs in general. I still might buy a MiniMac as a "family room" computer. But there is no way that I could use one as my personal computer. They are designed for a different type of computer user than me.
So why do you insist that someone is a idiot because they don't like the OSX interface? Do you seriously believe that every intelligent person has the exact same view you do about it?
GHz mattered to AMD when they were the first to release a 1 GHz processor. Now that they've been owned in that regard they mislead customers into thinking a "4000" CPU means 4 GHz. They are excellent innovators when it comes to misleading Joe Six-Pack.
They spent THREE HOURS trying to figure out how to do a useradd
Are you kidding? Your Linux/Windows gurus must be dumb as bricks. I don't use OS X much (basically just as a jukebox at work) and have never added a user before, but just did it now in about 15 seconds.
System Preferences (its in the dock by default) - Accounts - Hit the + icon. DONE.
I suggest you fire these "gurus" you speak of.
If Microsoft installed a full version of Win2K on the X-box and installed several standard USB ports and a VGA plug, and sold them at cost($300?), they could flood the market. As long as it still played X-box games just think of the multimedia possibilities.
Science is the Real TRUTH!
Preferring one UI over the other has nothing to do with it. Assuming the different UI doesn't work because it's not identical to Windows shows that you're either unwilling or unable to learn anything new.
Someone who's able to switch between Windows, Linux, and a Mac and use them all is not an idiot, even if he or she strongly prefers one over the others.
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
I'm sure I'll regret voicing this, but I'm curious why there's such a strong reaction from such a pro-Linux community. Wouldn't this enable you to create a myriad of products, gadgets, etc. that ran Linux, looked more elegant, and carried a much lower price point than custom system builds? It seems like a boon to the Linux hacking community.
So in order to get an equivalent PC, you have to hunt down all the individual pieces yourself. This might be fine for a nerd, but not for a home user who doesn't know what the inside of a computer looks like. Apple does all the work for them.
Then you need to make sure they're all compatible, and that it all works with your OS. Apple does all this for you.
Then you need to install the OS, and all the drivers. Find if you're a nerd, but not for everyone else. Apple does all this for you.
Then if something goes wrong you need to work out which actual component is broken, send it back to the manufacturer at your own expense, then hope they actually send you back a replacement. This is if you know how to work out which part is broken, and how to remove it and replace it. Apple does all this for you.
Then factor in that the Mac is probably quieter, smaller and better looking.
The PC might have better individual parts, but the whole of the Mac is more than the sum of the parts.
And here's why normal people don't claim a win after the first basket:
You spec'd out XP Home, an intentionally limited "discount" and "lite" version of the OS. So, let's just replace that with the real version of the OS: XP Pro, $153.95 from New Egg. $60 more, and you've already lost, 'cause you're over $500 now.
But, I'll continue.
Good find on the CD-RW drive. Now, what do you do when you want to play a DVD?
Right, the Mac Mini comes with a combo drive. The cheapest one on New Egg (a Rosewill? Who the hell are they?) is $31, so add another 8 dollars.
Nice giant case, too. Look at the comments in the reviews on New Egg - they say it would be nice if it could be quieter... and that's with the 1 fan in the side. You really think that one fan, plus the one on the power supply, is gonna keep that AMD 64 cool? So, toss in $20 for some more fans, plus another $20-50 for sound dampeners, fan controllers, etc. to try to get it down to the 22 dBA of the Mac Mini. And then fail to do so.
So, now that you've got all that, what are you going to run on this system of yours? Notepad? Solitare?
So, add in a copy of Office to compete with Appleworks ($250), a copy of Acid to compete with Garageband ($100), a licensed copy of Acrobat Distiller so that you can create PDFs (it's built in on the Mac), a copy of Adobe Premiere Express to compete with iMovie ($200), a copy of something that can handle full-screen video conferencing (any ideas?), plus a copy of Quicken for your taxes ($30). Oh, and 'cause you're running a Windows box, don't forget the Anti-virus software ($20).
So, for over $1000, you've got a box that's 10 times larger, 10 times noisier, has discount components (that combo drive) with questionable lifespans, and yes, has a 64-bit processor in it.
Now you just have to wait for a 64-bit version of Windows.
-T
The thing that irks me is that however wonderful the Apple Mini is, Intel is also doing a concept design of something that has been done on the PC side of things already.
As if someone would proudly show a concept car of a new Mini or Smart, almost ten years after the fact...
This lack of imagination is almost insulting to PC brands that try to do entertainment designs or small form factors. I'm generally totally unimpressed by PC design, but one has to acknowledge the fact that there is already enough on the market to surpass Intel's revolutionary concept.
Never mind Apple, I don't think Intel can do anything design-wise to insult them. Apple's actual products are way above and beyond these concepts.
I think, therefore I am...I think.
So Intel was actually first with 64-bit x86 and dual core x86 chips?
