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."

Comments

i is for innovation

[oftheapes]

It's good to see innovation coming from Intel.

Now I remember why I buy AMD.

Re:i is for innovation

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

Re:i is for innovation

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:i is for innovation

[KarmaMB84]

So Intel was actually first with 64-bit x86 and dual core x86 chips?

Re:i is for innovation

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

it's an empty case

[way2trivial]

built soley for show..

they haven't done anything but stick a clock on the face of an empty stylish plastic box yet.

apple is shipping....

Re:it's an empty case

[ackthpt]

built soley for show.. they haven't done anything but stick a clock on the face of an empty stylish plastic box yet. apple is shipping....

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...

Re:it's an empty case

[JHromadka]

Has the PC industry really gotten that bad so that they don't do anything but copy Apple? First eMachines copies the iMac, now Intel is trying to show that PCs can be mini too. I know it's a mockup, but do something original instead of copying the color of the mini.

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.

Re:it's an empty case

[ghoti]

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.

This is really interesting. Since I've seen (and eventually bought ;) an Apple Powerbook, all those black plastic PC laptops make me want to puke. They just look like total crap. And even when companies like Samsung try to copy the Apple look, the results look ugly.
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 ...

Re:it's an empty case

[fribhey]

you forgot all the ipod rip offs and ipod interface rip offs and eMachines wasn't the only company to rip off the imac, back in 1998 gateway had their own imac rip off but it didn't sell because it looked stupid......

Re:it's an empty case

[emilymildew]

Mention that the next time someone talks about how outrageously expensive Macs are. Design costs money. Designers cost money.

Re:it's an empty case

[johnpaul191]

the current mini ITX board will not fit inside the Mac Mini's case if you are trying to get the same footprint.... remember when Kevin Rose from TechTV tried to put a windows running thing in the Mac Mini case? he used a pre-release nano-ITX mobo.
This intel mockup is an empty plastic box with a wristwatch glued to the front. while Kevin could not fit in an optical drive, he got a lot farther than Intel did.
on top of that the Mac Mini has some extra room and an unused internal firewire connection that this week sparked speculation of possible future revision, or that the rumored built in iPod dock was in the plans at some point.

http://www.kevinrose.com/index.php/weblog/comments /project_mini_pc/

Re:it's an empty case

[leinhos]

from the article:

Thus far, the concept PC is just a piece of plastic, literally, although its design showed a clock display and optical drive in front, with ports such as USB, optical audio and FireWire in the back.

So this is just a concept mockup (no one has actually made a real PC that actually fits the "Mini" form factor). Just more proof that Apple leads, and the others follow (or try). I'd like to see a PC manufacturer actually make this happen with out the thing sounding like a hair dryer.

Re:it's an empty case

[gtall]

Mac minis cost something like $500, what's your fucking problem?

Re:it's an empty case

[JoeWalsh]

Corrected article follows:

Intel Flaunts Empty Plastic Case

In a stunning show of shamelessness in the face of a total lack of innovation, Intel today unveiled to a gaggle of gullible corporate lackeys and ass-kissing note-takers their newest product: an empty plastic box. An Intel spokesperson said they hope that some day, someone will build a computer to put in the box. At that point, they hope to load it down with the deeply flawed and customer-hostile Microsoft Windows operating system, thereby releasing misery from the confines of dens and offices and into family rooms worldwide.

Re:it's an empty case

[emilymildew]

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.

Re:it's an empty case

[hey!]

Yeah, but they're not talking about a product. I gather that they're talking about a new PC standard to replace the PC/AT we've been living with for twenty years.

I'd welcome Intel getting behind a small form factor PC standard. The existing PC form factors remind me of RS-232: it does less than a twisted pair, but has twenty five wires per cable because it was designed in the day when the interface had to be built from discrete components. Likewise, the standard business PC form factor is determined by the technological limitations that drove the original PC/AT form factor back in 1984. I wonder how many people have looked at the innards of a 1980s computer recently. The component count is huge, and surface mount is practically not used at all. The motherboards look like they're assembled from a child's Duplo blocks.

They could, of course, get behind mini-ITX. But aside from the fact it would ratify their competitor's standard, mini-ITX doesn't go far enough in my opinion. The case dimension need to be standardized as well. Other things I'd like to see is a solution to power and interface cable clutter. I'd like to see wireless interconnect as a standard for heyboards, mice, and printers. For devices that will require more bandwidth than can practically be done wirelessly, I'd like to see an interface with more robust power distribution capabilities than USB.

To be sure, many of us have already settled on a small form factor PC standard --- it's called "laptops". But I think that there is still room for a new destkop standard, although this might better be called a "component" standard.

Re:it's an empty case

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:it's an empty case

[ghoti]

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.

Re:it's an empty case

[Kainaw]

And even when companies like Samsung try to copy the Apple look

Before going neon to match the trendy VW Bugs, did you notice that Apple went thin and silver/white to mimic the Sony Vaio? All good ideas have been done. What's next, a lava-lamp computer case?

Re:it's an empty case

[Jason Hood]

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).

MacMini's are great though, I have recommended them many times over to family and friends that just need a web/email/music/video machine. They are small, dont have spy/adware (yet) and get the job done. For the _average_ consumer, its $500-$700 well spent.

Re:it's an empty case

[reachinmark]

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.

Re:it's an empty case

[northcat]

I agree. But I'm probably the only one on slashdot who agrees with you.

Re:it's an empty case

[fitten]

Yep... A guy I know bought a "The Brick" machine way back when. It was pretty nice.

Re:it's an empty case

[northcat]

Windows != PC. You can get all that and more on Linux. And it runs on Macs too.

Re:it's an empty case

[adachan]

Why is the white cool? I dont get it. White gets dirty very quickly. If you really use your computer rather than just open it in coffee shops to show off how much you spent on your mac, it will show dirt and look very uncool. Its why I switched to a black keyboard from the old light grey one I had, not becasue the black one was more cool.

Re:it's an empty case

[Anonymous Coward]

And I've never seen you give an "*conrete*" reason why you're not the dumbest person on the planet, but that doesn't mean you are.

Re:it's an empty case

[badasscat]

Before going neon to match the trendy VW Bugs, did you notice that Apple went thin and silver/white to mimic the Sony Vaio? All good ideas have been done. What's next, a lava-lamp computer case?

Not sure it qualifies as a "good idea" that's been done, but it has been done...

(For extra fun, make sure you've got a mouth full of your favorite beverage before clicking that link.)

Re:it's an empty case

[jrushton]

Visual Studios great, if you want to shell out for all that. Try open source.

Re:it's an empty case

[operagost]

Yeah, but they're not talking about a product. I gather that they're talking about a new PC standard to replace the PC/AT we've been living with for twenty years.

Maybe it's time to retire yor 286, because we've had about a half-dozen form factors since the AT, each smaller and generally better than the last.

Re:it's an empty case

[Altus]

dont a lot of the mac desktops have internal firewire ports? Im pretty sure the G4 towers did although I am not sure about the G5. I wonder how much the presence of one really indicates that they intended to use it for an iPod doc.

you do have to wonder why they would put one in the mini though. there is no hope of adding an internal firewire device.

Re:it's an empty case

[FuzzyBad-Mofo]

It's also hard to build a mini-PC that's optimized for low power usage and low noise. Every Shuttle (and Shuttle clone) box that I've looked at is trying to be a gamer's "pocket rocket".

I don't need extreme performance in a mini-pc, my needs are: something small and quiet with low power draw, something that can run 24/7 and not drive up the power bill, and not burn the house down because a fan got stuck or because the water cooling system developed a leak. I've looked for such a case/motherboard, and have had no luck at all. Except in the Mac Mini.

Re:it's an empty case

[hey!]

Well, sure, but the standard desktop mobo is still designed to fit in that old case. The mobo will also have a the ps/2 keyboard and mouse.

Re:it's an empty case

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:it's an empty case

[Coolpup]

Thermaltake's line of cases are awesome. I built a system using the XaserIII early last year, and it has been awesome for me. The case ships with 7 case fans and I now have a total of 12 fans running inside it. For those of you concerned about loudness, the loudest one is the fan on my northbridge (which is not that loud). The case has plenty of room for expansion. It is also built extremely durably. It has shipped back and forth from college to home twice (two round trips) and is still in perfect condition. If Thermaltake's styles don't catch you, look to Antec. They have some amazing cases as well.

Re:it's an empty case

[Frumious Wombat]

Good for Intel; only ten years after Sun unveiled the Sparc IPX, several years after IBM/HP/De(u)ll managed to put Intel's own chips onto a machine the size of an add-in card, and several months after Apple.

On the other hand, since it's currently an empty box, it certainly won't catch any viruses, so it's at least as useful as current full-sized PCs.

Re:it's an empty case

[the quick brown fox]

I hope you can return whatever ugly case you bought, because there are some pretty nice looking ones out there... you just have to look really really hard.

Cases:
Silverstone LC09 (Mini-ITX)
Ahanix D4
Soldam Alphia

Barebones:
Shuttle SB86i

Complete PC:
Hush

Most of these are not as cool looking as my Mac Mini, but then, you wouldn't be limited to 1.43GHz G4 and laptop hard drives.

Re:it's an empty case

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Actually Visual C++ .NET costs something like $110 at retail places like compusa, and better yet gcc is free.

Re:it's an empty case

[ghoti]

I said most ... ;)

Re:it's an empty case

[emilymildew]

Maybe you should learn to read what I am saying.

I didn't call Macs outrageously expensive, I said that the style argument should be brought up when others do. Which happens quite often around here.

Someone has to pay the designers who created those computers, who made them look better than all the others. Consumers do when they pay more for a Mac. That is my entire point.

Why don't you go find a real troll and bother them?

Re:it's an empty case

[Anonymous Coward]

Get back to us when you can do that for under $500.

And he's better add an OS license into that figure, because FreeBSD and Linux are nowhere near close to XP or OSX for refinement and usability.

And then there's the bundled Apple applications (iLife) to replace...

Re:it's an empty case

[saider]

FYI, RS232 works well with only 3 wires. The other 5 wires are used for handshaking between the DTE/DCE.

What you mentioned is the problem with standards. In order to function, they need to be relatively static. If you have too many "standards", then you really do not have a standard. If you are changing or creating new standards every few years to incorporate advancements, you will alienate those with older equipment that does not meet the current spec.

Keep in mind, most customers treat computers as commodities and really don't care about good design. Those that do go with the higher priced, "stylish" computers (Apple,Sony,etc).

Re:it's an empty case

[helix_r]

...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 ...

It depends on your perspective. If you are 17 year old white male LAN-partier who salivates at the sight of gaudy "pimped-out" japanese cars-- then yes, there are many many wonderful PC case designs to choose from.

Re:it's an empty case

[Eternally optimistic]

Yes, it is indeed quite difficult to design a pretty box.

Re:it's an empty case

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:it's an empty case

[jcgf]

There are many free IDEs that you could get for the PC. What's your point?

Re:it's an empty case

[hey!]

Sure, but most folks could get by with a little 2.5 inch drive; in corporate settings its questionable whether they need a drive at all.

I'm not saying that big-ass tower cases should be banned. Just that there needs to be a small format standard that has critical mass. Do you really want everyone to be using large towers ten years from now? Twenty?

Oh and I'm sure component has increased a lot from the eighties.

This may be true if you count tiny surface mount resistors. But if you look at that old stuff, you see rather large arrays of DIP-16 packages. Remember memory came that way, and it wasn't uncommon for memory boards to have arrays of DIP sockets. Imagine 640KB of memory built out of 16K dram chips. That's 40 parts just for memory. And remember what those hard disk controller cards looked like?

In any case, the point is space.

Re:it's an empty case

[DenDave]

Mention that the next time someone talks about how outrageously expensive Macs are. Design costs money.

499$ ?

What do you want? Porsche for the Proletariat?

Re:it's an empty case

[InadequateCamel]

by emilymildew (646109) on Thursday March 03, @09:45AM
Mention that the next time someone talks about how outrageously expensive Macs are

by emilymildew (646109) on Thursday March 03, @10:45AM
I didn't call Macs outrageously expensive

WOW. You must be a politician.

Maybe you should learn to read what I am saying.
Maybe you should learn to remember what you said 60 minutes ago.

Re:it's an empty case

[DenDave]

And I read alot of mac-knocking about the cpu speed? Those nano boards Kevin used use via cpu's!! Seriously folks, crawl behind a mac and give the applications a whirl.. It's more than design and a nifty little box.

Re:it's an empty case

[DenDave]

Equivalent? In what aspect? MIPS? Software? Cost?

Re:it's an empty case

[delire]

i was considering buying a G4 lappie and putting Debian on it, as several friends have done this with great reports. however i found this better looking machine at near half the price, a robust design (carbon fibre case), incredibly fast, light and low temperature. apparently it's also won several design awards (whatever that means):

http://store.agearnotebooks.com/asusm6nphotos.html

solipsistic fandom aside, the Apple titanium machines are fairly crappy anyway, several friends have paint chipped off, dented lids and they are absurdly hot. the iBooks however seem to be well made laptops.

having bought it i was surprised to find, Asus make many of the Apple machines anyway ;)

http://www.spymac.com/forums/showthread.php?thread id=148682

http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20050114A7040.html

Re:it's an empty case

[Refrag]

Stylish? Really? It looks like "THE COMPUTER OF THE FUTURE" out of a 1981 Computer Shopper. Nice clock.

Re:it's an empty case

[Pengo]

Indeed, and well put.

I have recently been chucking my old machines and built a very quiet Athlon (not silent as I hoped, but a water-cooled CPU would pretty much make it silent...) and a silent power supply.

I can crank up the fans if I want to play games, but typically I am not doing anything that requires so much cooling.

I also bought a mac-mini for work, I spend most of my time in email clients , web browsers and unix terminals.. so a mac seems to work fine for what I need to be doing. I love the fact I can go into my office and work on my computer and not so much as a hum is comming from my computer. My thinkpad makes more noise (and thats almost absolutely silent).

Re:it's an empty case

[ChoGGi]

Lian-Li cases

Re:it's an empty case

[OrangeTide]

eMachines copying the iMac wasn't the first. I'd probably have to say everyone copying Apple's first laptop/notebook computer was the first, check out the PowerBook 100. This is back when a PowerBook wasn't powerpc-based (68k) and portable PCs were only available as a "luggable" desktop. (very heavy!)

Re:it's an empty case

[xRelisH]

Why can't somebody come up with a decent design?

Try Lian-Li
But I agree with you, most stock PC cases are crap, and are too flashy without elegance. I love the Lian-li cases, they're clean and don't look tacky if you decide to put a few quad-LED fans in there. All sharp corners are lined with a plastic to avoid cuts, the cases are easy to take apart, and most models have slide out motherboard trays. However, these cases do cost a premium.

Re:it's an empty case

[toddestan]

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.

Get back to us when you can spec out an Apple 64bit system, any 64bit system, for $500.

Re:it's an empty case

[Refrag]

I do believe that is the most insightful post on Slashdot ever!

Re:it's an empty case

[emilymildew]

You must be functionally retarded.

"When someone else says that Macs are outrageously expensive, please, tell them about the design and how that is one reason for the cost."

IS NOT THE SAME AS

"I think that Macs are outrageously expensive."

Learn to read.

Re:it's an empty case

[eric_brissette]

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.

Oh c'mon.. maybe you shouldn't be looking at directron.com or xoxide.com for your computer cases if you can't find a nice clean brushed aluminum case.

Lian-Li makes plenty of cases that are plain, well built, and good looking.. although there's no accounting for taste; your opinion may differ.

Re:it's an empty case

[pyros]

by emilymildew (646109) on Thursday March 03, @09:45AM
Mention that the next time someone talks about how outrageously expensive Macs are

by emilymildew (646109) on Thursday March 03, @10:45AM
I didn't call Macs outrageously expensive

by InadequateCamel (515839) Alter Relationship on 09:52 AM March 3rd, 2005
WOW. You must be a politician.

WOW. You must lack the capacity for logic.

Maybe you should learn to remember what you said 60 minutes ago.

Maybe you should learn to use the full quote, in context to avoid obscuring the full meaning. emilymildew said "I didn't call Macs outrageously expensive, I said that the style argument should be brought up when others do." That extra bit after the comma fully explains why you are wrong. And you should probably learn to read what other people are saying.

Re:it's an empty case

[iwan-nl]

You think Microsoft Visual Studio is the only PC IDE?

Almost all linux distros has KDevelop bundled. If that doesn't do it for you, you can try Dev-Cpp, MinGW-Developer Studio, Eclipse, or BCBX Personal Edition.

Buying a Mac just because it comes with a free IDE is one of the lamest reasons I've ever heard. Just be a man and admit you bought it because of its shiny looks.

Re:it's an empty case

[Anonymous Coward]

stupid fucking mac morons, only stupid ibm laptops are THAT black now a days.

Re:it's an empty case

[MysteriousPreacher]

I think it's because the question is fairly easily answered. A trip to apple.com or a quick google should provide some concrete reasons why some consider Macs to be a good option.

The question itself is quite a simple one and the insulting way it was asked is probably why a mod decided it was just trolling. Your response here is hardly likely to change anyone's assumption that you were just trolling.

Re:it's an empty case

[Refrag]

Has the PC industry really gotten that bad so that they don't do anything but copy Apple?

Yes.

Re:it's an empty case

[Refrag]

Do you find the $999 iBook outrageously expensive? Most people find it gorgeous, but not expensive.

Re:it's an empty case

[EggyToast]

Even the mac super-computers are quiet. I have a dual 1.8 G5 (the pre-gimped revision, with PCI-X and the bigger HDD) and on top of being one damn fast computer, it's whisper quiet. The FW enclosures I have sitting next to it filled with harddrives are louder, and they're only loud from harddrive whine (which means I want to replace them). Rather than going loud for the dual 2.5's, they went to internal water cooling. Most manufacturers only consider water cooling useful for overclockers, afaik.

Occasionally when I'm doing heavy work the fans spin up louder... and then go back to whisper quiet.

iBooks are actual laptops, as far as I'm concerned, as they don't get hot, they don't make noise, and they don't blow hot air. You can actually use them on your lap with no pads or risers. My girlfriend's iBook is eerie, as it turns on and is used pretty heavily, but makes no sound -- when I first used it (not often, it's a work/lab laptop), I almost thought something was wrong!

To me, it's like comparison shopping for HDD insulation to fit inside your computer that handles heat effectively and cuts down on noise, vs. simply buying a new, quiet harddrive. Or replacing all of your internal fans and case with stuff specifically designed to monitor heat and run at appropriate speeds. Most people have experienced the point where it makes sense to simply buy new stuff instead of kludging together your old crap. To many people, that "new stuff" is a mac, since it hits so many of the points. I know it did for me. I see the software as a bonus, which is a pretty sweet bonus :D

And the bulk of this post doesn't even consider how much thought is put into the insides of their computers. Working inside a G5 is a treat, since it doesn't feel like "working." Never having to deal with the tangle of cables inside a computer is a treat most x86 users haven't experienced.

Re:it's an empty case

[Refrag]

Except that mini ITX motherboards are bigger than the Mac Mini case!

Re:it's an empty case

[Anonymous Coward]

OK hotshot, let's see the specs of the "better" AMD64 system (each part with current retail price).

P.S. I would really like to see the inbred dimwits that modded this informative... where is the information here?

Re:it's an empty case

[DoctorMO]

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.

Re:it's an empty case

[IANAAC]

Huh? So now anyone who doesn't buy a Mac is cheap?

Sorry, but Apple hasn't (so far, anyway) set the market rates. Other companies have. And they ALL seem to be able to match a lower price point. Everyone except Apple, that is.

Good grief, get off your fanboy soapbox.

Re:it's an empty case

[thparker]

How is this a "concept PC"?

When car manufacturers put out a never-to-be-mass-produced concept car it's at least, well, a car.

Re:it's an empty case

[skiflyer]

This is really interesting. Since I've seen (and eventually bought ;) an Apple Powerbook, all those black plastic PC laptops make me want to puke. They just look like total crap. And even when companies like Samsung try to copy the Apple look, the results look ugly.

As you may have noticed, this is solely a matter of taste.

Personally, I much prefer the look of an IBM ThinkPad to virtually everything else on the market, whereas you seem to much prefer the powerbook (can we all agree the iBook looks like garbage at least?) But when it comes down to it, design is doubly tough, because it's a matter of taste and there's no one right answer. With performance/battery life and the like the answers are easy, more and more. But with design, if you go too far from the standard you run the risk of alienating a portion of your customer base. There have been a handful of laptop companies in the last few years who have tried to focus on design, and mostly they can't get the volume to offer reasonable prices, or their idea of design is to use really expensive exterior components, so people don't buy them.

But really, make you want to puke, I know I'm on slashdot, but don't you think your exagerating a little?

Re:it's an empty case

[Jason Hood]

Sure =)

Windows XP $88.95
http://www.newegg.com/app/viewproductdesc. asp?desc ription=37-102-151&DEPA=0

MB $70.00
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc. asp?desc ription=13-130-459&depa=1

AMD64 $120
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.as p?desc ription=19-103-452&depa=1

40GB HD $48
http://www.newegg.com/app/viewproductdesc.asp ?desc ription=22-140-133&DEPA=0

CDRW $23.50
http://www.newegg.com/app/viewproductdesc. asp?desc ription=27-106-822&DEPA=1

Case $43
http://www.newegg.com/app/viewproductdesc.asp ?desc ription=11-145-063&DEPA=1

RAM $27
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp ?desc ription=20-141-509&depa=1

Video $34
http://www.newegg.com/app/viewproductdesc.asp ?desc ription=14-121-184&DEPA=1

Total: $455.50 (+25$ shipping)

*Yawn*

Now If you upgraded to an 80GB drive and a 512 of RAM you would be right at $500. A far cry from the upgrade price of the mini. I even added a couple hw options that the mini doesnt come with (7200rpm drive, nvidia card, cdrw)... =)

I have built around 12 computers for families and friends in the last 18 months. None have had a failure of any kind. A failure is always possible but improbable. Save your $40 for the kid down the street to find out the problem and then ship your bad part to the manufactururer. Works for eveyone? nope, but neither does a Mac. The "challenge" was met.

Game. Set. Match. World... Next.

Re:it's an empty case

[anagama]

• I don't want to sit next to an open case with whirring harddisks and fans anymore.

I recently got a PB and it's a real sweet machine. Not that I hate my desktop, but it is starting to get finicky. For example, I did my backups this weekend which means the side is off the desktop box. Why? It crashes during the gzipping if I don't take the side off. I've added fans and all that but it very reliably fails (as in 100% of the time) during backups if the side is on. My PB completed the backup, without any disassembly, in almost complete silence (doubly sweet was the fact I just had to spend about 60 seconds modifying my desktop backup script). Out of laziness, I haven't put the sides back on my desktop and yes, the noise is pretty loud.

Re:it's an empty case

[silentbozo]

I love my iBook. I just spent the last weekend bringing it up to spec, loading dev tools, installing Virtual PC and Win2k for a couple of apps, getting my scripts and programs to work under Classic, customizing the icons and the appearance (no more brushed metal), and upgrading the ram.

The one thing that I need to do is to upgrade the hard drive - 40GB (really more like 37GB, minus 15GB for all the system related stuff). This, unfortunately, is not a trivial undertaking...

Re:it's an empty case

[psmurf]

What is that I smell from over at intel ... could it be .. panic??

Re:it's an empty case

[Jason Hood]

"OK hotshot."

http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=141249 &c id=11833921

Thanks for playing!

Re:it's an empty case

[3nuff]

That was called the Volkswagen (Peoples Car) Beetle. From a mechanical perspective is the Porsche 356 worth that much more than the early Beetle? In my opinion no. But from a design perspective, there is a large difference and I think most people would say that the Porsche wins hands down.

Through this same logic one can think of the Apple laptops as the Porsche 356. There are other laptops out there with the same components, but the quality of the Apple design and materials is so much better. Who else is making a full metal case like the PowerBook? How about the TFT screens? (yes I know there was a recall) They still look that much better.

Point is, you're not going to get quality design AND functionality without paying more.

Re:it's an empty case

[jcr]

For $500 you could build an amd64 system with "better" hardware

Sounds like a business plan! Get back to us when it exists.

-jcr

Re:it's an empty case

[Y0tsuya]

Have you tried something like this: http://www.american-media.com/Products/PC_Servers/ gt_cf1006.html?
I have two 1006 and one 1009. They're very nice-looking. Pricy, but you also pay a premium for Apple's style.

Re:it's an empty case

[aws6001]

You forgot all of the software that comes with the Mac. iMovie, iDVD, iTunes, etc.

Re:it's an empty case

[shotfeel]

Has the PC industry really gotten that bad so that they don't do anything but copy Apple?

This is nothing new. After Apple released the first iMac, at WinHEC, MS unveiled the target platform of the future. Shockingly, it had no PS/2 ports (only USB) no floppy drive, and PCI only for internal expansion cards (no more ISA/EISA). I don't remember if it still had a parallel port of not. MS reeealy wanted to get rid of all the legacy stuff that made drivers and compatibility so difficult.

Re:it's an empty case

[drsquare]

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.

Re:it's an empty case

[d34thm0nk3y]

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.

c'mon, this is slashdot, if it breaks fix the damn thing. I would rather fix it myself right away than wait even a week.

Re:it's an empty case

[Jason Hood]

Then you need to make sure they're all compatible, and that it all works with your OS. Apple does all this for you.

It is all compatible. Why wouldnt it be? RAM compatibility isnt a big problem anymore. It actually is for Macs though. $300+ for the 1G upgrade on a mini? ouch.


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.

Newegg sells protection plans if that is what you want. You must be the type of person that buys the extended warranty as bestbuy. This is a valid point, but how often does hardware fail and can you actually swap out a component on a mini? nope, not without voiding your warranty.


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.

Actually no, its still inferior equipment. It just looks pretty. The HD in the minis are horrid. If you want pretty equipment, then buy a Mac. If you need significantly more power, buy an amd64 for the same price =)

I dont care what people buy, buy what matches your needs. I simply and correctly pointed out that you can get a much more powerful system for the same price =)

Re:it's an empty case

[Theaetetus]

Game. Set. Match. World... Next.

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

Re:it's an empty case

[DaddyDonMynack]

I guess you haven't been looking very hard. You can get PCs that value the design esthetic as well. Take a look at these, for instance:

http://www.soldam.com/case/jazz_take5/index.html
(Note: Parts of that site appear to be down)

I'm not saying that Apple machines don't look good - most of them do. However, there is more to the PC world than Dell, and/or cases you find at Fry's.

Re:it's an empty case

[ghoti]

I was not saying that my taste it what should set the standards. But from the people I talk to, and from the things I read, it seems that I'm not the only one.

And for the puking: Yes, I (slightly) exagerated. But I have yet to see a good looking PC laptop. I guess what I like most about the Powerbook design is that it looks good without looking too polished or "posh". That's what I don't like about the Porsche designs somebody else pointed out. And apart from that, the PB is also engineered very well (quiet, doesn't get too hot, etc.).

Re:it's an empty case

[BasilBrush]

It must be. Only Apple seems able to do it.

Re:it's an empty case

[Leo McGarry]

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).

Um. That's fine and all, but what happens when you actually want to use that computer to do something other that, you know, sorting numbers?

It's entirely possible that, if you're willing to completely discount the cost of your own labor, you might be able to build an ass-ugly computer for a few hundred bucks. But it won't have any software. How much is the software going to cost you? And don't say "it's free," because we're talking about a Mac here. You can't buy a PC equivalent of iLife at any price, but you can at least get kinda-sorta close by buying various pieces of off-the-shelf software. You can't even get that close using freeware.

So for your investment of X hundred dollars and countless hours of your own time, you've succeeded in building an empty computer that you then have to spend hundreds or even thousands filling with software.

Dumb idea.

Re:it's an empty case

[BasilBrush]

2 posters with a different point of view on Slashdot? Amazing! Whatever next?

Re:it's an empty case

[teridon]

ZORG: A case with four stones in it! Not one or two or three! But four!!! Four stones!!! What the fuck am I supposed to do with an EMPTY case?!!

Re:it's an empty case

[macintaz]

I hate to say but you can a top of the AMD for under $500 with everything and a High end Video card Granted there is no SW But if your Building you own PC you have all the SW you need including your OS of choice This option is not for Everyone out there to try to do maybe 20% of the PC owners build there own (this is a guess I have no Idea how many built there own PCs)

BUT YOUR MISSING THE MAC MINI POINT

The Mac mini is for the PC geek that has wanted to see what the Buzz is about Mac OS X now they can do it pretty cheep

The Mac mini is for the Family that is tired of Windows and wants a try at Mac OS X and have the monitor keyboard and mouse

Just My two cents

Re:it's an empty case

[mjm1231]

Your links don't work.

Your system probably generates more than 22db.

Your system definitely requires more than 85W.

newegg doesn't sell any ITX cases.

Without seeing the components, I can't be sure, but it looks unlikely that this has firewire.

Please review the design specs. (Of course, as was already noted, there are no 64bit Macs, so the contest is pointless. Still, its pretty damn hard to get all that stuff into a mini-ITX for under 500 bucks. I've been shopping for parts to do just that recently.)

Re:it's an empty case

[ghoti]

Good point, but at least in my case, there isn't a lot of noise in my flat. So it makes sense to also have a silent computer. Plus, the computer makes these high-pitched noises that are much more of a nuisance than, say, traffic noise from the street.
So I agree with you, but I think that people who like silent computers will tend to also look for low noise with the other things they buy.

Re:it's an empty case

[Predius]

Guess you're new to teh PC scene. This mini craze is nothing new, its a return to old school platform design. I remember way back when, there wasn't a box, you just plugged stuff right into your keyboard. We had tiny boxen from the XT era right up through modern times. You just didn't notice till Apple decided to do a marketing blitz on it.

Re:it's an empty case

[BasilBrush]

Why was that modded as troll? You do get a complete professional development IDE for multiple languages for free with OS X. It's called XCode, and it's not limited by license type or by being cut down. It's teh very same environment that Apple use themselves to develop the OS. As such, it's nearest comparison on Windows is the full professional version of Visual Studio.

Re:it's an empty case

[l4m3z0r]

When you buy a Mac, you expect to pay more for a number of reasons including design, quality, software, etc. Lets face it, Apple sells a specific product, they sell it at a premium because of the costs associated with producing a limited run product(limited compared to PCs). People who complain about the cost of a mac really have no reason to complain other than the fact that they are cheap bastards. If cost is your primary concern buy a dell. People want to have there cake and eat it to. The want a cheap mac, now that they have the mini thats not good enough they want a dual G5 for that price. Cheap, Cheap Cheap. If you needed/wanted a Mac you'd pay for it.

Sorry, but Apple hasn't (so far, anyway) set the market rates.

You don't seem to understand market rates at all. From your post it would seem that you think market rates are one company sells a product all companies should immediately price their similiar products to within $.01 of that product. You don't give any account to the fact that a Mac is 1) a much more limited production item 2) more R&D has gone into it 3) its a product geared towards specific people with specific needs.

The same people that bitch about macs costing too much are the losers that got there pirated copy of photoshop whining about the licensing fees. Hey if its such a good product that you have to be using above the competition, why don't you actually pony up the dough. Instead they bitch and moan and whine about cheaper stuff and once its given to them, they find something else to complain about.

The truth of the matter is, Apple products are not overpriced. And for lots of people the value you get by paying extra for an Apple product is greater than paying half as much for a shoddy dell that won't meet your needs.

Re:it's an empty case

[Scrameustache]

outrageously expensive?

That consummer code for "charging more than I want to pay for something I wanna!"

Like how marketing speech for "hidden costs" is "and you also get, free of charge..."

Re:it's an empty case

[l4m3z0r]

I apologize, a hasty comment has made a fool of me.

Re:it's an empty case

[ArsenneLupin]

iBooks are actual laptops, as far as I'm concerned, as they don't get hot, they don't make noise, and they don't blow hot air. You can actually use them on your lap with no pads or risers.

With a username like yours...

Re:it's an empty case

[IgnoramusMaximus]

They just look like total crap.

That is your subjective opinion. I for example would never buy a powerbook which to me looks like a bejewelled accessory for hopeless fashion victims (not to mention the touchpad nonsense). Your statement reminds me of the rantings of one of the "computer visionaries" in the press when he got himself a Ferrari-themed laptop complete with high-gloss paint job and revving engine sound on startup.

Re:it's an empty case

[Caeda]

For that $500 dollars. Do you get 512Mb of ram? Do you get a CD-RW drive? And a second, seperate DVD drive? Keyboard? Mouse? Monitor? Speakers? Gee, that's funny. With a pc you can get all that for $400.

Re:it's an empty case

[Spruitje]

The fucking problem is that you can get an equivalent PC for less. Of course thats without the design. But then again thats what the grandparent said...


You can't.
Not one running MacOS X and in the same formfactor.
And don't forget the apps.
iMovie, iDVD, garageband, etc..
You get a machine with a processor with a higher clockspeed.
But that's doesn't say anything.
Clockspeed is not everything.
A 2,5 Ghz PPC970 is a lot faster than a 3,05 Ghz XEON or P4.

Re:it's an empty case

[edstromp]

I do my best not to be too much of a Mac fan-boy, but I gotta say my work compaq nc8000 is so big it *should* be a desktop, not a laptop. My home 12" PowerBook ... it's strange. I don't know if it is the metal, the even warmth when it's been running for a while, the rounded corners... It is almost heart warming just to carry around the house. I wish I could pout a finger on what it is about the design that makes we not want to let go, but there is something there.

Re:it's an empty case

[Knertified]

Did you happen to look at the translucent imac laptop? Thats the ugliest laptop of them all. Besides, what would you rather have.. something that looks pretty or something that performs faster and saves you time.

Re:it's an empty case

[Suppafly]

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).

You are comparing apples or oranges.. MS Works is the competitor to Apple Works, The built in windows movie editing software is the competitor to iMovie, there are several free av programs as well as pdf distillers, etc. video conferencing would be handled by netmeeting or the new live meeting stuff.

Re:it's an empty case

[Fulcrum of Evil]

you do have to wonder why they would put one in the mini though. there is no hope of adding an internal firewire device.

Simple: the itnernal firewire port can drive a dock stuck in the top.

Re:it's an empty case

[iamacat]

Your wrong, a mac is alot more than just a fancy box, it's a superor solution in all but one way (Openess).

I am not defending Apple, just curious how you define openness.

Software: the base system is open sourced, probably fewer binary-only drivers to deal with than Windows. You can compile and run all Linux user apps under provided X11 or run Linux natively if that's all you want. UI is close-sourced, but based on an open standard, get GNUStep if you want.

Hardware: Mac-on-Linux runs on any PPC hardware, like IBM or Amiga stuff. OSX license is problematic, but Apple hasn't sued or locked in the OS either. But anyway, if you want openness you must be using Linux, so you should have nice interoperability across multi-vendor Power architecture :-)

Re:it's an empty case

[Steve Cowan]

Only the first revision "Sawtooth" G4 towers had the internal FW port. (See this post for a theory on the subject)

Re:it's an empty case

[indytx]

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.

I agree entirely. I purchased a Dimension 3000 that started making terrible fan noise the day I plugged it in. Horrible, rattling noise. The fix? A folded paper towel wedged between the cheap, loose fan shroud and the case.

It amazed me that I found the solution on the web. I am even more amazed that most people will probably just tolerate the noise. I'm not saying my Dimension is any worse than any other computer, but it was such an easy fix for such a cheap problem that I was blown away that a company would ship a product like that.

Oh. Wait. Scratch that last part.

Re:it's an empty case

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Of course, as was already noted, there are no 64bit Macs, so the contest is pointless.

Last I checked, the G4 (which is in the mini) is 64 bit.

Re:it's an empty case

[sadida_333]

Anonymous Coward, you are my hero. Do you mind if I fashion a gold idol in your likeness?

Re:it's an empty case

[iamacat]

I am now working on a Linux project and the only sane solution I found is to NFS-mount my home to a rather old Mac and fire up XCode. Don't KDeveloper guys think I might want to see more than one of my source files at once or see two places in a file at the same time with a split view? Or use separate windows instead of their tabs? On top of that it's buggy as hell. For example, breakpoints are randomly ignored when debugging. Eclipse looks more promising, but for one thing insists on copying everything into its project directory. Also all menus and other UI are in weird (IBM?) style that makes it hard to find how to do what you want. If anyone knows of a decent IDE for Linux, I will gladly switch, because this Mac is really sluggish. As it is, I plan on pestering a Mac Mini out of our product manager for some future OSX port.

Re:it's an empty case

[Altus]

I havent cracked one of these myself... but wouldnt a dock interfere with the optical drive that I assume takes up most of the top of the Mac mini.

I do get where you are going though, and I could see apple trying something like that.

Re:it's an empty case

[Bilestoad]

Bullshit. For less money (or more depending on config) you get a Dell abortion with pathetic integrated graphics, "shared graphics memory", useless software and a monitor/KB/mouse that's only good for filling a dumpster. Thanks, but I'll take the Mac mini.

Re:it's an empty case

[Bilestoad]

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!

Re:it's an empty case

[buttersnout]

I think you are quite right. You know, it's intersting because I think the same is true of ipods. It loses in terms of included hardware or features but wins in terms of usability etc. People, however buy ipods over its competitors but not the mac has such a low market share.

Re:it's an empty case

[jackspenn]

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.

Re:it's an empty case

[birdflu]

Has the PC industry really gotten that bad so that they don't do anything but copy Apple?

The Mac Mini is copying the PC miniITX form factor, mini PC's have been popular with hobbyist for the last few years and it just now catching on with the big companies.

Re:it's an empty case

[rsborg]

I hope you can return whatever ugly case you bought, because there are some pretty nice looking ones out there... you just have to look really really hard.

I've listed some prices of the things you specify below:

Cases:
Silverstone LC09 (Mini-ITX) prices
Ahanix D4 prices
Soldam Alphia (can't find prices on this one)

Barebones:
Shuttle SB86i prices... look down

Complete PC:
Hush

Most of these are not as cool looking as my Mac Mini, but then, you wouldn't be limited to 1.43GHz G4 and laptop hard drives.

As you can see, sure, you are limited to a selection of a fairly midgrade/slow processor + laptop hard drives, but this is what you need for a small, quiet, sexy box. Even VIA knows that.

BUT... even given that, the mini is a complete frickin bargain... at $150 for the case, or $350 for the barebones kit, you're still looking at about a $700+ job for a decently installed complete system that is tested and tuned.

Re:it's an empty case

[Theaetetus]

MS Works is the competitor to Apple Works, The built in windows movie editing software is the competitor to iMovie, there are several free av programs as well as pdf distillers, etc. video conferencing would be handled by netmeeting or the new live meeting stuff.

And the acoustic noise, case size, shoddy components, and "lite" OS? How about the fact that the Mac Mini comes pre-loaded, while the New Egg custom built stuff requires you to spend a half-hour building, and another hour or two or three loading (when you include the distiller, video conferencing, loading drivers for the video and combo drive, etc.), and that even at a reasonable self-paid labor cost of $25/hr, that's almost another hundred on the price?

-T

Re:it's an empty case

[drsquare]

It is all compatible. Why wouldnt it be? RAM compatibility isnt a big problem anymore. It actually is for Macs though. $300+ for the 1G upgrade on a mini? ouch.

The mini comes with RAM, you don't need to upgrade it. It's not made for people (i.e. obsessive nerds) who upgrade the computer just for the sake of it. That's the beauty of it, you just plug the thing in.

Newegg sells protection plans if that is what you want. You must be the type of person that buys the extended warranty as bestbuy. This is a valid point, but how often does hardware fail and can you actually swap out a component on a mini? nope, not without voiding your warranty.

You don't need to swap out the component. Diving inside is for nerds, i.e. not the market the mini is aimed at. You just send it back and have something else fix it. No fucking about finding 3rd party warranties and insurance.

Macs are for people who just want to use their computer, not fuck about with it and worry about processor speed and video-card RAM. The same idea goes for OSX vs Linux.

Re:it's an empty case

[djdavetrouble]

Yep... A guy I know bought a "The Brick" machine way back when. It was pretty nice.

Its funny to me because brick is the slang we use to describe an old heavy laptop around here, as in "man, that thing is a total brick"

Re:it's an empty case

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you used Microsoft's movie program and compared it to iMovie? I don't think you'd equate it. Appleworks sucks. (i'm a mac and pc user)

Seriously, Microsoft office is practically a required purchase on both platforms. Yes they make office for the Mac! www.microsoft.com/mac

While I love clamwin, its not NAV/SAV! Windows requires a GOOD antivirus product with on access scanning. As for PDF support, you can literally create a pdf from almost any program on the mac for free! Its VERY easy. No software installations.. time is a cost factor.

As for the OS comparison, its fair to equate XP Pro to OS X. Why? Well for one you get the same file sharing capabilities (or better) on the mac with apple's modified samba install. Both XP Pro and OSX have a webserver built in (good for web developers like myself). Microsoft wants you to pay for IIS (if you do .NET web stuff you know what i'm talking about).

To /. people, pirating windows and all that stuff is an obvious thought to save money. So you still have to buy the hardware. With apple, you are 100% legal and get an equivalent computer. Not to mention that XP PRO upgrades are more money than OSX so when the next release of both oses come out guess who will be saving money! (if you are legal)

(and you can play world of warcraft on either system! )

Re:it's an empty case

[RapmasterT]

Has the PC industry really gotten that bad so that they don't do anything but copy Apple? First eMachines copies the iMac, now Intel is trying to show that PCs can be mini too. I know it's a mockup, but do something original instead of copying the color of the mini.

It's never too difficult to pick up on where people's agendas lie. Calling this a "copy of apple" can only be explained by ignoring the fact that sub-micro form factors have been available for YEARS in the PC world.

It would be more accurate to suggest that lately Apple has had a lot of success copying things from OTHERS. Contrary to popular belief the iPod was in no way original, but a very late to the game "me too" product, and the Apple Mini is quite a bit LARGER than several PC's that have been around for years. The "strikingly similar" comment is utterly laughable, unless Apple has managed to copyright the "square" shape now.

Love Apple all you like, but when you twist reality to support your point of view, you look pretty damned ignorant.

Re:it's an empty case

[soft_guy]

If the board would have sided with Steve Job in 1985 instead of John Scully, Apple's marketshare wouldn't be so low now. The difference is that Apple had a series of bozos at the helm for 12 years who pissed away the lead they had with the Mac.

Re:it's an empty case

[chrish]

Maybe it was a new Phantom console prototype.

Re:it's an empty case

[Queer Boy]

dont a lot of the mac desktops have internal firewire ports?

No. Only the generation of G4 Macs that appeared with the Cube. Apple's thought was that FireWire was going to replace SCSI and that native FireWire drives would appear shortly. To the best of my knowledge there still are no native FireWire drives. Apple eliminated the internal FireWire when they retired the Sawtooth G4's.

Re:it's an empty case

[DaDeacon]

even more so the point is like saying I have a really tricked out honda, why buy a corvertte? i have a really tricked out Wintel look at it fly. i have a really nice mac that came will all the cool shit your tricked out unit ahd to be added on. hmmm I paid less and it worked out the box...so you tell me who got the better end of the stick.

Re:it's an empty case

[chrish]

I bought the low-end iBook as a replacement for an old Dell Inspiron 7000 (and so I could cover Mac OS X for a book). I've also used various ThinkPads, an old Toshiba, and a fairly new Toshiba Satellite Pro, so I like to think I've got a fairly broad experience with x86 laptops. We've got piles of Acer and other laptops here at the office, including those surf-board sized widescreen beasts.

The iBook is absolutely the best of the bunch. The design and attention to detail on this thing are just amazing compared to the x86 laptops, and OS X is actually really nice to use once you get over the fact that it's not XP. The last Mac I used had OS 7.6.1 on it, and it's really nice to have a real OS coming out of Apple these days.

It's cheap, small, light, and gets over four hours on a full battery. The 1GHz G4 in my system performs very well, even at horrible CPU-crushing tasks like video encoding.

Very pleased with my purchase, although they did start bundling the AirPort Express card about three months after I ordered my system. D'oh!

Re:it's an empty case

[danila]

Well, Sony always had uber-sexy Vaio laptops that made people drool for as long as Apple's Powerbooks. And many other manufacturers have great designs. as well. For instance, LG has nice looking laptops and Fujitsu has some beautiful slate TabletPCs.

Apple has a very strong brand. They can make a white plastic box, slap a logo on it and it will sell. I am not saying that they don't have great design, just that they are only marginally better than designs from other manufacturers. But Apples are perceived to be much more stylish, because Apple is... "different".

Re:it's an empty case

[Ohreally_factor]

I knew someone would bring this up. It might be a valid point overall, but it wasn't in the original requirements of

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.

The GP met all these requirements, and even threw in XP, instead of relying on a free OS.

Personally, Id' rather use a Mac, and mostly because of the software. However, that doesn't mean you can criticize someone for not meeting the original requirements by changing the requirements. That's changing the argument to avoid losing when you've been proven wrong.

Re:it's an empty case

[leinhos]

True. My Amiga had one in 1986, with 512KB of memory and no HD (booting off a single floppy). I'm sure when Longhorn comes out everyone will be trying copy MicroSoft too.

LoL. Ha, ha. oh that's funny...

Re:it's an empty case

[Ohreally_factor]

Wasn't that the one designed and manufactured by Sony, way before Sony did the Vaio?

PB 100

I'm not saying you're completely wrong. I'm just pointing out that Apple isn't the font of all innovation, just most of it. =) And I guess one should credit them with partnering with Sony.

Re:it's an empty case

[sixide]

Are you serious? We're talking computers here. Tools, and possibly playthings. Who bitches that their welder doesn't look attractive? Erector set? Xbox? Bandsaw? Etc? I think if you ask a typical (sane, reasonable) person what they look for in a computer purchase, "attractive" doesn't show up. It isn't a painting or a sculpture.

Re:it's an empty case

[Ohreally_factor]

Or was it the chili they served in the company cafeteria yesterday?