I'm a life-long Windows (since v. 1) user that switched to an iMac recently (Feb). I can tell you right now that I'm sold, and not going back to the PC!
To me, your rant sounds like you were looking for an imitation of Windows on the Mac.
The reason I like the Mac so much is because they did _not_ imitate Windows! Instead, they designed the OS from (almost) the ground and created something that was created with usability in mind, instead of creating something that need to be backwards compatible with MS-DOS.
For the past four weeks, I haven't booted in Windows once at home, and I now find Windows a pain to use at work.
My $0.02
Why is this filed under "Apple"? Did you file the iMac Mini story under "Intel"?
That's what Nanode must have thought when they first saw the new Mac.
http://www.mini-itx.com/news/nanode/ These pics, based on a box using a nano-ITX board are from a year ago.
Yes, they aren't out yet. There may ultimately be critisisms of it's size, features, what not. But with the specs and pics announced 9 months before the Mac Mini, you can't call it the copy
The built in windows movie editing software is the competitor to iMovie
:-)
Yeah, in the same sense that Pee Wee Herman is a competitor for Lance Armstrong
Nice handwave over the stuff you don't have an answer for!
Funny, I thought PC users where rushing to buy the MAC mini because they were looking to play around with an Apple?
I had no idea size mattered.
Listen, I am getting the MAC mini to see how I like OS X. Presently, I toggle between Fedora and XP Professional depending on what I need to get done. Oh, how I long for the one OS that could do all things. The MAC mini lets me really stress test OS X out and if if works, I will make my next laptop an Apple.
Respect the Constitution
I still don't get what the hell is supposed to be special about Mac mini. There's this concept called a "bare bones PC", and it's pretty old, by my recollection. Everyone screams "but it looks so cool" and "it's so cheap"... as if laptops and small motherboards and tiny cases aren't already happening all over the market.
Apple holds up a box and says "It doesn't come with a mouse or a keyboard or a monitor, and that makes it cheap!" and everyone freaks out about how cool that is... Why, is this the only computer brand in the world where "this box doesn't come with any basic hardware" is a good thing? (@_@)
The only point I can see is the above- a guy wanted the OS and it happened to be inside this specific box. Other than that, I see absolutely no real plus to this thing...
Who care? "Innovating" the x86 line is what has help computing back for the past 15 years. As soon as we can finally move past that, which Intel attempted with the Itanium, the computer industry would be better off as a whole. In that regard, Intel is far better than AMD which simply tried to bring newer technology to its line of clones.
(Note: I took the idea for the "Subject" field from the second Star Wars Movie).
This is slashdot, you need not inform us of the source of star wars quotes...
if this is true, why is the technology used in the mac becoming ever more like that used in the wintel world [ram, ide, usb, etc].
You seem to confuse invention with innovation. Using the latest standard of PCI or DDR does not make you an innovator, coming out with stuff like the Mac Cube and the iPod does.
Well you are right... if we assume that we must build a PC (with a size of a Mac Mini) with VIA's parts then the used PC technology will be 5 years old... and Intel didn't tell us that they've got the Genuine Intel parts for this little project... did they ?
Allow me to shed some illumination:
1) $500 macintosh computer. Read that a couple times so that it sinks in.
2) It's not bare bones, it's fairly full featured. Not the fastest or most powerful but full featured none the less.
3) Small form factor has been arround for a while, but not this small, not this well designed, and not this quiet.
4) one of the bigest complaints against apple is you can't buy a low end system without a monitor keyboard and mouse. Now you can.
The display model (hollow plastic box) they showed off was significantly shorter than the Mini. Looking at that, I don't see how you could possibly find room (vertically) to put a hard drive in the case. It clearly was meant to imply an optical drive with that slot in it, but at like 2.5" thick there is simply no room to stack a logic board (micro or otherwise) plus a 2.5" HD plus an optical drive (laptop variety) into that space.
As the article said, this was just to "spur creativity" in the community. "Spend a few years and a few million and you might come up with something that looks almost this good".
Also clearly apparent, the cooling in such a small case would simply not work for a useful speed of processor in the PC world. They'd have to put a "mobile" grade processor in the box which would really cramp the user's style.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
None of those cases come anywhere near the clean design of the Mac mini besides maybe the SilverStone LC09, which I couldn't find on Newegg but probably costs at least $150 (based on a similar SilverStone case I saw).
I've seen the Hush PC before. Looks nice, and it's silent. Just for kicks I spec'ed out a Mini-ITX model with moderately similar components to the 1.25 G4 Mac mini. No extra memory, and I didn't even upgrade XP Home to Pro. Came out to about 970 Euros. That's for a 1.2GHz VIA processor. That's up from the base price of 769 Euros for something with a CD-ROM! Count me among the unimpressed.
Honestly, the more people try to present alternatives to the Mac mini, the more impressive the Mac mini looks. It's truly amazing what Apple has crammed into that little box at that price level. Now if only they would put a little more effort into quality control...