Re:it's an empty case

[Anonymous Coward]

Intel exec: Make me a PC that's just like the Mac mini.
Intel engr: We don't have a mobo+drive that'll fit in a such a small case.
Intel exec: Well, make them smaller.
Intel engr: There's still the heat dissipation issue for such a small case.
Intel exec: Well, put some fans in there, will ya?
Intel engr: Umm... the Mac mini is whisper quite...
Intel exec: Damn.... What's that on your desk?
Intel engr: My lunch box with my sandwich.
Intel exec: Excellent! I'll take that and just glue some ports on its side.
Intel engr: Hey! Gimme back my baloney sandwich!

Re:it's an empty case

[jmontana66]

Maybe you should learn to remember what you said 60 minutes ago.

And maybe you should learn to read things in context.

emilymildew wasn't saying they were outrageously expensive, but rather, "that's a good argument to use when someone else says Macs are outrageously expensive."

And this was the good argument:

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 ...

Re:it's an empty case

[GrahamCox]

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 ...

I think it's partly because they just don't know what good design actually looks like. It's the same with cars - the Japanese make some fine cars, but most of them have very dull and pedestrian styling. The Italians on the other hand, have always made beautiful cars - they know how to put a sculptural form together that stirs the soul. Even a humble Fiat is usually oozing a million percent more charisma than, umm, the Nissan Charisma. The engineering however, hasn't always been 100%. It's the (styling) difference between a Lexus and Mercedes - almost identical, yet somehow light years apart. Why the Japanese don't simply get an Italian stylist in whenever they make a new model is beyond me - after all, they could easily afford it. I think they don't because they simply cannot see what's not quite there about their in-house efforts. Perhaps it's a cultural thing. Same with PCs - Samsung etc put together a laptop that, to them, looks fine, with all its unnecessary curves and bulges and bumps, and of course slightly compromised due to the effort of actually fitting all the hardware in. They just don't see it the way Apple does. They are the Pininfarina of the computer world...

Re:it's an empty case

[nathanh]

Mention that the next time someone talks about how outrageously expensive Macs are. Design costs money. Designers cost money.

I bought a Powerbook because it was CHEAPER than other laptops. The cheapest brandname x86 laptop I could find was $2200. The PowerBook was $2800. But the x86 didn't have wireless, enough RAM, enough disk, bluetooth, or firewire. After I'd finished upgrading the x86 laptop so it was acceptable, the PowerBook was $50 cheaper. Take into consideration the stylish looks and the slot loading drive, neither of which were offered by the x86 laptop, and my decision was made.

Fortunately I run Linux so I had no allegiance to x86.

Right now you can buy a brand new iBook G4, which basically smokes my PowerBook, for $1599. The cheapest x86 laptop I can find is $1299 and it's a non-brandname without CD burner, without wireless, and without bluetooth, all of which are standard on the iBook G4. Add those features and the iBook comes out cheaper.

Apple's historical reputation of being overly expensive was well deserved. In my time I have owned a Duo and a PowerMac and they both cost far more than their x86 equivalents. But those days are long gone. Apple has reinvented themselves as the cheaper option while still retaining their stylish looks. The Mac mini is another example of Apple taking on the budget market. I tried to build or find an equivalent x86 machine (to be a MythTV frontend) and I couldn't do it for the price.

Re:it's an empty case

[Smurf]

It actually is for Macs though. $300+ for the 1G upgrade on a mini? ouch.

You shouldn't buy RAM from Apple, just as you wouldn't buy it from Dell. They sell it at ridiculous prices.

The Mac Mini uses standard 184 pin PC2700 RAM. You can get it for $196 from Crucial, or $137 from NewEgg, and I guess you could find it cheaper if you search for five minutes more.

Re:it's an empty case

[Frosty-B-Bad]

true, but there is an old quote I always loved from the automotive world, that pretty much fits anywhere

You have to bend the metal anyways, you might as well bend it to look good.


I'm not sure why anyone would make a bad design on purpose, but it's done everyday. :(

Re:it's an empty case

[eraserewind]

Well, you can download the Microsoft command line C++ compiler for free. There are plenty of open source IDE's of assorted quality out there.

You can (or could, I don't know about now) also get a version of Visual studio with a crippled compiler free with some books. Then you just change the internal tool paths to point to the command line compiler.

Re:it's an empty case

[John Harrison]

It is not a stylish box. It was a fugly box.

Also, Windows users will freak out if they don't have an eject button.

Re:it's an empty case

[v1]

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.

Re:it's an empty case

[BasilBrush]

From the site you linked to "Price from: $ 1,329.00" Powerbooks start at $1499. That counts as a little cheaper, not nearly half the price. Between the two, I'd take the Powerbook any day, mainly for OS X.

Re:it's an empty case

[jbplou]

Of course the Mac mini is an overpriced little box with little use. A complete Dell system costs the same and has much more processing power and a better OS.

Re:it's an empty case

[BasilBrush]

That's not a computer. That's a box of components. Hey I can get clothes cheaper than Walmart if I buy the cloth and sew them myself.

Re:it's an empty case

[delire]

well given the performance i need i saved around $500 cost-compared with the PB. also i asked for it blank as i wanted to put Debian on the machine.

however in retrospect i paid in Euro's thus didn't compare with the US 'discounts' on PB's. i didn't consider that at the time of posting. needless to say this Asus is a great machine and looks remarkably similar to the PB, albeit a more robust design.

Re:it's an empty case

[NoodleSlayer]

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.

Just like OS X is a stripped down version of OS X Server. Don't believe me? Compare the file sharing options between OS X, OS X Server, WinXP Home and WinXP Pro. Functionality-wise (in terms of File Sharing, User and Computer management. Not in terms of usability.) Mac OS X (non-Server) and WinXP Home are roughly equivalent. WinXP Pro would be somewhere between Mac OS X and OS X Server in terms of functionality.

add in a copy of Office to compete with Appleworks ($250) Office is hardly the functional counterpart for Appleworks. More like Microsoft Works, which is old and truly does not work very well, which in many ways is akin to the fairly old AppleWorks. Which can be gotten for $30 off of newegg.com.

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.

The biggest difference here is that an AMD64 is a year old, while the G4s have been around for 5+ years now. The first 1.25 Ghz G4s appeared in 2002. Since then IBM has had quite a bit of time to get the chip more power efficient and cooler. Realistically a comparison to a Centrino chip, or a Geode, being put into a Desktop box would be a little more accurate.

a licensed copy of Acrobat Distiller so that you can create PDFs (it's built in on the Mac)

A quick look on Google or Download.com will return plenty of alternatives for creating PDFs.

a copy of Adobe Premiere Express to compete with iMovie ($200)

Windows XP comes with Movie Editing software. Really really awful movie editing software that's nowhere near as nice as iMovie, but still its there.

Now you just have to wait for a 64-bit version of Windows.

And you still have to wait for a 64-bit version of MacOS too. (Panther is not 64-bit, however unlike Windows it will allow 64-bit apps to take advantage of the 64-bit features of a G5. Tiger will be the first truly 64-bit version of MacOS)

Of course lets not forget that the G4 is not a 64-bit processor either.

If you are going to argue over which OS has a bigger dick you might as well stick to accurate arguments.

Mac OS X for many users is much easier to use. Its much nicer on the users and its interface is highly functional and robust while still being intuitive. (Opinion, but harder to disprove) And of course Security problems are much fewer on Mac OS X. My younger brother on a PC can overload it with so many viruses and spyware that it becomes barely usable within a week. Put him on a Mac and its much harder for him to screw it up, the lifespan is measured in years instead of days.

Re:it's an empty case

[starrsoft]

Who modded parent informative?!? Grandparent:

"...problem is that you can get an equivalent PC for less. Of course thats without the design. But then again thats what the grandparent said..."

Parent:

"You can't.
Not one running MacOS X [Duh! He said a PC (Personal Computer. Strictly speaking, this refers to the IBM PC, which is any IBM-manufactured personal computer made prior to the PS/2 Series. Usually PC refers to any personal computer compatible with IBMs. It is also used to refer to any personal computer.)] and in the same formfactor.
And don't forget the apps. [He said computer, not apps]
iMovie, iDVD, garageband, etc.."

Re:it's an empty case

[Assassin_for_Atari]

You should check out the VENTO(sp?) from Asus. Its pretty cool looking with out being filled with lights and what not.

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?

Cause PC users like to mod their case. If people weren't blowing money on it they wouldn't still be making the product. Heck, I'm one of those guys that likes a "ricer" pc. I also like my main machine to be a TANK! Little is cool and I give Apple credit for the mini but I don't think I could ever own one and have it be my main system. I would rather go G5, ....for the factiIt just looks like the mini would be a pain to upgrade and of course I would imagine that if I "break the seal" the warrenty goes by by.

all in all I think it just comes down to a different mind set between PC users and Apple users.

Re:it's an empty case

[starrsoft]

"Um. That's fine and all, but what happens when you actually want to use that computer to do something other that, you know, sorting numbers?"

Color me stupid, but I thot that that was the whole concept behind computers: sorting numbers... 100111001010001010001111

Re:it's an empty case

[starrsoft]

"fine for a nerd" Well you're talking to as big a collection (*groan* Beowulf cluster?) of nerds as you are likely to find, so your arguments have not so much validity.

Re:it's an empty case

[RedBear]

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...

Re:it's an empty case

[starrsoft]

He didn't call Macs outrageously expensive; he said something to mention next time "someone [else]" calls them that.

"He said, she said..." *sigh*

Re:it's an empty case

[RoloDMonkey]

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).

Although I agree with the premise, I have to point out the weakness of this part of the argument. A copy of OpenOffice.org ($0). A copy of PDFCreator ($0), and a copy of AVG Free ($free, duh). You can't say free software is cool on your Mac or *nix box without admitting that it is also available for Windows.

Re:it's an empty case

[rhuntley12]

Sorry I run Linux. So take that off. I paid under $50 for my DVD-R/RW from a deal a few weeks ago. My one fan and powersupply is just fine on my case which was $20 and imo looks really cool. I use openoffice so you can take that too. Don't use garageband or acid. Don't create PDF's. No adobe for me. And my brothers accountant does my taxes.;) And I also use free anti-virus, and Spybot. My current box is really new, cost a TON less then $1000 that is including my LCD, It's quiet enough that I can't hear the fan over my typing. I'm also still running a DVD-R that is almost 3 and a half years old. Oh and I can load up any game I want by using my copy of windows from a box that is now running Linux. I also have a very old 486 that is still up and running to this day. You like apples, that's well and fine, and it works for you. But I get real sick of people trying to justify that windows boxes will cost so much more. I don't think an apple is worth the money seeing as how I can't even play games I like on it, but that is just for me. Forgot to mention, since the majority of your PC's out there are running windows or Linux to a lesser extent, that software can be moved around a bit more.

Re:it's an empty case

[jedidiah]

The mac mini is just an incremental improvement on a 4 year old bookpc or 6 year old similar form factor Alpha.

You are greatly confused regarding just whom is copying whom here.

Re:it's an empty case

[drsmithy]

Intel engr: There's still the heat dissipation issue for such a small case.

How do you figure there's going to be any heat issues if they use Pentium M chips ?

There are PC laptops the same size - if not smaller - than the Mac mini with more features. There's nothing *technical* standing in the way of a "PC Mini".

Re:it's an empty case

[Perky_Goth]

no,that's retarded.
as much as whoever you're replying to. you might as well include the price of a console on the mac, since you'll want to be playing games, right?

Re:it's an empty case

[DenDave]

There are other laptops out there with the same components

Really? I would love a link to a manufacturer that produces a PPC G4+ based laptop in a compact 12" durable lexan casing with a decent video card and tft which lasts between 4 and 6 hours on it's battery and doesn't weigh a ton. Oh, and preferably it has a comparable software offering running a stable, vendor supported, POSIX compliant OS and the usual pluggy things like firewire and a built-in burner. It would also be nice if looked half decent and stayed that way.. All for less than 1000$???? what you been smokin' bro?

Re:it's an empty case

[Zilch]

No... a computer is all about running software. Everything else is just window dressing. Uneil Apple have a similar soft software base to Windows, it isn't going to even start to be a competitor.

Sorry rabid Mac fans - this is just a fact. I should know, I used to be an OS/2 user.

Zilch

Re:it's an empty case

[DoctorMO]

The lack of openness is mainly due to the way they do buisness, after all they are a hardware computer seller.

But it dosn't matter as much now as it did back in days past since as you say apple has been forced to become more friendly with other standards and has opened up a bit.

But ultimatly if my Powerbook dies (it did) I must get it fixed at an apple certified mac specialist, with mac made parts (even the websites that sell parts get them from referb machines) so in that sense they can charge what ever they like for getting them fixed or upgraded. (I'd have done the fixing myself, but uk isn't very good for shipping from the mac hardware sites)

Re:it's an empty case

[DigitumDei]

Okay, I'm just reading everyone replies. I'll just reply to this though.

IMO:

usability is a result of good design
security is a result of good design
size is a result of good design
noise is a result of good design
longevity doesn't really count with computers for 99% of the population, a cheap PC works for longer than it takes the user to want a newer better machine
style is a result of good design
included software, the macs included software is good because... good design
included hardware is where the macs lose.

Now lets see what I said.

The fucking problem is that you can get an equivalent PC for less. Of course thats without the design. But then again thats what the grandparent said...

Please understand that I do realise that for many people, the mac is a superior choice. It should be. It is designed well. Perhaps it is rightly more expensive, but most people will buy the best HARDWARE for their money, and live with the other stuff being worse.

Re:it's an empty case

[the quick brown fox]

I wasn't presenting alternatives to the Mac Mini. I was responding to this comment:

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.

But if you do want to make a direct comparison, I'll bite. First, I bought the Mac Mini, in fact I waited in line on 1/22 at my local Apple store and was the first person to buy one there. It is definitely a great value for such a small, sexy device, and I can easily recommend it to anyone who needs a living room computer for basic computing needs.

But to be fair, the x86 offerings are nothing to sneeze at either. If you can deal with an 800MHz EPIA (more than adequate for SOHO server tasks), a combo with Silverstone LC09 ($150) + VIA EPIA 800 ($100 from idot.com) + 256MB PC133 ($50) + hard drive ($50) = $350, unless I am forgetting something. Or you can upgrade to a Celeron or Pentium 4 for an additional $60 plus the price of the CPU (unfortunately the cheapest P4 is a steep $125 on NewEgg, but you can get Celerons for as little as $60).

On the other side of the spectrum, I'm typing this on a Shuttle SN85G4 with an Athlon 64 and a WD Raptor hard drive. This rig is faster than any Mac except (arguably) the Power Mac, for a lot less money (it was $2000 a year ago).

There are a million reasons why none of the above are apples-to-apples comparisons to a Mac Mini, but, it seems clear that there are at least comparable values in the x86 world, at all points of the price/performance/size/style curve.

Re:it's an empty case

[the quick brown fox]

The Hush is crazy expensive, no doubt about that. But if you are willing to forgo the 1.2GHz processor (even just settling for 1.0GHz), see my response to the other post--you can put together a lot of computer for significantly under $500 (though not counting Windows--once you throw software into the equation, the Mac Mini pulls way ahead IMO).

What's most interesting to me about that configuration is the VIA EPIA. For $99 you get a 6.75" x 6.75" motherboard, a cool-running 800MHz processor, built-in networking/audio/video/USB (with TV-out and S/PDIF), two DIMM slots and a PCI slot. It's hard to build any computer around that and have it not end up a bargain! (For example, my personal mail server which totaled just over $200.)

Re:it's an empty case

[Theaetetus]

Just like OS X is a stripped down version of OS X Server. Don't believe me? Compare the file sharing options between OS X, OS X Server, WinXP Home and WinXP Pro. Functionality-wise (in terms of File Sharing, User and Computer management. Not in terms of usability.) Mac OS X (non-Server) and WinXP Home are roughly equivalent. WinXP Pro would be somewhere between Mac OS X and OS X Server in terms of functionality.

Are you insane? OSX Server could be compared roughly to Windows 2003 Server in functionality. XP Pro and OSX are about the same - both can act as file/print/application servers, ftp, ssh, samba, CIFS, AFP, WebDAV, and NFS. Well, actually, XP Pro can't talk AFP or WebDAV, but that's besides the point.
XP Home? Nope. In server-type functionality, it's about equivalent to Mac OS 9.

If you are going to argue over which OS has a bigger dick you might as well stick to accurate arguments.

Ah, but we weren't. We were arguing over whether you could get an equivalent Windows machine for sub-500 as original poster said. Actually, he specified an equivalent machine, but 64-bit, for under $500. And that's what he got pwn3d on.

-T

Re:it's an empty case

[Theaetetus]

A copy of PDFCreator ($0), and a copy of AVG Free ($free, duh). You can't say free software is cool on your Mac or *nix box without admitting that it is also available for Windows.

Free software with full support, as you'd be getting from Apple?
Nonetheless, I'll yield on PDFCreator and AVG Free since I haven't seen 'em (though, does PDFCreator let you create PDFs from any application that can print?). However, I do use OO.o and you can't argue that it's really "there" yet. While it's great for the price and I recommend it to anyone who is savvy and wants to save money, I wouldn't install it for my mother.

-T

Re:it's an empty case

[Theaetetus]

no,that's retarded. as much as whoever you're replying to. you might as well include the price of a console on the mac, since you'll want to be playing games, right?

Did original poster who claimed to be able to supply an equivalent windows machine for under-$500 include any games? Or even any software? Nope.
Anyways, "Perky Goth", some of us actually use our computers for work too, so playing Doom 3 isn't necessarily a priority.

(and for games, click here)

-T

Re:it's an empty case

[emilymildew]

*cough*

Not a dude.

Re:it's an empty case

[Perky_Goth]

and some of was don't want to make movies or music either. you were being way too pedantic. yes, the mac is nice now, but it isn't perfect either.
i hate mac haters and i hate mac fanboys. i'm sick of /. discussions on it because everyone exaggerates their point to oblivion.
BTW, don't have mac, i've only seen one, and if i worked and got paid what an american gets, i'd probably buy one. i just have to go to the basement to study now... ;)

Re:it's an empty case

[RoloDMonkey]

[D]oes PDFCreator let you create PDFs from any application that can print?

Yes.

Re:it's an empty case

[NoodleSlayer]

Did you bother to read? OS X has nowhere near the level of File Server functionality of OS X Server. File/Print server is present in both WinXP Home, Pro and Mac OSX and OS X Server. What level of functionality though is up in the air.

Adding a File Share is a much more ardous task in OS X then it is in XP.

However there are Open Directory Client functions available in OS X, but MS took out many of the Active Directory client functions in XP Home. So where you want to place the two is debatable, but OS X Client's GUI implementation of File Sharing, print sharing, ftp, ssh, samba, etc. is far from being full-featured.

Win2k can talk in AppleTalk, how it differs from AFP I'm not 100% sure, I'm not sure if the functionality was taken out of XP either.

But most home users aren't going to be setting up server apps, however having a full-fledged file sharing server can come in handy.

The point was in many cases you were adding software that wasn't anywhere near one-to-one equivalence to try to inflate the price, just to appease some size insecurity you have. Point is its more then possible to build a functional $500 Windows Box. If you're going to get down to the age of the hardware found in the Mac Mini it becomes considerably cheaper.

Re:it's an empty case

[InadequateCamel]

Oh my good God, I do need reading classes. An explanation (though not an excuse) for my behaviour:

I read "I didn't say Macs are outrageously expensive" and remembered that you had indeed said those words; tracking backwards I saw that you did indeed say that. Unfortunately, the previous post was the troll's snippet of your original post that simply said "how outrageously expensive Macs are", which obviously was not the intent of your post. Apparently everyone but me got that little detail...

In summary, I am very sorry for wasting what little brain power was required to respond to that post, and for being even more of an imbecile than usual.

Re:it's an empty case

[Theaetetus]

Did you bother to read? OS X has nowhere near the level of File Server functionality of OS X Server.

Yes, you're right. That's why it's called "Server". Now, what's lacking in OSX that's present in Windows XP for server operations?

Adding a File Share is a much more ardous task in OS X then it is in XP.

Oh? Go to "Sharing" window in the System Preferences menu. Turn on file sharing.
Done.
That's it. You're shared. Anything in your public folder is now available on the network.

Maybe you mean XP is less arduous because it's turned on by default? Fine. Turning off file sharing - making your machine secure - is much more arduous in XP than it is in OSX.

OS X Client's GUI implementation of File Sharing, print sharing, ftp, ssh, samba, etc. is far from being full-featured.

What's lacking? I click a check box in a window, and the appropriate server is started. Anyone can access my machine (on my local network) through whatever protocol I wish: afp://192.168.1.101; smb://192.168.1.101; ssh://192.168.1.101; telnet to 192.168.1.101; http://192.168.1.101; ftp or sftp://192.168.1.101. You name it, I click a checkbox, and it's there. What feature is lacking?

But most home users aren't going to be setting up server apps, however having a full-fledged file sharing server can come in handy.

Absolutely - I completely agree. 99% of users aren't going to start an http server or an ssh server on their home machine. They might (doubtful) want an ftp server. Most likely, they'd want Samba or AFP. The difference between Macs and Windows here is that Windows has all of those ports open by default, and the Mac has all of them closed by default. Check a box and they're open, but they're more secure to start. If that means more arduous, fine, but the 99% of users that wouldn't want them anyway are more secure.
And the 1% that do want them is smart enough to figure out how to use a checkbox.

Point is its more then possible to build a functional $500 Windows Box. If you're going to get down to the age of the hardware found in the Mac Mini it becomes considerably cheaper.

... except when you talk size, noise level, power consumption, built in software for DVD and music creation, etc. I'm not disagreeing - I could build a damn cheap Intel box, run Linux on it, and do plenty. But for the Aunt Tillies out there who just want to use email, surf the web, and send their digital photos to their friends, the $500 Mac is a steal. They don't want a big tower, they want a cute box that matches their furniture. They don't want to spend a lot of money for that box, since it's a luxury to them. And they want a box that does everything they can think of: email, web, and photos - and the thought of "host a website" never even crosses their mind. It can do it anyways, but if they never start the service, they've lost nothing... not even the security they'd have lost on a Windows box.

-T

Re:it's an empty case

[starrsoft]

Sorry... it's hard to remember to figure out gender on a forum without avatars... and "that person" gets very cumbersome very quickly... =)

Re:it's an empty case

[mollymoo]

Find me a desktop mac that costs $1000. ill take my noisie pc, format the hard drive, install a nice version of linux. Buy some quitter fans for $20 at fry's and enjoy my computer. And while you are watching your empty checking account ill be enjoying the sun in hawaii for the amount of money i saved.

And while you're fiddling about getting Linux to "Just Work" as a Mac does (you won't manage it, but you'll try), I'll be actually getting some work done. I've got Linux boxes and they're a lot of fun. For some things there is nothing better. As a general-purpose desktop machines they just aren't there yet. I'd have to use GIMP instead of Photoshop. OpenOffice instead of MS Office. Using inferior software costs time, and time is money. You may not think your time has any value, but I know mine does. So I pay the experts at Apple to deal with the crap so I can get on with doing some work.

Re:it's an empty case

[mollymoo]

Well, Sony always had uber-sexy Vaio laptops that made people drool for as long as Apple's Powerbooks.

True, and they cost about the same as Apple's hardware. Of course, it's not Sony Vaio laptops that people compare Apple Powerbooks to. Oh no, they compare them to Walmart specials.

Re:it's an empty case

[Kusanagi]

Wow, that sure is a mini case..

Try again... Next.

Modding

[Zebadias]

Yay now mod a G5 to fit inside!

cobalt qube?

[selfabuse]

Get one off ebay, and stuff it w/ a mini or nano-itx board. A bit more work then just buying something from a manufacturer, but you've got more freedom in what you put in it, and you keep the small form factor and really cool lookin' case.

Re:cobalt qube?

[Caspian]

The Qube is not nearly as small as the Mac Mini, though, is it?

Re:cobalt qube?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, VIA have finally released the nano-itx board?

Re:cobalt qube?

[FuzzyBad-Mofo]

Get one off ebay, and stuff it w/ a mini or nano-itx board.

Or you could keep the original hardware, and run Solaris, Linux, or BSD on it, eh? I just don't get this fascination with taking perfectly good computers and putting mini-ITX boards in them..

Re:cobalt qube?

[Queer Boy]

I just don't get this fascination with taking perfectly good computers and putting mini-ITX boards in them.

It's like putting Gilbert Godfrey in Armani. It will work but it's just wrong.

Ummm...

[sandstorming]

Can Anyone say Shuttle PC?

Re:Ummm...

[gloth]

For one, Shuttle PCs are still a fair amount bigger than this; and not as pretty either. I've actually been looking around for something like the Mac Mini, but PC based, for a good while. Admittedly, I haven't been looking all that hard. Care to point out a complete system (except for monitor, mouse, keyboard), that's PC based and the size, power and price of a Mac Mini?

Re:Ummm...

[LarsWestergren]

Can Anyone say Shuttle PC?

"Shuttle PC!"

Small and quiet really is the new overclocking. A lot of PC makers have been working on smaller models for a long time, but they really have to work hard to queeze the same features as a normal size box has (and most customers demand) into a small size box with all the heat problems. So far only Shuttle seem to make a lot of profit from what I've heard. That box was really pathetically similar to the MiniMac though.

A SFF computer is a great choice, if you know what you are getting. NOT a gaming station. High end processors and graphics cards just generate too much heat inside that small box, you will get problems. Especially if you try to do overclocking (do people still do that? Why do reviewers keep talking about it?). In my opinion they are not a good choice for businesses either unfortunately. They are too cramped to work in if a support guy need to make a quick upgrade or replace a problematic part.

They are perfect as a home entertainment center, or as a computer where you mainly do stuff like surf, mail, develop... Much higher family acceptance factor than a big beige box with a loud fan.

Link for fans of small-is-beautiful:
http://www.sfftech.com

Re:Ummm...

[dosius]

You know, I'd like to see an all-in-one unit, with a monitor, keyboard and touchpad all built in... even if not at today's resolutions (would look better in 640x480 prolly with a 9" CRT). Just plug in the power cord and stick it in the wall, flip a switch and go. It would also be perfect for n00bs.

Moll.

Re:Ummm...

[stuffisgood]

Fair enough...but then you have the problem of when one component goes, the whole system is a big steaming pile of dog turd...

Re:Ummm...

[dosius]

True. But n00bs would replace the machine if one part went anyway, prolly...

Moll.

Re:Ummm...

[NoStrings]

Why not just get a 12" powerbook. It even supports resolutions better than VGA.

Re:Ummm...

[Donny Smith]

I have an Athlon 1.7GHz Shuttle PC.
They do look cute (and work quite fine) but if you like to fsck around with hardware - upgrade, expand, etc. - better get a bigger box.
Shuttle has a new line of boxes - much more expandable - and that's what I'm gonna get myself for X'mas.
I don't know what extras Mac Mini can put inside, but I'm afraid not much.

Re:Ummm...

[Jason Hood]

I am going to have to go with this baby for an SFF.

http://www.iwill.com.tw/product_2.asp?p_id=36&sp =Y

Fits 3HDs, 2 opterons, a DVDRW, a Double height video card and has a well thought-out cooling system. Its a little expensive up front but its a pretty serious system. Also supports dual core opterons so I guess you could have a 4way.

Considering most comparable dual opteron boards are ~$500 this really isnt that far off the mark.

Re:Ummm...

[dosius]

I actually prefer x86, myself. (Actually I prefer 65816 but that's beside the point. LOL) And as for screens, I prefer CRT to LCD *ducks*. I like the simplicity of the original 128K Mac but not the programmer-unfriendliness of it. (The current Macs really have neither.)

Moll.

Re:Ummm...

[stuffisgood]

Yeah, you've got a point there...

Interesting.

[hot_Karls_bad_cavern]

i was all like, yeah whatever, new small computer - horray. Then, i looked at this shot and now i kinda really want one :)

...so long as it can pull its weight doing the media junk in the house.

Re:Interesting.

[NoMercy]

It's dang small, but I can't say I'm drawn to it by it's appearance, definately something I'd have to throw a blanket over.

Re:Interesting.

[NivenHuH]

Funny, I had an opposite reaction. The machine looks like someone took their mac mini and mangled it by trying to mod it.. ;)

Re:Interesting.

[john82]

So, you're in the market for an empty piece of plastic? If you want something small and functional that's not a mac, think about a capuccino or shuttle.

Intel's mockup is just another empty PC knockoff to echo Apple's work.

Re:Interesting.

[Leroy_Brown242]

OOOooooOOOOO, yeah. That's Hawt!

It just begs for a solid state HD and Damn Small Linux.

Re:Interesting.

[jackalope]

They didn't come close to solving the most vexing issue: heat. As I recall the act of squeezing a mini-itx board into a mac-mini case involved hacking off the heat sink and placing the hard drive right on top of the CPU. That configuration will last about an hour.

Intel needs to move beyond the plastic box and see if they can actually get one of their processors to live in a small space with minimal fans. Remember, the mac mini puts out about 22db of sound when running at full blast. My Intel laptop sounds like a vacuum cleaner (sucks like one too).

So, show me a running, reliable Intel PC in that form factor and I'll be impressed. My 8 year old daughter could have made that plastic box.

Jack

Re:Interesting.

[frankthechicken]

I'm currently looking for a small/cheapish computer/case, that has optical out capabilities, to pipe music from my server through my sound system's dac, to replace my current dying box. Would love the mac mini, but it doesn't appear to have the necessary capabilities.

Does anyone know of any small form factor(aesthetics in this case are pretty important, as it needs to go on show) PC's with this capacity, most I see have very basic sound capability(the difference between non optical/optical output on my system is night and day)?

Re:Interesting.

[Drakonian]

It might have a hard time pulling it's weight. This is because it weighs so little. And that's because it's a plastic box.

Re:Interesting.

[The Conductor]

My Shuttle PC has optical out. The brushed aluminum case is, IMO, rather comely.

Not "Upcoming"!

[Some guy named Chris]

From the second paragraph of the article: " It's unlikely that Intel itself would build such a device."

Then, the article clearly goes on to say that this is a empty plastic shell, designed merely to inspire Intel's partners, not an example of any upcoming Intel product. I guess that doesn't sound as exciting and inflamatory, though.

Re:Not "Upcoming"!

[Leroy_Brown242]

Nothing like a little chest puffing and grandstanding to inspire your business partners!

Re:Not "Upcoming"!

[realkiwi]

Hey Intel show us the motherboard. Show us the chipset that runs cool enough to not melt down the plastic case.

Jeez even VIA couldn't get a board AND an optical drive into the Mac case...

Re:Not "Upcoming"!

[default luser]

Agreed. Intel isn't going to move the market unless they start manufacturing a board designed to FIT THAT CASE.

Did Intel suddenly forget they're also the #1 supplier of motherboards for Intel-based PCs?

Most OEMs use Intel boards. Until Intel takes the magic leap of providing a board that makes this design feasable, it's all just smoke and mirrors.

Re:Not "Upcoming"!

[eraserewind]

Then, the article clearly goes on to say that this is a empty plastic shell, designed merely to inspire Intel's partners, not an example of any upcoming Intel product. I guess that doesn't sound as exciting and inflamatory, though.

They could have just shown them a mac mini. Surely a functional competitor is more likely to inspire a manufacturer than an empty box. After all, product concept mockups are a dime a dozen.

I'm going to switch

[SamSeaborn]

I'm a long-time PC user that's finally had enough. I'm switching to a Mac mini, but I'm waiting for the next hardware update (probably in August, I'm guessing?) and for Tiger to be released.

Sam

Re:I'm going to switch

[johnpaul191]

good thinking maybe..... if nothing else waiting for 10.4 to come installed will save you $129-$149 (not sure what 10.4 will cost).

though sometimes right after the new OS ships they will take existing stock of hardware and give you a boxed version of the OS for free. sometimes........

10.4 will be shipping well before the Mini gets revised, unless some major software issues come up.

Re:I'm going to switch

[TLSPRWR]

If you're a long time PC user, please make sure you spend some time doing real tasks on OS X before you consider switching. You'll save yourself a lot of time and money if you do.
Here's my bias: I've used PCs since I was a young pup and have recently had to use some Macs for school work and presentations.
Please note, the following is an opinion, based on personal experience. The usual Mac egotistic reply is not going to change my opinion, so please be insightful if you are going to reply. People always whine about their dislike of Windows, so don't flame me for a dislike of your prefered OS.
Personally, I cannot stand the operating system. Unless you have a bunch of keyboard shortcuts memorized (-2 points for new users right there) and always have one hand on the keyboard, one on the mouse (please, no "where's the other hand" jokes), you lose a lot of efficiency. In Windows, everything's designed where it can pretty much be controlled by the mouse, with a need to sometimes use the keyboard for shortcuts or special functions, which I prefer. Keyboard shortcuts aren't bad, but I personally like being able to control from the mouse easily.
The way OS X handles windows and programs is a lot different, and I find it uncomfortable. Everything is based off the "Finder" and.. I forget the name, but "Docking Station" is close enough. Docking Station is the closest you'll get to a task bar with a Quick Launch type thing taking up most of the space. The Finder is the closest you'll get to a start button. Growing up on PCs, this is awkward to switch to, especially since to use the Finder, you have to get back to the desktop (or use some hidden keyboard command, I dunno). Finding programs not on the desktop and not in the Quick launch part of the Docking Station, is slightly painful (akin having a shortcut to the "Program Files" folder in Windows to run all your programs).
I love the software made by Apple. It's all pretty and can be efficient if you work with it a lot, but I just can't stand the OS. Apple used to be the industry leader, but nowadays PCs have caught up. There's no real reason to switch to a Mac unless you are really fed up with PC and want to try something different (which it sounds like you are).

Again, please just make sure you really work with the OS before you switch. No sense in throwing $499 down on a machine you won't ever use. Again, this is all just my personal experience, and may not reflect your enjoyment of the OS. If I had grown up on Macintosh, perhaps my opinion would be different, but if you're not prepared to learn a completely different way of doing simple tasks then a Mac probably isn't right for you.

Re:I'm going to switch

[geoffspear]

Translation:

I'm too stupid to figure out how to use a Mac, therefore I don't think anyone else should switch.

Re:I'm going to switch

[amichalo]

I think that much of your issue with OS X is simply understand a new paradigm for using an OS.

A few comments make me think you have missed the point:
Finder is like "Explorer" for Windows - it allows you to navigate a file system, go in and out of folders, etc.
"Docking Station" (the Dock) is NOT like the Start menu in windows and NOT like the task bar ar the bottom either. It is a place where you can put applications you often run, so they are easily accessed, as well as applications that are running, to easily switch between, as well as open or closed documents you may be working on and even file folders and finally, the trash can. That's why they call it the Dock, you can just "dock" things there.

Another issue I think is confounding things is that to install an application in OS X, 9 times out of 10, you just copy one file from the CD to the hard drive. It can live in just about any directory and when you click it, it launches. This is WAY different than windows, but very nice because you don't end up with dozens of files everywhere for a single program (makes uninstalling clean too!) But I digress - you may find it helpful to drag your "Applications" folder to the dock (right side of the divider bar, near the trash can is where documents and folders go). When you want to launch an application, simply hold down your mouse click on that folder for about a second and the contents will pop up, allowing you to launch an application from there.

As for the keyboard shortcut things, I am surprised how much you feel they are necessary. I don't believe, but admit I could be wrong, there is anything that cannot be done with just the mouse that can with a keyboard shortcut.

I have two recommendations - if you are really worried about the way the OS works, go to a local Apple store or even CompUSA/other Apple retailer and ASK SOMEONE TO SHOW YOU AROUND IT. Yeah, it is a different experience, but I argue it would be easier to learn than Windows, had someone no experience with either OS. SECONDLY, there are great books at Amazon/etc for switching to OS X from XP. Here is just one.

Re:I'm going to switch

[atcurtis]

"Docking Station" (the Dock) is NOT like the Start menu in windows and NOT like the task bar ar the bottom either. It is a place where you can put applications you often run, so they are easily accessed, as well as applications that are running, to easily switch between, as well as open or closed documents you may be working on and even file folders and finally, the trash can. That's why they call it the Dock, you can just "dock" things there.

Hmm... Sounds just like the Toolbar in OS/2 Warp 3 - which was available around 1995... The difference, you can easily disable the toolbar or have multiple toolbars...

Ahhh.... Nostalgia...

Re:I'm going to switch

[NutscrapeSucks]

Well, the Mac fans are flaming you, but I think you have a point. Window Management under OS X is more inconsistent than it is in Windows, and therefore task switching seems slower at first.

The biggest problem is that using the Dock(ing station) requires you to memorize the state of all your open Windows -- was that browser window minimized or not? You have to go hunt for it. The Windows taskbar presents a consistent view no matter what you are doing -- the icon is always in the same place.

Just as a simple example, opening a new browser window on the Mac takes 3 steps (click Safari to restore window, click New Window, minimize the first window), while on Windows it only takes 1 step (click quicklaunch icon). For something that I might do dozens of times a day, it starts to add up.

I think the OS X interface is designed to accommodate people who are using only a small number of open windows and applications. (Keep in mind that OS 9 had serious technical limitations to multitasking, so many Mac users just avoided it.) I'll probably get trollbombed here, but the OS X UI is really designed for the Single Mouse Button crowd -- there's one simple way to do things, and while it may work well, it's all you have.

Finally, it seems even most Mac fans admit that the Finder is a pain-in-the-ass. (Personally, I don't understand the utility of that column view at all, especially in Save dialogs)

That having been said, it's not horrifically inefficient, and if you adapt to how OS X works, you'll hardly notice the difference after a while.

Tip 1: Stick your Applications folder in the Dock and use it like a start menu.
Tip 2: Bind Expose to a convenient mouse or keyboard button.

Re:I'm going to switch

[jpc]

The Mac user interface was designed to be file oriented: you find the document you want to work on and it opens the application that is needed to edit it. So you arent supposed to find the application and then open the files. And there is a shortcut to hide everything except the finder.

However now that "documents" are not so much the way people organise things (because of the internet, unless you have a very large desktop and keep the internet on it...) so you have to think a bit in terms of applications (eg web browser). This is not really ideal, and the UI paradigm does need to change.

The dock on MacOS still makes most sense if you keep non-document realted apps in it and leave the other ones (although creating new things is more difficult).

Re:I'm going to switch

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:I'm going to switch

[JHromadka]

The Finder is nothing like the Start button. It is like Windows Explorer. If you want something like a Start Button for your commonly used apps, create a folder somewhere (mine is called QuickLaunch) and then put aliases/shortcuts to your applications in there. You can even create subfolders if you like. Now drag your Quicklaunch folder to the right-side of the Dock and it will stay there. Now everytime you want to get to your apps, right-click that folder and up pops a list of your apps, just like the Start button in Windows.

If you don't want to go through all that, you can always just click Finder and then click on the Applications icon in the sidebar to jump directly there. And when you feel you're ready to learn keyboard shortcuts, go in to the Mouse&Keyboard Preference pane and you will find a list of them (you can change them too).

Re:I'm going to switch

[SamSeaborn]

> I'm switching to a Mac mini, but I'm waiting for the next hardware update ... and for Tiger

Translation: I'm too stupid to figure out how to use a Mac, therefore I don't think anyone else should switch.

Maybe I'm missing some kind of inside joke. How does "I'm switching" translate to "I'm too stupid to use a Mac, I don't think others should switch"?

Sound to me like you're being an obtuse jerk.

Sam

Re:I'm going to switch

[amichalo]

Um, why can't this person just like Windows better.

Who said _anything_ about this person changing their views on OS X or Windows? I was pointing out the diffrences in windows and OS X from a user interface perspective. I made no mention of needing to change a preference, only trying to help explain the differences.

Re:I'm going to switch

[rdc_uk]

"The biggest problem is that using the Dock(ing station) requires you to memorize the state of all your open Windows -- was that browser window minimized or not? You have to go hunt for it. The Windows taskbar presents a consistent view no matter what you are doing -- the icon is always in the same place."

Untrue.

If a window is minimised, there will be a miniature view of it on the right hand sidde of the dock - look for the window that looks like the one you want, if its not there; its not minimised.

Alternately; click and hold on the icon for the window's application. A popup menu will appear with all the windows for that application listed; highlight the one you want and it is brought to the fore, un-minimised if required and focussed (this is EXACTLY like grouped task icons in WinXP, btw)

"Just as a simple example, opening a new browser window on the Mac takes 3 steps (click Safari to restore window, click New Window, minimize the first window), while on Windows it only takes 1 step (click quicklaunch icon). For something that I might do dozens of times a day, it starts to add up."

This is fair comment, though tabbed browsing diminishes the problem (open same window and hit MAC-T for a new tab), assuming you use Safari (I do; don't know how this works in FF or IE-Mac). But in general, your comment is accurate, opening multiple instances of most apps is slightly more awkward. MAC-N is your friend.

"I think the OS X interface is designed to accommodate people who are using only a small number of open windows and applications. (Keep in mind that OS 9 had serious technical limitations to multitasking, so many Mac users just avoided it.)"

Untrue; Expose. QED.

"Finally, it seems even most Mac fans admit that the Finder is a pain-in-the-ass. (Personally, I don't understand the utility of that column view at all, especially in Save dialogs)"

Col-View has some, feeble, uses. But not much (it basically acts as a support to having "back" but not "up" to navigate the file structure (you go back one column). Finder as file-manager works like Windows if you turn off the folders pane, and open 2 explorer windows to drag files between.

There are only 2 things I miss from WinXP when on my powerbook; the tree-view folder pane, and TextPad - I have yet to find a really good text editor on OSX (I am using BBEdit light on the Mac; BBEdit compared to TextPad is as excrement is compared to cream. I have used the full version of BBEdit, briefly; it is not worth anywhere near the money)

"Tip 1: Stick your Applications folder in the Dock and use it like a start menu."

Stick your most used applications in the dock, go to the application dir through finder; if you go for the same program more than twice, on the third time drag it to the dock!

"Tip 2: Bind Expose to a convenient mouse or keyboard button."

FFS! It DEFAULTS to F9, F10 and F11, jeez!
Turn on the special corner thingies if need be (they irritated me, but YMMV)

Re:I'm going to switch

[amichalo]

Our Linux/Windows gurus recently added a Mac to our computer lab for testing purposes. They spent THREE HOURS trying to figure out how to do a useradd.

Here's another great resource for next time:

Google: Add User OS X See the link to "In Mac OS X, how do I create and delete users?"

Re:I'm going to switch

[UnixRevolution]

The biggest problem is that using the Dock(ing station) requires you to memorize the state of all your open Windows -- was that browser window minimized or not? You have to go hunt for it. The Windows taskbar presents a consistent view no matter what you are doing -- the icon is always in the same place

It does? The dock on my Mac shows your minimized windows on the right side, as a screencap of the window with an icon in the lower-right corner. Combine that with Expose (if you have Panther) and you shouldn't have to hunt for very much.

When i get back to my iBook i really have to try that applications folder on the dock thing ;P

Re:I'm going to switch

[KillerDeathRobot]

You can easily disable the dock in OS X if you are so inclined, though to my knowledge you cannot have multiple docks.

Re:I'm going to switch

[Fahrenheit 450]

Then after a week or so you get something like Launchbar or Quicksilver so you never have to look at the Dock or think in terms of virtual desktops again. And then a month down the line you pick up something like the Touchstream so you never have to touch your mouse again...

It's the best setup you'll ever use.

Re:I'm going to switch

[dont_think_twice]

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?

Re:I'm going to switch

[crawdad62]

I certainly understand your frustrations using OSX. But to be honest it isn't a Mac-PC thing as much as it is a different way of doing what you're used to doing.

You complaints are an echo of what was on the OSX discussion boards back when people were switching form OS8 or 9 to OSX.

But hell if you can't seem to get past them then yeah it would be stupid to buy into a Mac OS.

I was lucky. I had just bought a Mac when OS9 was released so I wasn't deeply entrenched in the previous OS. I bought 10.0 the first day it was released and haven't looked back.

Re:I'm going to switch

[NutscrapeSucks]

Untrue ...if its not there; its not minimised.

That's exactly my point! Having to go hunt for windows that may be minimized or may just be hidden is not efficient. I've got better thing to do that memorize the state of a window that I may have not used for some time. Add an option to put all open windows in the Dock please and the "switchers" will love it.

Untrue; Expose. QED.

Expose is a great feature, but it's also a tacit admission that the first plan (the Dock) has problems. It would be nice if they went back and fixed the Dock to be more adaptable to different work styles.

Plus even Expose doesn't work well past 5-6 open windows (at least on my powerbook screen). Even with Expose, my threshold of multiple window pain is much lower on Macs than on Windows or Gnome.

Stick your most used applications in the dock, go to the application dir through finder;

Did you read the guy's post? The lack of a start menu was his big complaint. I know it is the "Mac Way", but the Finder really is an inefficient start menu substitute (for accessing lesser used programs). It requires many more user actions. Fortunately, docked folders work well (if a little slow because the contents apparently aren't cached).

FFS! It DEFAULTS to F9, F10 and F11, jeez!

Whoa settle down. The place for Expose is the mouse button (so long as you aren't using Apple's mouse.) F9/F10/F11 require moving your hands.

Re:I'm going to switch

[NutscrapeSucks]

I must not have phrased it well because people are confused. The issue is that if the window is not mimimized, it is not in the Dock. If it's just hidden behind another window, you have to go to expose to find it. When you have many windows open, it is difficult to remember the exact state of every window.

Also, most windows tend to look alike in the dock (white square with black text), but that's another issue.

Re:I'm going to switch

[pherthyl]

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.

Re:I'm going to switch

[geoffspear]

If you expect a different OS to work exactly like the one you're most familiar with to the point that you actually believe you need to use the keyboard instead of the mouse for anything on a Mac, you're an idiot.

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.

Re:I'm going to switch

[IceAgeComing]

I was in a similar situation to you, but I ended up with the opposite conclusion. The difference, perhaps, was that I got my Mac through work (I'm a data mining code developer), and I had an admin who knew both linux and Mac, and showed me how to customize my experience on the Mac to be more like what I was used to under KDE. In particular, I now have X11 on my Mac, which allows me to download and run open source programs written for X.

I can recommend the following book if you're interested: "Mac OS X for Unix Geeks" by Jepson and Rothman, put out by O'Reilly.

To me, SuSE and OSX are now conceptually pretty equivalent. Granted, I often use xterm, bash, and other tools that work nearly identically on both systems.

Re:I'm going to switch

[jcr]

I'm switching to a Mac mini

That warms me from the bottom of my stock options ;-)

-jcr

Re:I'm going to switch

[Fahrenheit 450]

That's exactly my point! Having to go hunt for windows that may be minimized or may just be hidden is not efficient.

Minimizing windows at all is inefficient. Just right-click (or control-click or click and hold) on the app icon in the dock and you get a list of all of the open windows in the app. Or bring the app to the front and go to its Window menu or use Cmd-` to cycle through the open windows. Minimization is for suckers or people with OCD.

Add an option to put all open windows in the Dock please and the "switchers" will love it.

And it'll make the dock a mile and a half long with three pixel icons...

Plus even Expose doesn't work well past 5-6 open windows (at least on my powerbook screen).

Perhaps for some. (fires up Expose. 1...2...) I've currently got 37 windows on my desktop, and I'm not having issues. Though I rarely use the "Show all windows" version of expose, just the "Show current application winhows".

The lack of a start menu was his big complaint. I know it is the "Mac Way", but the Finder really is an inefficient start menu substitute (for accessing lesser used programs). It requires many more user actions.

I agree with you here. The Finder and the Dock are poor app launchers and switchers. Launchbar and Quicksilver (which I mentioned a few posts above this one) are much better solutions.

Whoa settle down. The place for Expose is the mouse button (so long as you aren't using Apple's mouse.) F9/F10/F11 require moving your hands.

So set up hot corners via system preferences. Throw the pointer to one corner of the screen for show all windows, throw it in another for show all app windows, etc...

Re:I'm going to switch

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:I'm going to switch

[TLSPRWR]

I'm too stupid to figure out how to use a Mac, therefore I don't think anyone else should switch.

I in no way said that the great-grandparent poster shouldn't switch to Mac. I simply offered some advice that he should take a hard look at the Operating System running on that pretty little box.

Thanks for playing.

Re:I'm going to switch

[dont_think_twice]

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.

True. But the poster's point was that everyone should try using a Mac before they buy it, because they, like him, might find out that they really don't like the way the OSX interface works. You are inferring that he couldn't learn anything new. What he actually said was "The way OS X handles windows and programs is a lot different, and I find it uncomfortable".

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.

Considering that the poster also described the specific OSX issues he didn't like, I think it is fair to say that he was able to use it, although he strongly prefered a different environment. By your logic, he is not an idiot.

Re:I'm going to switch

[TLSPRWR]

I'll bite.
If you expect a different OS to work exactly like the one you're most familiar with to the point that you actually believe you need to use the keyboard instead of the mouse for anything on a Mac, you're an idiot.

Macs, by default, have no right mouse button. To get to special menus that in Windows are normally under the right click menu, you have to hold down the "Command" key while clicking.
I've experienced this in Photoshop personally. Certain commands that are only under the right-click/command-click menu. So yes, if you want to get all of the functionality out of it, at least in Photoshop (one of the main apps), you have to use the keyboard and mouse at the same time. In Windows, you just right-click. I know Macs have two button mouse support, but some programs (in my experience) don't make it operate the same as in Windows. It's not bad, it's just different, as you said. I was stating my personal preference in my first post and my personal experiences. I was hoping to convey some of the difficulties I had working with Macs.

The idiot comments weren't necessarily directed at me, I'm guessing. I knew Macs were going to be different, and when I got on them, I didn't like the changes. That's it. I'm sticking with PCs until something drastic happens.

Re:I'm going to switch

[TLSPRWR]

The Finder is nothing like the Start button. In my experience, it's the closest thing to a start button you get in OS X. You're right, no real comparison.

Good suggestion, but these are school computers, so most settings are defaulted as soon as you log off, making it very painful.

Re:I'm going to switch

[TLSPRWR]

1. Take two/5/13/200 button PC mouse
2. Plug it in to the mac.
3. Engage brain.
And I quoth myself: "I know Macs have two button mouse support, but some programs (in my experience) don't make it operate the same as in Windows."
Okay, I'll admit. I like Windows. I like the way it handles multiple applications in a taskbar. I shouldn't expect all OSes to work the same, but I figured most OS's would be designed to be as efficient as Windows is with the taskbar (my experiences with Linux [long time ago] and OS X have proved me wrong). I was expecting a lot of differences, but I didn't know how foreign simple tasks were going to be.

Oh, and I may be wrong about the "only right-click" commands in Photoshop. It's just the quickest way I've gotten to commands so I never bothered looking for them in the menus and couldn't find them when I needed them on a Mac.

Re:I'm going to switch

[heresyoftruth]

I have to agree with this completely, about the points regarding switching here. I just bought a powerbook sight unseen, never having touched a mac before in my life. With minimal googling, I got all my files and music over onto it. I haven't even used my PC, except to play Insaniquarium since getting it two weeks ago. I did not find the transition to OS X very difficult, but I did find an occasional snag. I just popped open the help menu and was pleasantly suprised that the answers made sense, and were helpful. I do use a lot of keyboard shortcuts, but looking through the help file under the section on switching from a PC got me all my favorite ones. I don't always have a mouse with me, so the shortcuts are very useful. In the help file under switching they even cover all the most common shortcuts for pc switchers. I would also like to state I am a bit of a geeky computer girl, and have built my own pc boxes, and done my share of family IT, but I am not the most knowledgeable around. If you can google up an answer, or find the help file, you can figure out OSX pretty easily.

Re:I'm going to switch

[Blakey Rat]

Although the OS X is technologically superior to OS 9, the usability suffered a LOT.

OS 9 had two ways of quickly launching applications. You could put your applications in the Apple Menu (which was 100% customizable) and make the Apple Menu somewhat like the Windows Start Menu, or you could put aliases to your applications in a folder and then create a tabbed folder with them in it.

OS X removed *both* of those handy features. And, although there are third-party utilities that emulate them, they're not as good as Apple's original OS 9 implementation.

The Finder in OS 9 was also leaps and bounds ahead of the one in OS X. For one thing, if you saved a file to the desktop, the icon appeared right away. In OS X, you have to click the desktop to get it to refresh the icons. The OS 9 Finder was completely spatial and, although I know a lot of people hated it, I absolutely loved it. The OS X Finder is not only not spatial, but preferences don't seem to 'stick' at all. The OS 9 Finder also contained Tabbed Folders, it allowed you to automatically connect to a network drive on login, etc... it did a LOT more than the OS X Finder does, and better.

I personally think that MacOS usability went WAY down with the introduction of OS X, even while the technological underpinnings became more sophisticated. If I could run the Darwin kernel with the OS 9 Finder, I'd be there in a flash.

(BTW, I also think that people rag on MacOS Classic too much. Yes, it did cooperative multitasking, yes it didn't have automatic memory management, but I had no problem running 20 applications at a time quickly and efficiently.)

Re:I'm going to switch

[angrist]

There are a couple of things that you should try using before passing a final verdict on OS-X....

First, Get a multibutton mouse. Many of the things that you "need a bunch of keyboard shortcuts for" are most likely in the context menu (right click). Ontop of that, a multibutton mouse will let you program specific keyboard shortcuts to the shoulder buttons, again speeding things up.

You should remember though that controlling things using the mouse is not always ideal anyway, when working in a word processor or spreadsheet, taking your hands off the keyboard will slow you down more than using the keyboard shortcuts.

Drag your applications folder to the right side of the dock. Now when you right click on that folder it will act very similarly to "Start: All programs" in Windows.

And now my favorite ... download an application called "Quicksilver" (sorry no link handy), it indexes you application and a whole mess of other useful things. It will make launching applications and recently used files a BREEZE, if you don't mind hittign a hotkey and typing the name of the object you want to open.

Now some explanation....
I've grown up having Macs (and even Apples) in the house, but used windows nearly everywhere else, most notably at college and work. So i'm rather comfortable with both systems.... but I'd have to say that the I find myself FAR more productive with OS-X
many simple tasks on one system are just as simple on the other, copying, pasting, moving aroung the hard drive, etc.
But the key thing that makes OS-X stand out as the better package, is that there are many tasks that are hard (or complicated) on Windows that are just sooooo much easier on a mac, whereas I can't say the reverse. Specifically, try doing ANYTHING with wireless networking in XP, then try the same thing in X.

i know I'm going to get the whole "thats just what you're more comfortable with" line from slashdotters ... but tell me, what taskes are significantly easier in Windows? (excluding platform specific aps, and assuming a user fairly proficient with BOTH systems)

Re:I'm going to switch

[delire]

here here

i have to teach on OSX from time to time. as i've been spoilt with the grace and transparency of open/black/fluxbox on Linux for a several years, i'm looking for an install-and-go *box like window manager for OSX. any suggestions?
it's important that the installation is reversible..

Re:I'm going to switch

[kisrael]

Based on my limited experience with OSX...
I decided that the dock was a blend of the start button (in terms of holding shortcuts) and the taskbar. (In terms of letting you get back to running apps). I hate that mix, because for me going to a presently running task is a very different thing than starting a new one, and a little triangle icon doesn't make the difference obvious enough. Also, I don't like how it tends to put, say, all browser windows under one icon there....for me each browser windows is a different conceptual "task"

Re:I'm going to switch

[kisrael]

The only things is sometimes if you get used to highly customized desktop configurations/window managers, life is very annoying when you go to work on someone else's machine...

Re:I'm going to switch

[Secret Agent 99]

especially since to use the Finder, you have to get back to the desktop (or use some hidden keyboard command, I dunno).

Yeah, command-tab is really well hidden.

if you're not prepared to learn a completely different way of doing simple tasks then a Mac probably isn't right for you.

All sarcasm aside, you do have a good point here. It took many Mac OS 9 users a long time to get over this same hurdle. Some are still coming to terms with it, I'm sure.

Re:I'm going to switch

[Secret Agent 99]

Was this before or after they spent 20 MINUTES copying a 20-megabyte file?

Re:I'm going to switch

[LMariachi]

Just as a simple example, opening a new browser window on the Mac takes 3 steps (click Safari to restore window, click New Window, minimize the first window)

That's two steps. Minimizing the first window is not part of "opening a new browser window." Besides, what's the default keyboard shortcut for "click quicklaunch icon?"

Re:I'm going to switch

[mountain_penguin]

QUICKSILVER
go get it now never ever use the mouse again
expose current app (F10 by default)
or normal expose then hit tab
apple tab and apple ~
apple tab to swtich app apple ~ to switch windows in current app (I Wish metacity had this)
also note that apple tab can then be moused

With the ubove I never ever use the dock and should really turn it off.
but then as you can guess I am a kbd person

Re:I'm going to switch

[johnlittledotorg]

I considered picking up a mini as well. My entire family uses OS X so I've had a chance to play with it. In my case there's just a ton of minor annoyances that, in the end, just drive me nuts. I ended up going to SUSE and then Ubuntu Linux. Despite the disturbing bald shirtless guy on the Ubuntu page I'm happy.

The bottom line is that these things are just tools. Use whatever works for you.

Re:I'm going to switch

[UWC]

Even when you focus on another window, that menu exists until you quit the application. OS X seems to handle the idea of Applications a bit differently than Windows: even if all windows of an application are closed, it remains running until you do a File-->Quit or Apple+Q to quit the program. That and the fact that the menu stays at the top (and not on the Window) seems to be the hardest thing to get used to when switching. It took me a while, and I'm still not sure whether I prefer the Windows or OS X method. They both have their advantages and disadvantages. Other family members use my Mini on occasion and I invariably find applications left open but with all the windows closed.

I'm also not sure what to think of the "One icon per application" thing, and I'm not sure whether it "groups running instances" of the program like you suggest, or if the program just instantiates separate windows within a single instance of the program itself. Regardless of the underlying workings, it definitely reduces clutter and makes switching bewteen applications easier, but switching between windows within an application can be annoying, though Expose can be helpful if I can remember to use it.

The interfaces are different, but there are enough similarities to make switching at once easy and confounding. The problems are made more apparent by those trying to find the perfection that the OS X evangelists constantly promote.

I've definitely found the interface to be a mixed experience. There are parts that I really like, and there are parts that I'm still trying to get used to, and there are a few parts that are annoying (text boxes especially--I very very badly want "Home" and "End" to work like they do in Windows).

Re:I'm going to switch

[Ohreally_factor]

Hey now. We don't want to be starting a holy war. =)

Re:I'm going to switch

[Ohreally_factor]

The thing I didn't like about OS 9 and earlier was managing extensions. What a pain in the ass that was, even with utilities like C & G Conflict Catcher (and later the extension manager). One of my money gigs is video editing, and under OS 9 I basically had to have one locked down set of extensions to run FCP and AE. If I wanted to play a game, I'd have to turn on a different extension set and reboot for the change to take effect.

This was the pre-OS X dirty little secret. I spent a lot of time, too much time, troubleshooting extensions.

Re:I'm going to switch

[Blakey Rat]

I'm not saying that OS X (the system) is worse, of course not. But the interface in general and Finder in particular are much worse than they were before, and Apple doesn't seem to be interested in improving them. (For instance, they supposedly re-write the Finder for version 10.3, but it still won't run in Spatial Mode, it still won't allow tabbed folders, and it still doesn't have a customizable Apple Menu.)

Re:I'm going to switch

[Ohreally_factor]

Actually, I think the UI handles both a documented centered approach and an application centered approach equally well. You just have to experiment, or read up on various tips and tricks to find the methods that work best for you.

And, to me anyway, that's part of the beauty of Mac OSes from early on. There is usually more than one way to do something.

Re:I'm going to switch

[Ohreally_factor]

I just reread your post, and you said "file oriented".

This is exactly correct. Much like any other *nix, OS X treats everything as a file. At least that's my understanding.

Re:I'm going to switch

[nathanh]

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.

Macs are great. Shame about all the Mac users though.

Seriously, they've always been like this. I'm not sure why, but even in MacOS 7 days they were just as rude and just as sanctimonious. This was back when their operating system used cooperative multitasking, no memory protection, and the most popular third party application was an extension that replaced the god-awful virtual memory that shipped by default. You would have thought they'd have been more humble. I'm not sure if you used Windows 95, but it looked stable by comparison to MacOS 8.

I'm like you in that I don't like MacOS X either. It's not that "I don't understand it", which seems to be the common response from the Mac zealots, but rather that it's simply horrible. It's not really MacOS anyway. It's NEXTSTEP. I used MacOS (I had two Macs before MacOS X) and the MacOS 8 GUI was far superior to this MacOS X monstrosity. I dislike the new finder. I dislike the dock. I don't like how they've screwed up shortcuts. I'm envious of some technical marvels in MacOS X - for example, the windowing system - but the kernel is "ho-hum, 80s tech" as far as I am concerned.

However the Apple hardware is nice. I've not yet found any x86 vendor that can match Apple for style and features at the same price. Fortunately Linux runs beaut on most modern Apple hardware, so it's not like I have to do without :-)

Re:I'm going to switch

[eraserewind]

"Docking Station" (the Dock) is NOT like the Start menu in windows and NOT like the task bar ar the bottom either.

I haven't used a mac, so I can't compare, but everything you describe either sounds exactly like the taskbar, or can be done on the taskbar even if it would not normally be done there.

It is a place where you can put applications you often run, so they are easily accessed

drag application to the taskbar. It creates a quicklaunch shortcut.

as well as applications that are running, to easily switch between

Open applications automatically create their own button on the taskbar for you to easily switch between them.

as well as open or closed documents you may be working on and even file folders

This is not a typical usage of the taskbar (windows users use the much larger desktop for that purpose), but is actually also possible. Quicklaunch is a folder like any other. You can drag and drop whatever you want to there. It creates a shortcut by default, but if you hold the shift key, you can move stuff there.

and finally, the trash can.

If you create a shortcut to the "recycle bin" on the quicklaunch part of the taskbar, you can drag and drop files into it (although why you would want to is obviously open to question).

That's why they call it the Dock, you can just "dock" things there.

As I said, I haven't used a mac, so maybe there is something magical about it (besides perhaps not creating shortcuts by default) that I am missing, but there is nothing you described that is not doable with the taskbar alone (even though it's generally done with a taskbar + desktop combination).

Re:I'm going to switch

[Ohreally_factor]

tell me, what taskes are significantly easier in Windows?

Maybe you should read this article before asking that question:

Mac Mini: The Emperor's New Computer

I know you qualifiedwith the parenthetical "excluding platform specific aps", but to get an idea of some of what us Mac users are missing, read the author's article on must-have Windows utilities: Windows Utility Shootout:Power-Up Your Windows

To get an even better idea where this reviewer is coming from, I suggest you also read Windows vs. Linux on the Server and the Desktop

Hope this helps.*

*Helps you laugh.

Re:I'm going to switch

[Ohreally_factor]

It took many Mac OS 9 users a long time to get over this same hurdle. Some are still coming to terms with it, I'm sure.

There's no strife quite like internecine strife. There were some very bitter flamewars on OS 9 vs. OS X, made all the hotter by the fact that you could be fairly certain the other guy wasn't just trolling. For a while there it was brother against brother, daughter against daughter, uncle against. . . well you get the idea. Duck against chicken.

I'm sure there are some still bitter about the change over.

I waited until the apps I needed were ported, then I made the change, reluctantly. After a week of regular use, I started getting it, after a month I was a complete convert. I must say that although I was uneasy about the change from 9 to X, I did my best to be open minded and to learn.

Re:I'm going to switch

[BasilBrush]

A quick "try before you buy" isn't going to tell you anything. If you are coming from another OS then of course some things will be different. No one said that there wouldn't be a learning curve. But giving up at the bottom of the curve because it's not the same means you never get a chance to find out if it's better.

You can tell the OP based his view on only a passing try of OS X as he'd forgotten the name of the Dock.

Re:I'm going to switch

[BasilBrush]

What is the difference between a running application and a non-running application? Why do you care? And the answer isn't "because I have data/a document/a windows in a running application", because you might not.

Re:I'm going to switch

[Ohreally_factor]

I'm not saying you don't have valid complaints, I was just reminiscing about the bad old days, or the good old days, depending on one's POV.

Are there any third party apps or utilities that will do the things you want?

I actually like OS X pretty much the way it is, but I can understand one's frustration when it's difficult or impossible to do exactly what one wants. Take Safari. Why can't I rearrange the tabs, or drag tabs from one window to another? This might seem stupid or trivial, but I would find such a capability extremely useful. (If you know of any patch that will allow safari to do this, I'd be extremely grateful.)

Re:I'm going to switch

[BasilBrush]

No, you are confused. On a Mac an application is a singleton. Only one runs, and it has multiple documents, one per window. There is no concept of a task in the UI.

On Windows the concept is much more vague. An application might be a singleton, with several tasks each representing a window. Or a new instance of the application might be run for each task.

"Task" in Windows UI generally means window. "Application" in OS X unequivocably means application, not window.

OSX does not "group" anything into the Dock. An icon represents an application, of which there is only one, whether it is running or not. Like the grandparent says, that's just you trying to graft the Windows conceptual model onto OS X. You don't like it because your grafted model doesn't work. It's like criticising a car because the pedals don't work the same as a motorcycle.

How come when I close an application in OS X the menu for that application continues to exist until I focus on another window? How stupid is that?
It doesn't. You quit an application in OS X, and you get the menu of the next application in the stack. Your question again reveals your confusion between applications and tasks. When you say "close an application" all you have actually done is closed a window. Any stupidity is yours.

Re:I'm going to switch

[JohnsonWax]

I think the lesson here is that if your duck dies and you buy a dog to replace it, you're an idiot to blame the dog if it won't quack.

Re:I'm going to switch

[RedBear]

Unless you have a bunch of keyboard shortcuts memorized (-2 points for new users right there) and always have one hand on the keyboard, one on the mouse (please, no "where's the other hand" jokes), you lose a lot of efficiency. In Windows, everything's designed where it can pretty much be controlled by the mouse, with a need to sometimes use the keyboard for shortcuts or special functions, which I prefer. Keyboard shortcuts aren't bad, but I personally like being able to control from the mouse easily.

You do realize that Apple computers were the first to use a mouse, right? In 1985 or thereabouts? The whole Mac OS has had a mouse-centric design since the beginning. You are suffering from a severe misunderstanding somewhere if you think you need keyboard shortcuts to do anything. A more correct way to look at it is that if you do learn some keyboard shortcuts you gain a lot of efficiency, not lose it. With one hand on the keyboard and one on the mouse OS X responds to my needs more efficiently than Windows ever has. Yes, I have also used Windows for many years, and didn't use Mac OS until recently. I would agree with anyone who said previous versions of Mac OS had much suckage, but the latest version of OS X is quite different.

Even with just the standard one-button mouse everything in any Mac OS is quickly accessible. If you want even more efficiency get a regular two-button scroll mouse and you'll have access to many context menus similar to what you get in Windows. You can simulate a right-click with a one-button mouse by holding down the Control key when clicking. Give it a try. You can also use Command-Tab to task switch, similar to how Windows does it with Alt-Tab. The Command key is the one with the apple on it. Hold down the Command key and you can use the arrow keys or even the mouse to switch to your desired application. Or highlight the icon, keep holding the Command key and press Q to quit the app without even switching to it.

Even better, use Command-` (backtick, just above the tab key) to switch between open windows/documents within a single application. It's great when you have to cut and paste between Word documents or something similar. Windows has no similar functionality. In their paradigm you're actually switching between windows, not between applications. This is one reason so many people love tabbed browsers, so we don't have to Alt-Tab through 20 separate browser windows. Open a few images in a graphics application like Photoshop and you'll soon see how nice the ability to switch between documents is. It's very awkward to move between several different images in the Windows version of Photoshop or any similar application. Command-` (backtick). It rules.

Usually you can also use the scroll wheel to switch between applications. Click it to switch back and forth between the two most recent tasks. Hold it down and scroll or hover the mouse over an icon on the task switcher that appears. It's very fast once you get used to it.

Sure, OS X does things "differently". So does Windows XP. I am continually confused by the design of XP even though I've used Windows since 3.0 and never had much of a problem with it. The difference is that OS X does things more efficiently in many ways, if you'll just keep an open mind and allow yourself to get used to it. XP, on the other hand... sheesh. What were they thinking? It's like they applied the Clippy concept to the entire OS. Oh, and the "you must call us by phone and beg for permission to reinstall your OS" concept. That's a real user-friendly bonus.

Let's talk about the Finder. You don't have to get to the desktop in order to use the Finder. This is a misconception a lot of people seem to have. Even if you did have to get to the desktop, you can use Exposé to access the desktop very quickly. Just hit the F11 key. F11 again returns everything to normal. You can trigger Exposé with the mouse if you set the hot corners to do so. Look in System Preferences under Desktop & Screen

Re:I'm going to switch

[BasilBrush]

Yet more thinking that Windows is the standard way, and anything that is different is therefore wrong. It's crooked thinking. Windows and OSX are just different, both have advantages and disadvantages.

The biggest problem is that using the Dock(ing station) requires you to memorize the state of all your open Windows -- was that browser window minimized or not? You have to go hunt for it. The Windows taskbar presents a consistent view no matter what you are doing -- the icon is always in the same place.

False. Provided you've selected "keep in dock" or dragged the application there (a fair equivalent of putting an icon in quicklaunch on Windows), then in OSX the icon is in the same place whether the application has opened windows, minimised windows, no windows, or is not even running. That makes it more consistent than Windows.

Just as a simple example, opening a new browser window on the Mac takes 3 steps (click Safari to restore window, click New Window, minimize the first window), while on Windows it only takes 1 step (click quicklaunch icon).

A contrived example. It assumes an already minimised browser window, that for some reason you want to keep minimised, and it assumes you are not using tabbed browsing. For both of these reasons, it's not a situation that I have ever found myself in. As such, who cares if it's 3 steps?

I certainly don't agree that finder is a pain in the ass. It does everything that Explorer does and more. The column view is useful. And drag and dropping of favourite locations into the favourites bar means that you quickly find you don't have to navigate to anything.

Re:I'm going to switch

[NutscrapeSucks]

Minimizing windows at all is inefficient. [Just do all these things that require multiple steps]

More inefficient than just clicking on an icon that's always visible.

Minimization is for suckers or people with OCD.

WTF? Certain actions may be clumsy on MacOS, so your answer is to accuse the users of having medical disorders?

Re:I'm going to switch

[NutscrapeSucks]

The fact that you had to manage extentions sucked.

That having been said, the user interface was great -- just drag the offending extention either into or out of the proper folder. No other OS has ever come close to making driver installation this easy and idiot-proof, including OS X.

Re:I'm going to switch

[Maserati]

That's a reasonable take on the Dock, it does combine Start Menu functionality with some Taskbar stuff. But I consider it to be: where I keep my stuff. Stuff I use a lot and stuff I need to get at in a hurry when I need it. It's all right there. Use it as a dock and it'll make more sense than trying to mix metaphors from a different environment.

If you right-click (or control-click) on any running application's Dock icon you get a list of the windows it has open. You also geta few basic commands: Show in Finder, Hide (similar to minimize), Quit. Some apps put more functions in there. iTunes shows the current song, lets you rate it, change Repeat mode, toggle Shuffle, Pause, next Song and Previous Song. Terminal has New Shell, New Command and Connect to Server available. Since Dock icons can be also be animated by the app, the Dock can be used for CPU activity meters, stock tickers and the like. You can also quit an application from the Dock without it stealing focus like many Windows apps do.

Also, Expose makes it easy enough to find the Window you're looking for. Admittedly, you have to switch to the application or use F9 and see every window. And use the DOck context menu to find a window isn't as fast either, but you do still have two methods of doing going straight to a window you can't see (not counting the Window menu in the browser and using. I note that Both Safari and Firefox show only the active tab in the menu, but doing otherwise would mean submenus which often suck.

Question for people who prefer Windows: how do you live without a one-step comand to show the target of a shortcut ? A contextual menu option would suffice, ctrl-r would be better. Maybe it's just my organizational scheme, coming from the Mac, but I think that having to open Properties and click a button makes Windows suck all by itself.

Re:I'm going to switch

[that _evil _gleek]

Ok, granted, going to Applications can be tedious. But, it is very easy to add an item to the dock,
You can drag it, or if its already running, you can right click (*) and there's a menu where you can have it keep it
self there. You can also just make a folder with aliases to programs and drag the folder.
Basically, Apple has made it very add things to dock, and remove things from the dock, but start with
about 7 things in dock. Its the Magic Number 7 +/-2 approach (**) , I remember my start menu in windows 2000
getting really big ,and 3 to 4 levels deep in some places, taking the whole screen vertically, and the 2/3 horizontally,
Sure its a little less mousing, and clicking, but more reading, and removing stuff from it, was sometimes impossible,
so no way to trim it , and keep it under control.

Oh, and "since I was a young pup"??? Did CP/M have a start menu? Or Win 3.1 for that matter?
Am I supposed to think your some old-timer, or am I supposed to think your some old-timer?

(*) Yeah right click, since your bringing you own mouse to the mac mini, bring on with more than 1 button,
and it works for ctrl-click, by default.

(**) Classic essay.

Re:I'm going to switch

[Fahrenheit 450]

More inefficient than just clicking on an icon that's always visible.

No, not really. For example, right clicking on the app icon in the dock then clicking on the proper entry takes two clicks (or a click, slide, release action). Now that might seem like more work than a single click on a taskbar style icon, but that's ignoring the click that it took to minimize the window in the first place, so on an amortized basis, it's the same amount of work to bring a hidden/non-minimized window as it is to minimize a window and then restore it...

WTF? Certain actions may be clumsy on MacOS, so your answer is to accuse the users of having medical disorders?

No... I'd fit most of them into the "sucker" category for putting themselves needlessly into awkward situations. The OCD remark only applies to people who feel a need to minimize windows to keep their desktops "neat".

Again, my point is with something like Quicksilver and the show all application windows expose action, minimizing windows is just a waste of time...

Re:I'm going to switch

[kisrael]

It ain't rocket science...

I care because a running application represents "something I was working on in the past" and a non-running application is "something I might want to work on in the future".

Get it? A running application was generally started by me and is holding some kind of context that I probably want to come back to. A non-running application is likely a blank slate.

This is what multitasking/task switching is all about from a human point of view...

Re:I'm going to switch

[kisrael]

Have you not been paying attention at all? It's not the same. It's different, and simpler. You talk about all these different things: "Start" menu, task bar, "quick launch." It's all segregated. Only applications which are currently running appear in the "task bar," introducing this new and redundant concept called a "task." I don't know about you, but to me a "task" is the thing I'm trying to accomplish, like writing a letter or posting a photo to the Web. I might use one application to do it, or I might use a few, or I might use none at all and do it entirely on paper. Trying to inaugurate a new piece of jargon for what is nothing more than a running application just confuses people.

See, to me, there's:
* Stuff I've Already Started Doing, and might want to get back to, so its holding a context ("return to running application")
* Stuff I might want to start doing in the future. no context, clean slate ("launch application")

Conceptually the two things are very different to me. Don't you differentiate between things you've already started doing, and things you need to start doing from scratch? 'Cause the Dock only barely does.

Meanwhile, non-running applications show up in the "Start" menu, alongside lots of stuff that's not an application. Non-running applications also appear in this "quick launch" thing, apparently because the "Start" menu is too complicated.

See, now you're the one being obnoxious.
"Quick Launch" isn't because it's too complicated, it's because it's two clicks when some people just want one. I value screen real estate more than that, and like my "start something new" icons hidden anyway (and tend to arrange things so I can keyboard launch things easily...windows key, first letter of activity) so I don't use Quicklaunch.

Win95 leapfrogged ahead of Mac at that time, IMO, by making all running programs more visible, not hidden in a drop down menu. I understand people liking the dock, and it is about as function as the current Windows paradigm, but the latter matches my mental model of "activities started in the past" vs "activities to start in the future"

Re:I'm going to switch

[kisrael]

That's a reasonable take on the Dock, it does combine Start Menu functionality with some Taskbar stuff. But I consider it to be: where I keep my stuff. Stuff I use a lot and stuff I need to get at in a hurry when I need it. It's all right there. Use it as a dock and it'll make more sense than trying to mix metaphors from a different environment.

Like I say elsewhere, I find thinking of "activities I've started in the past and want to come back to" clearly seperated from "activities I could start to do in the future" to be a very helpful distinction, and I like how Windows seperates those.

Question for people who prefer Windows: how do you live without a one-step comand to show the target of a shortcut ? A contextual menu option would suffice, ctrl-r would be better. Maybe it's just my organizational scheme, coming from the Mac, but I think that having to open Properties and click a button makes Windows suck all by itself.

Honestly I don't make new shortcuts *all* that often, and when I do, a combination of the icon and the caption make it crystal clear what to expect from clicking on the shortcut. Only very rarely do I need to say "now where DOES this thing go??" and since it's a rare activity, no need to "use up" a keyboard-abbreviation for it wold be a waste.

Seriously, what's your usage paradigm where you're frequently having to check the target of a shortcut? It might be an interesting behavioral difference...

Re:I'm going to switch

[BasilBrush]

It ain't rocket science...

Don't try and be patronizing. I was just trying to open your thought patterns out a bit. It helps to understand multiple UIs.

I care because a running application represents "something I was working on in the past" and a non-running application is "something I might want to work on in the future".

No it doesn't. That's a document or perhaps a window. The application is an executable, it doesn't hold any user data, neither in concept, not in practice.

This is what multitasking/task switching is all about from a human point of view...

Why think about tasks? Bring up the task list on your PC, and you'll see perhaps 50 tasks. Most of them a user won't have a clue about. Nor do you need to. You only need to care about documents and windows. Whether a particular application is running or nor should be no more significant to a user than whether any other of those strangely named tasks in the task list are running. They have the pro of being instantly available without a loading wait, but the con of taking up some virtual memory. Hardly worth worrying about.

If you think this is a bizarre Mac concept, then you might like to note that this applies to WinCE/PocketPC/MS Smartphone too. You don't ordinarily quit applications. You normally just select an application that you want to use, and if it's already running it brings the window to the front, and if it's not it it is started with the same state it was last in. You end up with a stack of applications, and when WinCE is running low on memory, it'll start closing them from the back of the stack. The concept is that when you select an application you shouldn't care whether it's already running or not. Same applies to Symbian Quartz UI.

Re:I'm going to switch

[kisrael]

I wasn't trying to be patronizing, sorry.

I care because a running application represents "something I was working on in the past" and a non-running application is "something I might want to work on in the future"

.
No it doesn't. That's a document or perhaps a window. The application is an executable, it doesn't hold any user data, neither in concept, not in practice.

We're getting bogged down in terminoogy here....At the bottom of my windows PC is a series of buttons, each corresponding to a window, each representing something I'm working on. Nestled away under the start button are a bunch of applications I might want to start up new windows of.

Why think about tasks?
Sorry, terminology...I was using the laypersons version of "task", something I'm doing.

Palm uses the same idea, except I think in practice it closes any given app once you exit it, abut then restores state so seamlessly that it's not an issue for the user.

The concept is that when you select an application you shouldn't care whether it's already running or not.

Aargh, I'm so not making myself clear here.
the user absolutely DOES care if the application was running or not because that instance has likely captured some state that the user wants to return to:

I have an "explorer" window open to a certain folder...it's saving the state of what directory Im looking at. I have a Textpad window open, with a document I want to come back to...it has state I care about, the changes I've made to my file. I have a browser window open to gmail...I navigatd to that page. It has state I care about. And finally I have this active browser window.

I care about these activities. I want to be relocate any one of them as quickly and easily as possible, so I sacrifice screen real estate at the bottom of my screen.

Now as you rightly point out, for most apps I don't give a crap if it's "really" running in the background or swapped out to disk...as long as when I click on the relevant part of the task bar, the thing is brought up front and center, just like I left it.

THe start menu is hiding shortcuts to starting new instances/windows/whatever of applications: a new window of textpad w/ a blank document, a new filefolder open to an arbitrary place, a new browser window set to my generic startpage. I don't really care about the state of any of these things. So I like that they're more out of the way.

I like alt-tabbing through windows. I wouldn't want to start alt-tabbing and launching new windows...the distinction between an application with an open window and one without is obvious and useful to me.

In a similar vein, I usually disable XP's offer to "group similar taskbar buttons". For me, each browser window is a distinct activity of mine, so I want each to be a click away. Same for explorer windows, each one represents a different activity.

Re:I'm going to switch

[Leo McGarry]

Conceptually the two things are very different to me.

Okay, well the best thing I can say at this point is that you're looking at it wrong. You might as well be trying to distinguish between programs based on the number of corners their icons have. It's not a useful distinction.

"Quick Launch" isn't because it's too complicated, it's because it's two clicks when some people just want one.

That went by so fast, my head is spinning. So what you're saying here is that Microsoft added this "quick launch" feature because two clicks is too many ... but it's not because the "Start" menu is too complicated? This makes sense ... how?

Win95 leapfrogged ahead of Mac at that time, IMO, by making all running programs more visible

Again, my head spins. You claim to "value screen real estate." Okay, I can accept that. "Buy a bigger screen, you dumbass," is the proper response, of course, but we'll skip past that for the moment.

Then you say that Windows 95 was better because it made "all running programs more visible."

Let's see here. On the Mac you had the application menu, a tiny widget in the upper right-hand corner, a mere 32 by 32 pixels across, that when clicked would show you all running programs. While on Windows you had this massive dashboard-like thing that stretched all the way across the screen, something on the order of 60 pixels high (I've never measured it, so I'm just guesstimating) that would almost always be at least partly empty. This, in your estimation, is "leapfrogging ahead."

Explain, please.

the latter matches my mental model of "activities started in the past" vs "activities to start in the future"

Your mental model is wrong. Fix it. Don't complain about the software.

And, furthermore, don't complain about my telling you that your mental model is wrong. It's just objectively broken. Deal with it, suck it up and change your way of looking at your computer.

Re:I'm going to switch

[amichalo]

Just take a look at the way it does it. You cn have a LARGE number of applications/file/folders/whatever and with the Doc magnifaction feature, they are very easy to see.

With XP, I have six windows open and already their descriptions are difficult to tell apart.

With OS X, you minimize a quicktime movie and you see it playing in the dock! a document or jpg is likewise reduced and identifable.

Re:I'm going to switch

[kisrael]

And, furthermore, don't complain about my telling you that your mental model is wrong. It's just objectively broken. Deal with it, suck it up and change your way of looking at your computer.

Ha, ha, ha. You are a jerk, man, a narrowsighted idiot. I can see the Mac viewpoint...one menubar per app rather than window, the weird malange of "currently running apps" and "yet to be launched apps" of the Dock...it makes a certain type of sense. But your declaration that other viewpoints are broken is just stupid.

That went by so fast, my head is spinning. So what you're saying here is that Microsoft added this "quick launch" feature because two clicks is too many ... but it's not because the "Start" menu is too complicated? This makes sense ... how?

two or more clicks = "slower" (than one click)
"slower" != "too complicated"

Get it?

Again, my head spins. You claim to "value screen real estate." Okay, I can accept that. "Buy a bigger screen, you dumbass," is the proper response, of course, but we'll skip past that for the moment.

Then you say that Windows 95 was better because it made "all running programs more visible."

Ok, I misspoke.
Physical screen real estate is indeed an issue...for my 12.1" laptop, to my 19" flatpanel. But come to think of it, it's not what the most important thing: it's on-screen clutter.

Icons add to clutter. But some clutter can be worthwhile...shortcuts to launch a new app window aren't worth it. But the "clutter" of a taskbar IS worth it, because those represent activities I'm currently enganged in and am likely to want to return to soon...otherwise I would have closed the app window.

So with my limited time with the dock, I felt as if I'd have to search through the clutter of both running apps and not-yet-running apps to get back to where I was. That doesn't happen when you have a seperation.

It makes me think of the bad old days of Windows 3.1... there, programs minimized to a little icon on the equivalent of the desktop. I guess ditching that in favor of the taskbar lets people then use the desktop as a big file folder, but again, clean seperation between "apps you might want to start from scratch" and "apps you were working with, so maybe they have context you want to get back".

Re:I'm going to switch

[Leo McGarry]

It's funny to watch you flail around aimlessly looking for ways to describe Windows as superior to the Mac. The "Start" menu is too complicated, so Microsoft gave us the "quick launch" feature. Oh, but the dock, which is identical in every way to the "quick launch" feature, is bad. Did I say too complicated? I meant slower. Yeah, that's it. It's because the "Start" menu is too slow. (Ignore with all your might the fact that the dock is "faster" than the "Start" menu.) Then it's about "screen real estate" -- brag about your "flatpanel!" -- only it's not really, it's about "clutter," and icons add to clutter ... but the demonstrably superior "quick launch" feature which kicks the dock's ass is nothing but a dock made up of icons, so it's not really about icons either, is it?

But what's most amusing of all is the way you responded to being told that your approach to dividing applications up into running and non-running is just objectively wrong was to haul out the childish name-calling.

Very funny all around ... but the charm has faded now. If you want the opportunity to take the last word to somehow try to back away from being an obvious and incompetent anti-Mac troll, go right ahead. It's all yours.

Re:I'm going to switch

[kisrael]

And it's just as amusing to see you resort to the USA-in-Vietnam "declare victory and pull out" strategy rather than having a decent discussion.

I wasn't bragging about having a flatpanel, except to point out that your "get a bigger screen dumbass" metaresponse was uncalled for (which is what really started the name calling)

I find the dock to be an unpleasant mishmash of start/quicklaunch and the taskbar. YMMV.

You totally ignore my central thesis, which is this:
There is a practical difference between applications with open windows (which will generally have context that the user wants to return to) and applications that aren't currently running. (which have no such context). Furthermore, some people will find it useful to have an OS that makes the two sets of things clearly distinct. (Even though I don't like or use quicklaunch, it provides icons that are grouped seperate and visually distinct from the buttons for open windows.)

Apparently, your only retort to this "you don't understand computers. And please don't argue, I already said you don't understand computers". Do you have anything more rational than that?

I've also said that I think the MacOS makes sense for some people...you're the one who argues that anyone who doesnt prefer it to WinXPs system doesn't understand computers-- and I resent that, and that taking a stand counter to yours makes me an "incompetent anti-Mac troll".

Re:I'm going to switch

[Lizzy_Bee]

From what I understand, judging by comments of a couple of fellow geeks last year, there might be a lot of PC users more willing to make the switch to the Macintosh OS, rather than upgrade to the coming next generation of Windows. I swing both ways, so I enjoy the best/worst of both worlds. Then again, if the coming next generation of Windows is as "bad" as I'm hearing it's going to be, I might start toying with some version of Linux, or even see what all the hype was about BeOS several years ago. Lizzy

Re:I'm going to switch

[Maserati]

"Seriously, what's your usage paradigm where you're frequently having to check the target of a shortcut? It might be an interesting behavioral difference..."

It's usally when I have to tweak something in a game's folder. I have a folder on my desktop with launch shortcuts for the games I have installed. If I want to go add a new camo scheme for a plane in IL-2 I'll go to the Games folder, follow the shortcut to the actual location of the game and dig in to the right folder to drop the new file into.

That's the sort of thing I'm doing when I want to follow a shortcut to the target.

Re:I'm going to switch

[hesiod]

> But giving up at the bottom of the curve because it's not the same means you never get a chance to find out if it's better.

If something has fundamental flaws that make it unusable for a particular person, there's no fricking reason to keep "struggling up the curve."

Obviously it is not for him, and your suggestion won't do anything but waste his time. Please accept the fact that not everyone uses a computer the way you do, and what's "intuitive" for one person may not be, for another. It's not that one is inherently better, but that he has an easire time with the structure of Windows, UNIX, whatever.

> A quick "try before you buy" isn't going to tell you anything.

I used only Macintoshes at work for 4 years. I still hate them. I hated them after working on them for a few months. Heck, I had a pretty good idea that I didn't like them right off the bat. So yes, a "try before you buy" WILL, in fact, tell you if the system design is 180 degrees from your idea of a good design.

Please note, this was during System 7.? through System 9, so no OSX. However, unless there has been a 100% redesign of the apple desktop, I'm still going to say I probably still won't like it. I don't like the way it's structured. I'm not wrong for that, calling me an idiot does not make it true, but my opinion has no affect on your ability to use it. Just that you like to use your computer in a different way than I use mine. I wish all those [insert OS] "Zealots" would figure this out and stop wasting our time with pointless, meaningless arguments.

Just an empty shell

[Nuclear Elephant]

Intel has a habit of showing off empty shell concepts and hoping that some manufacturer will pick it up. It's highly likely that this was the case here - no new product yet, just a plastic case that looks kinda like a Mac Mini.

Re:Just an empty shell

[lisaparratt]

...because *no one* would rip off the Mac Mini design without Intel's say so. *sigh* Why do these big corporates think of themselves so highly?

Re:Just an empty shell

[OS24Ever]

I can't seem to find it with google but I seem to remember some pyramid shaped thing with only USB and Firewire ports concept from a few years ago. I've not seen any system that looks like that yet either

Re:Just an empty shell

[b1t r0t]

I can't seem to find it with google but I seem to remember some pyramid shaped thing with only USB and Firewire ports concept from a few years ago.

I remember something dome shaped with USB and Firewire ports. And it even had a monitor attached. Oh wait, that was the G4 iMac.

How come Apple can spring these designs on the world, ready to sell, but nobody else can go farther than an empty plastic shell?

/but a Mac Mini can't replace a PC under the desk for footrest capability!

Re:Just an empty shell

[Ohreally_factor]

Which is fairly surprising, considering how well known it is that the pyramid shape will preserve your data and protect it from viruses and worms.

Cool.

[blobzorz]

It's cool and all, but its just not a Mac -------- http://onticfusion.sytes.net/

Still Misses The Point

[MooseByte]

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!

Re:Still Misses The Point

[to_kallon]

A box that can get easily 0wned is what people are growing weary of
certainly true. however, let us not forget that osx is not perfect either. nor, thou it saddens me to admit it, is linux. as marketshare shifts toward these from windows, which i sincerely hope it continues to do, they will also be targeted for all manner of exploits. the point of comparison is how well they deal with being targeted. i think it would be difficult to react in a worse way than microsoft.
on a side note, i don't understand the point of showing off an empty box. given some cardboard, paint, and a small digital clock i could have made something that looks similar.
this is not innovation!

Re:Still Misses The Point

[antifoidulus]

Heh, I think you hit on the biggest linux security threat there is: People who believe Linux's security to be infallible and thus do nothing to protect their machine. I wonder what it will take to knock the complacency out of people.

Re:Still Misses The Point

[cosmo7]

this is not innovation!

Yeah, but remember the last lot of Intel concept PCs that were all curvy and built into footstools and now we're all using computers that are curvy and built into footstools? It'll be just like that.

Re:Still Misses The Point

[MooseByte]

"certainly true. however, let us not forget that osx is not perfect either. nor, thou it saddens me to admit it, is linux. [...] i think it would be difficult to react in a worse way than microsoft."

Fully agree. Every OS requires updates and user education to maintain a secure system. The problem with Windows however is just how bad by design things are from the start.

I liken it to a building a high security spook facility that for some inexplicable reason has dozens of underground tunnels leading from the neighboring field straight into the heart of the inner sanctum, supposedly to "make it easier for the agents to get to work".

Re:Still Misses The Point

[perkr]

Maybe, but don't you think users in general would appreciate a small quiet elegant PC instead of a huge ugly noisy beige box?

Re:Still Misses The Point

[Refrag]

What about the biggest Windows security threat there is? People who believe Microsoft's security to be infallible and thus do nothing to protect their machine. I wonder what it will take to knock the complacency out of people.

Re:Still Misses The Point

[evanh23]

> A box that can get easily 0wned is what people are growing weary of. Next time i am in CompUSA/Best Buy/Circuit City and hear someone ask for "a box that isn't easily 0wned", I'll agree with you. I find this statement so absurd (in the context of a $500 computer) that I'm ignoring the rest of your post. I seriously doubt that computer security professionals everywhere are flocking to the $499 mini in droves. Get a clue.

Re:Still Misses The Point

[Nailer]

Linux's security to be infallible and thus do nothing to protect their machine.

* Install a firewall? Wait, that was done for me (no, 7 ports open by default isn't considered a firewall, XP users).
* Change default permissions to not turn execute on for every downloaded file? Done for me.
* Run a web browser that doesn't use ActiveX controls, so spyware that Microsoft has *signed* as they always do if you ask them can't be installed? Check.

What else? Click the red thing on my desktop that harasses me when updates are available. OK, I need to do that, but as I don't have to reboot to install most updates (apart from the rare case ofa kernel update), the task is made much easier.

Re:Still Misses The Point

[jbplou]

Whats Apples OS shares 2%, lets face it OSXare niche OS, Windows is the real OS for those who wish to have system capable of running all software.

Re:Still Misses The Point

[stor]

I wonder what it will take to knock the complacency out of people.

Nothing knocks the complacency out of people like a good ol' fashioned exploit =)

There's nothing like the feeling you get when you type 'ps' and get a segfault. System Administration is not for the weak of heart.

I rarely ramble on about the virtues of Linux now because I know that as soon as I do, one of my servers will start flaking out.

Cheers
Stor

Didn't people learn w/ the iMac?

[hydroxy]

They always seem to want to copy what Apple does... but they muck it up and end up going nowhere with it. I would think that they would have learned after everyone and their mother tried to copy the iMac with no success.

Re:Didn't people learn w/ the iMac?

[Queer Boy]

I would think that they would have learned after everyone and their mother tried to copy the iMac with no success.

Because in the end it still runs Windows. I've said lots of times that Apple is a solutions provider. It's end to end, turtles all the way down. You get the great box as an extension to the OS.

the question becomes...

[sailforsingapore]

Why would anyone want a computer that could aptly be described as looking like a lunchbox?

Re:the question becomes...

[Rude Turnip]

You must be new here...in a nutshell, most /.'s have a hard-on for anything that harkens back to the days of Sparc IPX cases, Sparc pizza boxes and Compaq luggables. I've owned two of those myself at some point in time.

Re:the question becomes...

[sailforsingapore]

I mean...I owned a few old HP desktops of this general shape (that had the moniter resting on top of them). Invariably, I (or one of my lunkhead friends) would set a drink down on top of it, spill it through the fan vents along the top, and release the magic blue smoke. After which, it would not function.

Re:the question becomes...

[Biff Stu]

Well...If it had Scooby Doo and his gang or the X-Men painted on the side, I would be excited.

Re:the question becomes...

[pseudosocrates]

or more to the point, why would anyone want a lunchbox that size? You could barely fit half a sandwich and a wagon wheel in there.

Re:the question becomes...

[halber_mensch]

Sun consumers bought pizzaboxes once upon a time....

Re:the question becomes...

[Redundant offtopic t]

Ah, the IPC/IPX--beautiful. and the 2. and the apogee of hardware design, the sparc5. oh, my my. sigh. mmmm. ah, gottago!

Re:the question becomes...

[Ohreally_factor]

OK, so it would make a lousy lunchbox. On the other hand, it would make a nice humidor for your cigars. Or a classy diaphragm holder, if you had a really big vagina.

Uh...

[NardofDoom]

Thus far, the concept PC is just a piece of plastic, literally, although its design showed a clock display and optical drive in front, with ports such as USB, optical audio and FireWire in the back.

Way to go there, Intel. Suprisingly, it's about as functional as any XP machine once it's been let onto the Internet(s).

Re:Uh...

[Lorkki]

Way to go there, Intel. Suprisingly, it's about as functional as any XP machine once it's been let onto the Internet(s).

Not that you couldn't just bundle in SP2 and turn the firewall on by default, eh?

Re:Uh...

[Lorkki]

Excuse me, Sir. I believe you missed the implication that the sentence, and it's content, was meant to be hypothetical - as was emphasized by use of words such as "couldn't". Not that I'd ever expect such a high level of education as is required to make such deductions from Sir, but always glad to help.

Re:Uh...

[gerardrj]

Sure the patches and firewall will protect you from the actively scanning worm attacks. That leaves you only susceptible to the 12,000 spyware attacks you invite to your computer simply by looking at a web page.

Re:Uh...

[fanblade]

Seriously though, I think the point to be found here is that any novel/cool idea had by Apple hardly lasts a month before somebody in the PC market copies the idea. Not that it's illegal or unexpected or even necessarily wrong. IMO, we owe it to Apple to remember that they were there first.

Re:Uh...

[Lorkki]

Well, don't use an insecure browser. Don't install every "FREE!!!" app you come across. Be picky about web sites and especially picky about plug-ins. All simple principles, which I apply in both free and non-free operating systems, but apparently more difficult to come across than I'd thought.

So far, I haven't had any detectable spyware infestations on either the XP Home on my laptop, or the XP x64 on my other desktop box (a boot option for games; the other box runs Linux 24/7). Of course, I know the possibility that Ad-aware is missing a lot of miscreants, but I'd expect at least one or two of them to be caught if they really are there.

Re:Uh...

[NardofDoom]

I think the point is that: Mac users don't have to be blamed for doing or not doing things. Plugging a Mini into the Internet doesn't jeopardize anything. Apple fixed things *before* the consumer got ahold of it.

Re:Uh...

[Jesus_666]

I guess if Apple release an "iQuarium", which is an aquarium glued to the front of a flatscreen monitor, it would take less than three weeks for someone to release a knockoff.

Re:Uh...

[ocelotbob]

Except that apple didn't come up with this idea. This market was born on the PC side with boxes like the cappuccinopc. Apple, like usual, is a Johnny come lately whose adherents have selective amnesia about computer products.

Re:Uh...

[Lorkki]

I guess you could say the same about any Unix workstation, as they're also sufficiently in the hardware and software marginal to be outside the most tempting intrusive ad market. Cookie-led data mining and Javascript programs work just as well as on the PC, of course.

Don't get me wrong: I'd just as well get rid of the x86 platform, but not for the same reason as most of the Mac converts seem to want it (to get rid of Windows, that is). Currently I prefer Linux, and I get a better bang for my buck processing power-wise from AMD than from IBM. I've also had enough experience of my mother's numerous Mac problems over 10+ years to know they're far from being completely trouble-free devices. YMMV, naturally.

Re:Uh...

[neccoant]

At least Intel is finally giving up on the USB 2.0 (an Intel-led creation) vs. FireWire (Apple) fight and just going with both. Apple was slightly less dogmatic about it, and let USB 2.0 onto their machines a year or so ago (USB 1.1 is a given as of 1998, but, for high-speed connections, they tried to force their FireWire hand.)

Re:Uh...

[stor]

Not that you couldn't just bundle in SP2 and turn the firewall on by default, eh?

That makes FUCK ALL difference from my experience. It doesn't seem to protect you from ActiveX exploits and such.

I've spent a couple of weekends fixing people's apparently sp2 firewall-protected Windows boxes.

Dead as fuck. Format and reinstall required. They may as well have been empty plastic boxes.

Don't try to pretend that Windows is even half-safe on the Internet: you just look like a moron.

Stor

Re:Uh...

[stor]

Don't try to pretend that Windows is even half-safe on the Internet: you just look like a moron.

Actually sorry about that bit... uncalled for. I got a little angry because I've spent so much time fixing friends and families spyware-infested PCs now it's starting to get really frustrating.

You can protect yourself somewhat from the ActiveX exploits by running Firefox. That's what I recommend.

Still, I don't trust any Windows component or application due to repeated bad experience with them.

Anyway sorry for the outburst.

Cheers
Stor

Re:Uh...

[Lorkki]

I possibly shouldn't even touch this. But I'll spell slowly for you because I'm in a good mood and this is my first thread here.

No OS I know of is secure by itself. Heck, not even half-safe.

Yeah, I know, we're on Slashdot, so it's taken for granted that some are. But let's pretend not. My point, let it be told up front, is that they require proper use.

Let a Linux newbie install Lindows (or whatever it is this week). Observe how only the root account is created. Put this person in IRC. This is asking for trouble.

Let a complete newbie install Windows. Observe how only an Administrator account is created. Start IE. This is also asking for trouble.

It's also why I install Firefox and Thunderbird on my friends' computers and advocate using limited accounts. (And OS switching - whenever it's realistically applicable. My sister is quite happy with SUSE.)

I haven't managed to get any OS on my own boxes "dead as fuck" like you mean for several years now (except for a graphing calculator but that required some exceptional measures). If that makes me a moron, I really couldn't care less about your kind of intelligence.

Re:Uh...

[gerardrj]

Every new windows computer comes with an insecure browser installed and set up as the default.
"installing" spyware can be as simple as viewing a web page that has an image on it. You seem to be deluded in to thinking that you have to proactively install these malware programs.

The reason spyware is so prolific is that the knowledgeable people already have always-on broadband connections, we're getting to the point where the uninformed are getting set up and they don't know the dangers, precautions and warning signs. Most "newbies" blame their ISP for the viruses "I didn't have this problem until I switched from dialup to DSL" is a common phrase heard in my day job.

Re:Uh...

[Lorkki]

As far as I know I'm not thinking or even saying that. I admit I've made an unconscious effort in blurring my point here, though, thanks in part to the fact that I'm a bit too easy to flame up (sorry, I'll try to restrain myself better in the future).

So, first of all, for clarity, is the subject here now intrinsic insecurity of Windows, or that an out-of-date OS with (broadband) Internet access in the hands of a newbie is a security threat? Because yeah, the latter strikes me as kind of an obvious statement. My point, as a response to the top of the thread, is that the former has been greatly exaggerated.

To be honest, I would actually consider a preconfigured Linux box a more ideal newbie setup than Windows XP. Partly because it's more difficult to mess up irreversibly without continuous root access, and partly because there's no vendor telling the OEM what they can or cannot do to secure the box. But I still make use of Windows as a development and gaming platform, and know how to handle it in a network environment.

Nope

[gandell]

I believe the benefits they're referring to are:
1.) Less chance of spyware / viral infections.
2.) Not having to patch the OS on a weekly basis.
3.) Being built on a decent shell.

Of course, you make a valid point about the software, but compare Mac's share of software with Linux's, and...well...

Re:Nope

[Caspian]

It always kinda bothers me when people say that Linux doesn't have software.

What Linux doesn't have in quantity constitutes two things: commercial software, and quality games. Period.

Linux has plenty of software if you're, say, a systems administrator looking for systems administration tools, or a programmer looking for development tools.

It even has plenty of games, but they all seem to be Pac-Man knockoffs and puzzle games that remind one of the contents of a Windows shareware catalog circa 1990. ;) Commercial games, or large and detailed commercial-quality games that are GPLed, are much rarer than in the Windows world.

Now (even though I'm responding directly to your point, I have to keep this related to the original topic (Mac Minis and knockoffs thereof, and by extension PC vs. Mac) or some jerkwad will mod me "Off-Topic")... Macs can use 99% of the Linux stuff anyhow. (Interestingly, Windows can use most--maybe 50-90%?-- of it too, by virtue of stuff like Cygwin and whatnot, but those are kluges.)

Re:Nope

[gandell]

Linux has plenty of software if you're, say, a systems administrator looking for systems administration tools, or a programmer looking for development tools.

That's true, but you're not making a fair comparison. The Mac Mini is mainly a consumer device...you don't find many system admins grabbing them off the shelves to check out their network. You might find a few people using them for a grid, but it's primarily a consumer device. Which is why when I describe software, I'm not talking about tools for Apache, I'm talking about consumer software. Linux has a little, but its library isn't as thick as the Mac.

Re:Nope

[kie]

there are already a number of really crucial commercial packages for linux such as oracle, sap etc. for business, however there are far less for designers, (yes gimp is great)
however there is at least one more commerical package that i would like to see...

e-onsoftware have said that they would seriously consider porting Vue to linux if they received 500 pre-orders.

Since there is no way to place a pre-order for a linux version, please sign this petition to show there is real interest for porting this software to linux.

Re:Nope

[delire]

why? what does it offer that's better than the excellent http://yafray.org/?

pathetic attempt

[PureCreditor]

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.

Re:pathetic attempt

[gl4ss]

look.. mac mini is not the first small computer out there. cappucino was released.. when? back in 1999? sheesh.

reminds of mac heads turning a blind eye to whats happening in the world of computing outside of apple untill apple comes out with something.

(i got an ibook here though, but shit, mac mini isn't exactly the groundbreaker)

Re:pathetic attempt

[xsupergr0verx]

That's silly. You act as if Apple did some real groundbreaking work for mass marketing the next logical step (which has already existed.)

Two months ago, you had your choice of hundreds of different mini itx systems. Now everybody thinks the Mac Mini is a new idea, and that anybody making a small computer is a copycat.

I see the same thing happen when talking about the iPod as well. A hard drive in a portable music player was an evolutionary idea (notice the E at the beginning), and the logical next step. Hard drive players existed before first gen iPods shipped, but Apple's image as being different and hip advertised their product as if it was the only hard drive mp3 player you could buy.

I like Apple products, and they make quality hardware, but the examples you used were not revolutionary. They were next step, no surprises, and not even Apple's idea.

Re:pathetic attempt

[TheRaven64]

The Mini wasn't even the first PowerPC machine in that small a form factor. The BriQ is a PowerPC system that is small enough to fit in a 5 1/4" drive bay. Only 800MHz, but still quite an interesting system.

Re:pathetic attempt

[mrtrumbe]

Compare for yourself: the cappuccino and the Mac Mini.

Yes, the cappuccino is small, but its design is bulky and clumsy compared to the Mini. As Apple has consistently proved, its not all about size and speed. Design, user experience and beauty are important, too.

Now look at the pics of Intel's concept mini-PC from the original article--forgetting for a second that it doesn't even exist yet. (Its not even a prototype, just a case with some lights on it.) Now try to tell me Intel isn't following Apple's lead in terms of design.

Look past the size and see the form.

Taft

Re:pathetic attempt

[starunj]

The Creative Zen may be an iPod mini rip off, but I think the interface is better on the Zen.

Say you have a long list of songs, then to get to the bottom of it rather than rotate your thumb
in a circular fashion (many times over), isnt it simpler to rest it on the down arrow on the Zen?

Re:pathetic attempt

[mrtrumbe]

I've already posted a comment very similar to this, but here goes anyway...

Look past the components and look at the design. You are absolutely right that Apple didn't invent the idea of a hard-drive in a portable music player. But you are absolutely wrong if you think the iPod wasn't revolutionary. Look at the form of the iPod. Look at how small, sleek and pretty it is. Now consider its user interface. Take in the simplicity of its menu system, its scrollwheel and button layout and overall ease of use. Now consider how easily and effectively it interfaces with iTunes, how trivial it is to create playlists and fille your iPod with music.

Now compare that experience (that of the revision 1 iPod) with the hard drive players available at the time. Is there a difference? Is that difference major? I think so.

I've given an iPod to people utterly unfamiliar with gadgetry of any kind and they were up and using the iPod in under a minute (after they got over how cool it looked). THAT is the Apple difference and why they sell products. They lead in a way that is foreign to many PC users: design.

Taft

Re:pathetic attempt

[fitten]

Revisionists... go look up "The Brick" which was reviewed in June 1990 by Byte Magazine. I swear... Steve Jobs has Maclots so blinded that it isn't even funny... it's quite scary.

Re:pathetic attempt

[bertvl]

heck, I had a ZX spectrum back in about 1984 or so, and there were quite a few before then even! To show how small it really was, it had only 48kb of RAM!

Re:pathetic attempt

[cvdwl]

And, just for kicks, spec out a very low grade Capuccino to match the Mac's specs. It came out at about $1100...

Re:pathetic attempt

[fitten]

You must not remember the different small cases that Intel has demonstrated in the past at IDFs. I distinctly remember one looking like a pyramid, one that was kind of like a wave look, and a few others. All of these were roughly the same footprint size of a Mac Mini but were taller. All of these were examples of more "artistic" looking cases that could be designed. This was in 1998 link Look for the "Aztec" and the "Twister".

Intel has been demonstrating concept form factors at IDF for a long time.

Re:pathetic attempt

[gl4ss]

look, the mini pc wasn't invented with the cappucino either.

apple hasn't consistently proved anything, it's been up'n'down road for them for the past 15 years.

Re:pathetic attempt

[dbIII]

look.. mac mini is not the first small computer out there ... reminds of mac heads turning a blind eye to whats happening in the world of computing outside of apple untill apple comes out with something.

It's a common complaint, but not just for macs - optical mice for PCs came out, then were very scarce and impossible for me to find until Microsoft brought them out again. Everyone seems to think now that they invented the things, when they weren't even the first to bring them out for the PC.

There are a few small machines out there - netwinders and all kinds of cool gear - but not in large numbers for a saner price - hence the mac mini is being noticed by people that didn't notice any of the earlier things.

Re:pathetic attempt

[Ed_Moyse]

Well it's a question of degree isn't it? If (for the sake of argument) Apple managed to make portable music players far far more attractive to the average joe, and transformed a small market into a collosal market, then you could describe that as a revolution, no?

Maybe they didn't do much different technically but if the effect they had was quadrupling (or more - no idea, I'm just arguing principles here) a market, then surely that's a revolution of some kind?

Re:pathetic attempt

[Moofie]

And what have they produced?

Nothing.

Re:pathetic attempt

[ivano]

talk about strawman argument. No-one said this was the first SFF pc (maybe the Cube could be a contender for that one - can anyone check on this?). What people are saying is that of the SFFs it's definitely one of the smallest. And the nicest looking. (The PC SFF ones look like a car-stereo designer made them. Yuck!)

Anyway, everyone is going on how small the mac mini is but they're all too lazy (and have better things to do) than preface all of there comments with "Even though Apple were not the first people to make an SFF, the design of the mac mini is evolutionary quite spectacular...". By the way is there a (underpowered) PC that is as small as the mac mini?

Ciao

Re:pathetic attempt

[EggyToast]

It's also significantly more expensive.

It comes standard with 128mb of ram, a 20gb harddrive, a cd-rom drive, no operating system, and a 1.2ghz celeron processor.

Bumping it up so that it is at least somewhat comparable to the mini puts it at $1000. Twice the price of a mini.

and you can't get bluetooth AND wireless together (and both options cost $100 each, the mac mini offers both together for less than $90).

That's often the deciding factor -- yes you can get small PCs, and shuttle-sized PCs have been around for a while. But to get anything close, you need to build your own or configure a system, and in both cases the prices quickly get outside of the $500 range. Often, just a bare case + MB will push $200-$300, and that's without any other parts.

Heck, the cappucino CAN'T get more than 256mb ram. What the hell is that?

Re:pathetic attempt

[Deliveranc3]

Having held a Zen and an Ipod and used both I'd say the zen is the superior machine in every way.

Re:pathetic attempt

[shotfeel]

Don't know when the cappucino was released, but don't forget Apple's first foray into small with the Cube in 2000.

I know there were probably earlier attempts at "small", but I also remember the origianl Mac being small for the day. Often referred to as "the first luggable PC".

Re:pathetic attempt

[fitten]

Well... the G5 iMac introduced in 2004 looks similar to the concept "Polaris" that Intel had at IDF 1999 (on the link above), for example.

Re:pathetic attempt

[fitten]

Well.... look at the "Deep Forest" concept PC from IDF 2000......

Re:pathetic attempt

[fitten]

And "Groom Lake"...

Also, the "eXo" looks like the XBox might have been inspired by it.

Re:pathetic attempt

[slim]

I've given an iPod to people utterly unfamiliar with gadgetry of any kind and they were up and using the iPod in under a minute (after they got over how cool it looked). THAT is the Apple difference and why they sell products.

Really?

I watched an newbie explore an iPod Mini only last week. His first question was "how do I turn it off?" (and was incredulous at the two answers: "hold down play", and "you don't need to"). Then I challenged him to find the volume control, which he was unable to do.

(Admittedly the volume control challenge is a bit of a cheat: the volume control is hardest to find when you're actually looking for it, because when you're searching for it you're continually pressing buttons. If you stop pushing buttons for a couple of seconds, the scroll wheel turns into a volume wheel.)

Re:pathetic attempt

[Moofie]

It also looks like the 20th Anniversary Macintosh that Apple shipped (as in, sold to customers in a store) around 1997. What's your point?

My point is, design studies are not useful to me. Hardware I can buy that is well designed is useful to me.

Re:pathetic attempt

[Moofie]

Sure. What store can I go buy one in? Oh, right. It was vaporware.

Re:pathetic attempt

[fitten]

I think you misunderstand "concept". Intel doesn't make them. They basically offer ideas for others to use, which others have evidently used. It just so happens in this case to have been Apple using them ;)

Re:pathetic attempt

[Moofie]

I understand "concept" perfectly. I also know that it's much harder to engineer a small computer than to vacuum form a plastic shell.

I really don't care who copies who. (Picasso: Good artists copy. Great artists steal.) I do care who sells well-designed hardware. Nobody but Apple does that.

Re:pathetic attempt

[2nd Post!]

You still need to thank the heritage of the Zen; without a first gen iPod, your Zen would have looked like a first generation Nomad: About the size of Mac mini.

That was the Creative competition to the first iPod 3 years ago.

Re:pathetic attempt

[fitten]

I really don't care who copies who. (Picasso: Good artists copy. Great artists steal.) I do care who sells well-designed hardware. Nobody but Apple does that.


Well, we agree on the first part but I guess we'll just have to disagree on the last statement as I think Apple is just one of the several companies that sells well-designed computer hardware.

Re:pathetic attempt

[Moofie]

Really? Who else makes well-designed PCs? I've certainly not seen any. We'll even exclude software from the discussion, because Apple's software is far better designed than anything else on the market.

Hush Technologies has beautiful, well-designed boxes (cosmetically, anyhow). They also cost a mint, and I don't know what the internals look like. Who else?

Re:pathetic attempt

[2nd Post!]

They've done something. If you can grant that Microsoft popularized PCs by making them affordable, then Apple has popularized mp3 players by making them usable, and now SFF by making them affordable.

Shuttle, for example, ships as many units in a year as Apple ships iMacs in a quarter. Think of that 'exposure'. If there were 10 SFF companies out there, most smaller than Shuttle, then the volume of SFF PCs is such that, to the majority of users, no one has ever seen a PC 'smaller than a breadbox'.

So yes, Apple is NEW.

The same logic for the iPod. Prior to the iPod there existed TWO hard drive mp3 players. The Creative Nomad (about the same size as the Mac mini!) was 5"x5"x1.5" and 14 oz. and the PJB 100, at 5"x3"x1" and 10oz. They used regular or laptop hard drives, used USB1, and had awful UIs.

So the first gen iPod was revolutionary: 4"x2.4"x0.78" and 6.56oz, Firewire interface, and a truly usable UI.

They were the only hard drive players you could fit in your pocket.
They were the only hard drive players you could use with one hand.
They were the only hard drive player you could upload your data in less than 10 minutes max.

Now everyone can do it. Before the iPod, you couldn't.

Re:pathetic attempt

[fitten]

It's useless to discuss this any farther. When you have Apple in your eyes and Steve in your heart, there isn't room for anything else.

Re:pathetic attempt

[frank_adrian314159]

Yes, the cappuccino is small, but its design is bulky and clumsy compared to the Mini. As Apple has consistently proved, its not all about size and speed. Design, user experience and beauty are important, too.

The poster is dead on. And I speak as a person who uses a Cappuccino as his main desktop machine at home (I also have a couple of tower cases under my desk, but that's another story).

In general, the Mini really is a revolutionary design. I am going to get one to hook to my KVM soon. I'll still have the Capp running Linux (BTW, does anyone know why it seems to overheat when I run Windows, but seems to run Linux forever and a day without crashing?), but I think that the Mac will probably become my main desktop machine (and, it will give me a chance to try out Digitool's MCL).

Re:pathetic attempt

[Moofie]

So, you're telling me you CAN'T name a single PC manufacturer that turns out well-designed hardware. OK. I agree. I don't think there is one either.

I don't have any allegiance to Apple, and I think Steve is kind of a jerk. But they have their hardware and software design dialed in, so I do buy their products. If they didn't, I wouldn't.

Re:pathetic attempt

[Frobozz0]

You act as if Apple did some real groundbreaking work for mass marketing the next logical step (which has already existed.)

Um, nope. Don't think anyone implied that. However, judging by your defensive stance, you clearly want one. :-)

Re:pathetic attempt

[fitten]

I personally like Shuttle SFF boxes (I own two). I think they are well designed and meet their purpose well. As far as larger machines, IBM builds great servers. Even Dell server class machines are decent.

Re:pathetic attempt

[Moofie]

The Shuttle aesthetics are acceptable, I suppose. However, working inside their cases is a nightmare. Therefore, I do not consider them well designed.

IBM servers and Dell servers might be reasonably well thought out on the interior, but their aesthetic design is pretty nondescript.

Design is form AND function. Both are important, and the best designers can make something that's beautiful and functional, with neither aspect compromising the other. None of those designers are in the employ of PC manufacturers, because PC manufacturers just don't care. Which is fine: They certainly don't have to. But they also won't get my money.

Re:pathetic attempt

[sirwired]

Ah, but please show me a mini-ITX machine as small as the Mac Mini with the following HW features:

1) Firewire
2) Dual USB Ports
3) DVI Port
4) A real Graphics Acclerator, instead of this "Shared Memory" crap that ships w/ low-end Wintel boxen.
5) Built-in CD-RW/DVD-ROM

Oh, and ship it for $525. (Price of the Mini + a keyboard and mouse.)

Yeah, you can buy a Shuttle that way, but compared to the mac Mini, those things are gigantic. The Mini is literally the size of five CD jewel cases. (Except for the laptop-style power supply, which sits on the floor, or other out-of-the-way location.)

So yes, the mini is something that has not been done before.

Why did I get a mini? I needed to do some PHP/MySQL development in a UNIX environment. I could have pieced together a Linux workstation for $350 or so, and then downloaded a distro and a copy of Eclipse, along with MySQL, and then beat everything into working properly. (Using my Windows-connected printer, getting Apache to play nice with PHP and MySQL, locking down all the "crap" services that seem to get turned on with every distro, beating the window manager into usability, etc.)

With my mini, I paid Apple $550, plugged it up, booted, downloaded XCode tools for free from Apple, followed some easy to find, and use, instructions on PHP and MySQL install, and one hour after taking it out of the box, I was writing code. I had a fully-functioning, BSD-based development environment for cheap. And I didn't have to waste my valuable free time fighing with the thing to get it to cooperate.

Things that are messy in Linux, like using Windows printers, took me about 30 seconds on the mac. It uses CUPS, just like Linux, but it has a front-end that is trivial to use.

While the UNIX dev workstation aspect certainly isn't Apple's target market, it sure came in handy for me.

SirWired

Re:pathetic attempt

[fitten]

The Shuttle aesthetics are acceptable, I suppose. However, working inside their cases is a nightmare. Therefore, I do not consider them well designed.

To pack in what all they pack in such a small space, they are well designed. Such things as using parts of the frame as channels to run cabling and such, for example. Open up a Mac Mini and see what you can get to in there... it's the same situation except that the Mac Mini is designed to use laptop parts and can get away with some things by using that. Shuttles are designed to use commodity desktop components so the design has to accomodate the size considerations for those. Shuttle does this remarkably well, in my opinion.

IBM servers and Dell servers might be reasonably well thought out on the interior, but their aesthetic design is pretty nondescript.

Yes... seems perfect. The servers are designed to be off in a server room. It was a wise choice to include things onto the front panel that are needed to determine the status of the machine at a glance without cluttering it up with needless things. It's also a good design decision to not spend money doing something useless. They *could* have made the face plate made of 24k gold... but that would be stupid. IBM and Dell servers are designed for their function and nothing more. They don't have to be "pretty" because there is no need for them to be "pretty". "Pretty" doesn't get a server's job done.

Design is form AND function.

I would say it is function, then form. Engineering isn't about putting as much stuff you can into something. The design is finished when you cannot remove anything else and still achieve the goal of the design.

But they also won't get my money.

Likewise, if I wanted something to look nice and display, I will buy a piece of artwork. If I want a computer, I will buy one that gets my work done. A beautiful box with a slow computer that lacks software I use is useless to me. An ugly box that is fast and has the software I use and need is useful to me. If the box is so ugly that I can't stand to look at it, I'll put it in a closet and xterm into it... maybe with a Mac Mini if I need to ;)

Re:pathetic attempt

[Moofie]

"Engineering isn't about putting as much stuff you can into something."

Yet you think the Shuttle is a good design, because it uses kludgy desktop components. I think running the cables through the frame is a horrible hack. The Mac Mini uses compact components that are well-suited to the task.

"The design is finished when you cannot remove anything else and still achieve the goal of the design."

That's one school of thought. I don't think that minimalism is the only appropriate design philosophy, particularly for a machine that's as complex and versatile as a personal computer.

So you prize utility over aesthetics: That doesn't surprise me, but it's not the only way to skin a cat. I am not willing to buy a utilitarian design that is not also aesthetically pleasing. Different priorities.

There is more to design than utilitarianism, though, and that's where Apple excels.

Re:pathetic attempt

[fitten]

Yet you think the Shuttle is a good design, because it uses kludgy desktop components. I think running the cables through the frame is a horrible hack. The Mac Mini uses compact components that are well-suited to the task.

Well... PowerMacs use those same "kludgy" desktop components as do desktop PCs. Where the nicety comes in is that you don't have to pay for expensive miniaturized components (notebook components) and sacrifice performance and/or expandability to get a small machine you can carry around. My friends and I wanted *exactly* (and I mean *exactly*) something like a Shuttle SFF back in the late 1990s. We traveled a lot but we were unwilling to accept a performance hit by buying a set-top box. We wanted an AGP slot we could put the latest cards in and we wanted to be able to use desktop HDD because the performance and storage capability were far above notebook components. Unfortunately, nothing like that existed at the time so we had to just settle for laptops and be boring.

I see using the frame to help route cables as a novel use of otherwise wasted space.

Consider this: something that is fully functional but has poor form still performs its task fine. Something that has great form but lacks function is useless.

Sure, just like anything, priorities of such thing as form and function will vary from person to person. For me and many PC users, having a computer perform its task takes precedence over what it looks like. You can always dress a pig up to make it look better (form), but you can't make a pig solve systems of PDEs (function) no matter how pretty it looks.

Re:pathetic attempt

[Moofie]

"Well... PowerMacs use those same "kludgy" desktop components as do desktop PCs."

I get the feeling you're being intentionally dense. PowerMacs can get away with using those components, because PowerMacs are big. They're ALSO well-designed. They're easy to service, and quiet. They also have some attention paid to aesthetics (although I wouldn't call them "attractive" necessarily).

I don't care if routing cables through the frame is "novel", I care if it works well. And, having had to replace one of those cables, I can tell you: It doesn't work well. So what's your argument? Is it important to be serviceable, or "novel"?

"something that is fully functional but has poor form still performs its task fine. Something that has great form but lacks function is useless."

Depends on what you mean by "fully functional". When we're talking about servicing the internals of the machine, form is critical to function. When we're talking about the exterior, form is obviously not directly related to function.

You talk about dressing up a pig to solve PDEs. I'm not sure what exactly you're after with this comparison. However, if I've got $1400 to spend on a laptop, why wouldn't I buy a Powerbook that's attractive, well-designed, and very functional? If I'm spending $500, am I going to buy a Shuttle case (the latest of which costs $500 all by itself), or a mini?

Re:pathetic attempt

[2nd Post!]

Of course not; someone else would have said, "Hey, I can make a smaller mp3 player!", like iRiver or Samsung.

But it WASN'T.

It was Apple.

Twice.

From the Creative Nomad -> iPod
From the iPod -> iPod mini

It took Creative 4 years to create an iPod killer, and they announced theirs in October of 2004, several months after Apple had already shipped their iPod mini using a similar microdrive.

Do you sense a trend here? The same thing happened with the color iPod.

So no, there's no speculation about what would have happened had Apple not existed, only fact of what did happen, several times, with the iPod, iPod mini, iPod photo, and now the Mac mini.

Re:pathetic attempt

[2nd Post!]

Why not say that Apple is responsible for quadrupling the market?

Why not say Apple CREATED the 'smaller than a CD player' hard drive mp3 player market? Because before the iPod, the only two previous entries were:
Creative Nomad, at 5"x5"x1.5" (note that the Mac mini is 6.5"x6.5"x2") and 14 oz
PBJ 100, at 6"x3"x1" and 10 oz

So it's more than 'decent product, brilliant marketing' at first. It was 'awesome product, good marketing, high price'.

It wasn't until late 2003 that the first real competition became on par.

Re:pathetic attempt

[fitten]

As long as the Mac can get your stuff done for you, buy what you want and more power to you. It seems that one of your main qualifications is that it has to be a Mac so pretty much all other requirements are overriden. Personally, I wouldn't buy a PowerBook. My officemate has one and while it is a nice laptop and tempting, things I get done on my laptop tend to take about 2X as long to do on his (yes, we've measured). His PowerBook also costs about 2X what my laptop lists for at the time he purchased his PowerBook even though most of the specs are similar (1G memory, 40G HDD, etc.) but my laptop has a 1600x1050 15.4" screen as opposed to his 12" (we both use them for desktop replacements).

Although, I would pay a nice premium for OmniGraffle. I even emailed OmniGraffle asking if they were going to do a Linux or Windows port and they said no :( That one tool is almost enough to persuade me to get a Mini.

PowerBooks are definitely nice to look at, but not worth the cost, IMO. They would have the advantage of at least running a Unix-type OS and I could do most of what I do on it.

The latest Shuttle case is for S939 Athlon64s. That's not even close in comparison to the 1.25GHz (or 1.42GHz) G4. You need to compare back a few models down to the Athlon XP cases, which are around $200 (without CPU/Memory/HDD/CDROM). You can easily put together a decent Shuttle Athlon XP box for $499 (CPU = $70, HDD = $70, DVD dual layer = $60, 512M DDR400 = $60) and built in video is about ATi 9200 quality, but for $45 more (to bring it up to about $500) you can get a much better AGP card.

And for me, I would get a lot more work done on that Shuttle box, since the type of work I do will run nicely on it (Linux and Windows).

My "pig" comparison is simply that looks doesn't get work done. You can have the most beautiful computer in the world but if it doesn't do what you need, then it is worthless. However, you can have the ugliest computer in the world but it gets your work done so it is useful. Given the choice of those two, I'd pick the ugly one every time.

Re:pathetic attempt

[Arru]

It also looks like the 20th Anniversary Macintosh that Apple shipped (as in, sold to customers in a store) around 1997. What's your point?

And, of the three (iMac G5, Intel Polaris concept computer, 20th anniversary mac) the Intel is without doubt the ugliest.
What was intel's point with that? Making an ugly concept computer?

Re:What Benifit?

[powermung]

From the article:

"Thus far, the concept PC is just a piece of plastic, literally, although its design showed a clock display and optical drive in front, with ports such as USB, optical audio and FireWire in the back."

Apparently the CPU, motherboard, and all the other stuff that comprises a computer.

Re:What Benifit?

[Claire-plus-plus]

I'm no Mac bigot. In fact I don't care what OS people use but I must say that Macs do have benefits over PCs, ease of use and lack of spyware for a start. However, PCs have benefits over macs as well. And SHOCK HORROR macs and pcs have advantages over linux while linux has advantages over both.

My favorite computer is my PS2 and my second favorite is my Cheap-n-crappy DVD player.

Lawsuit time

[I_am_Rambi]

Watch out intel. Apple will sue. Anyone remember the iMac vs. the eMachine look alike?
Ready...3...2...1... fight!

Re:Lawsuit time

[BraceletWinner]

How can they sue? You can't patent "small, rectangular, with a slot-drive". Is Intel planning on putting the Apple Logo on the thing?

Re:Fabulous

[Rude Turnip]

It's not a real computer, just a plastic mock-up. However, there are lots of mini-itx systems to choose from today. Pop in an HD tuner (get'em before they're illegal!), install MythTV and you're all set. Or if you're lazy like me, get a TiVo :)

Paster Processor

[COMON$]

Define faster Processor...kind of hard to compare the two...

Re:Paster Processor

[antifoidulus]

feh, I'm more interested in "Paster Processors" than faster processors myself.

Re:Paster Processor

[COMON$]

Yes it is the next generation dairy processors, combining pasteurization and Speed. :)

I tried to stop the submission to no avail, check my post below.

Re:Paster Processor

[Ohreally_factor]

I think you better stop. It's pasture bedtime.

Re:What Benifit?

[jla0]

Huh? A little something called MacOS X? Ease of use? INOVATIVE design?

Re:What Benifit?

[lucabrasi999]

Not having any good software for their platform

Define "good software". Are you referring to business and graphic design software? Or, are you just worried about the most recent FPS?

Can you say "lawsuit"?

[Caspian]

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.

"Intel Inside"

[sailforsingapore]

I think it would be wonderful to have a little sticker on the front of that box: "G5 Inside"...or, perhaps for now: "Plastic Inside"

I like how they blindly follow any mac design

[GatesGhost]

its just really pathetic how they just copied mac's design, only changing the color and adding some lame ass stripe on it. apple should make their next computer a piece of shit and see if intel tries to follow suit.

Re:What Benifit?

[Skye16]

Wow, flamebait already? How dare you make a point about an extremely biased opinion in the /. news! Burn, demon, burn!

I've yet to see anything good about a Mac. What Mac fans consider good, I consider "limiting". Mac users want a tool; I want a toy. If I wanted a tool, I'd buy a shovel.

[ P.S. It's "benefit" :) ]

Jeebus

[Wellington Primrose]

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????? Hardly makes any sense to me.

A computer is a tool, not a toy, when did we see a shift from functionality to marketing spin?

Actually though, this may be a good thing for my business as I'll continue to purchase full featured tools from Dell, and I'll continue to thirve, while others buy cool little toys that cost more and do less.

Man, the world is a whacky place these days.

Re:Jeebus

[slimak]

For most users the current crop of machines have more than enough computing power. I would rather have a small computer with enough (or a little more) power than I need than a monster box with 5x more features than I could ever use. Maybe thats just me though, my car only has a 4 cylinder engine (but 2 cams! woo hoo).

Re:Jeebus

[Smidge204]

A computer is a tool, not a toy, when did we see a shift from functionality to marketing spin?

Somewhere between the time that computers became affordable to the general public and not just to medium-to-large companies and research institutions, and when owning a "personal computer" became hip and trendy. You know... the mid/late 80's.
=Smidge=

Re:Jeebus

[Game_Ender]

I'll continue to purchase full featured tools from Dell... Man, the world is a whacky place these days

What's whacy is being on slashdot and buying a dell. Being here I assume you know at least a little about preformance and how AMD has both the overall and per dollar preformance advantage over Intel in most areas. You can save money and get better preformace if you build you own AMD box, then buy one from dell.

Re:Jeebus

[LarsWestergren]

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.

Re:Jeebus

[Dirk Pitt]

used to be all about making better faster machines with more features

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)

Re:Jeebus

[dhbiker]

you must be a manager! you managed to slip paradigm in there and it actually made sense! lol

Re:Jeebus

[10Ghz]

You know, I used to think like that. But the I started to re-consider. My computer is powerful (A64 3200+), and I tried to make it as silent as possible. But I can still hear the computer even when I'm not in the same room! And 95% of the time, I don't need all that power. A small computer that is silent would be perfect for me. I wouldn't hear any whirring fans or the like, It would be completely silent. And just because it would be less powerful, it doesn't mean it does "less". Quite the contrary: it allows you to do stuff you couldn't do with that full-tower uber-computer. It allows for silent computing. It allows you to do your job without being distracted by the fans in your computer.

I was looking for a suitable Mini-ITX-machine, when Apple came up with Mac Mini. It had similar price, alot better performance and features, so I bought one (still waiting for it to be delivered). I think it will suit me nicely.

Maybe I just want something else from my computer besides raw performance. I can have that performance quite easily. But it will cost me in size of the computer, noise and price. What's the point if I don't need all that power most of the time?

Re:Jeebus

[Dirk Pitt]

Heh. Nope. Just a code monkey. I guess it's like A Clockwork Orange - I've sat through so many meetings of managerspeak with my eyes clamped open that it's been fried into my brain.

Re:Jeebus

[BumpyCarrot]

A computer is a tool, not a toy...

Interestingly enough, people had similar complaints in regards to the 386.

Re:Jeebus

[leenoble_uk]

Forget where I read the comparison but that's the whole point.

Briefly it went like this:
Ford makes black cars.
Everybody buys Ford's black cars.
All cars look the same and do pretty much the same stuff.
Chevrolet come along with a nicer looking car.
People buy it because they want to look individual.

The same is true of the mobile phone handset.
The same is true of computers.

For the home user they are pretty much maxing out in terms of necessary horsepower so now they want different computers for different things. One for the study, one for the living room, one for the kitchen. Each of these will have a different outward design to fit in with its place of use. Computers are now commodities so you need design to distinguish yours from the rest of the Fords (Dells).

Re:Jeebus

[LWATCDR]

"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.

Re:Jeebus

[PotatoHead]

Sure does to me. I'm running a dual 600Mhz machine right now. I happen to be using Linux, but win32 would work fine too. Makes a great desktop machine. Hell, I burn DVD media on this box all the time @ 4X. Plenty of speed for most anything but the latest games. Plays a mean Q3A though.

I 've got a faster box or two, but I like this one and see no reason to go tearing into my setup just for a little speed bump that won't really matter.

Does my machine do less than your Dell? I seriously doubt it, unless you are talking games.

Now I probably won't buy a mini pc because I don't need to. (I'm getting a Mini anyway.) However, lots of people, who really like win32 (poor bastards), will be interested in such a machine. Apple is showing good design trumps power for the dollar for an increasingly large segment of the computer buying public.

Re:Jeebus

[LarsWestergren]

Tastes can change quite a lot in five years, and so can computers. Five years ago people might have put up with large boxes or annoying fan noises, but then when they see a small Playstation 2, or a Mac that is so quiet that you have to check the LEDs to see if it is on, they might start to think - hey, why can't I get that with my PC?

Re:Jeebus

[shotfeel]

Well, I consider size, energy consumption and ease of use to be features.

Also, considering the single biggest bottleneck in computing speed sits between the chair and the keyboard, ease of use is the biggest feature in making faster machines.

Plus, more features does not equate with better, IMO. hardware bloat is just as much a problem as software bloat. And IMO Apple is just about the best company there is when it comes to hitting the magic combinations between too many and too few features both in hardware and software.

Re:Jeebus

[mrchaotica]

The only thing I see missing from the Mac Mini is a video in.

...and a TV tuner, and a video card suitable for gaming. If it had that, it would be able to beat the XP Media Center and the XBox, which are the only two things MS is better at.

Re:Jeebus

[LWATCDR]

"..and a TV tuner, and a video card suitable for gaming."

The video card in the Mini is suitable for gaming. Just not for the latest and greatest super high end games.
Since the high end video cards that you need to run Doom3 well cost almost as much as a mac mini to expect them to be included is not reasonable.
The TV tuner I could see. But do you make it a HDTV tuner? An option That comes to my mind would be a Media center add on.
A small box that sits on the mini and hooks up to the Firewire port that adds a TV tuner/Input, Firewire hub, LCD display, IR interface, FM tuner, and maybe a XMS/Sirius receiver.

Re:Jeebus

[lakeland]

Right, and also the number and locations of computers has changed in five years. Previously, people had the family's computer in the shared living areas where a bit of noise didn't matter -- after all, the TV makes noise, the stereo makes noise, and the computer is usually making noise out of its speakers at the same time.

Now people are more likely to be putting machines in their bedrooms or the like. And business machines are being tightly integrated into the office so that when the computer is not in use it is supposed to visually disappear.

Loud, large, hot computers just don't fit with that image. For my last two computers I paid a significant premium to get a cooler (low power) machine. For my last one I also paid a premium for quiet (I learned that lesson the hard way). Now, I'm getting older and I guess this caring about the enviroment I live in is part of that, but as I look around I see more and more people making similar decisions.

Of course, the gamers haven't changed yet, and maybe they never will. But they never were more than about 10% of the market.

Re:Jeebus

[mrchaotica]

Since the high end video cards that you need to run Doom3 well cost almost as much as a mac mini to expect them to be included is not reasonable.

Not high-end, but a midrange card (like a nVidia 6600 or ATi 9700) would be reasonable, at least on the more expensive Mini.

That's my only real gripe about Macs in general: to get more than a low end card (e.g. Mobility Radeon 9200 in my iBook) you have to spend $3,000 for a PowerMac G5 or 17" PowerBook. Surely they could put at least midrange cards in things like the iMac and smaller PowerBooks and iBooks?

I know there aren't enough Mac gamers to justify high-end chips, but come on -- my iBook doesn't even run WarCraft III or THPS4 (that came with it!) satisfactorally!

Re:Jeebus

[b1t r0t]

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.

Don't forget that the margins are higher on the bleeding-edge CPUs that need a heat sink the size of a small truck.

Re:Jeebus

[Ohreally_factor]

Or maybe you're just intelligent enough to use "paradigm" in it's original sense. You know, from when it was a word, not just market-squack.

Re:Jeebus

[mrchaotica]

Hey, I calls 'em as I sees 'em (I'm a whale biologist). It may just be something wrong with my particular iBook. But when there's a big battle, the framerate drops into the teens or single digits.

Re:Jeebus

[10Ghz]

If you havent completely given up on your PC you might want to look into replacing the heatsink/fan on your processor with something more quiet. I'm assuming you are using the stock heatsink/fan which sounds like a jet engine under heavy load.

Yes I use the stock heatsink/fan. And, according to reviews, it's pretty silent. And the fan slows down when the CPU is not doing much. And I can still hear it! No matter how much I worked on the machine, it would still have 4 fans in it (case-fan, PSU-fan, CPU-fan and GPU-fan). The Mini has one uber-silent fan. Even if I managed to quiet down the CPU-fan, I would still have three fans to go. And of those three, two are already "silent" variety.

I am going to keep my PC. There are times when I need extra CPU/GPU-power and Windows. Usually that means gaming ;).

Agreed.

[hot_Karls_bad_cavern]

Were our a/v junk not behind smoked glass in the cabinet, i'd be more concerned.This little guy could hide away in some nice small spots and it's been crowded in there for a bit.

Not if faster means hotter

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Not if faster means hotter

[Walkiry]

Um... Pentium M?

Re:Fabulous

[dtk13]

Along with that... Can any one say s.s.s.f.i.t.b* running linux! ---- *Super Small Server Farm In The Basement.

inspiration?

[castlec]

inspire looks all you want intel. until you can inspire a price competitive with the mac mini, it's not going anywhere. i won't say the mac mini is the be-all end-all but, in my opinion, it's pretty hefty competition.

Wait until someone trys to market one...

[gubbas]

...then Apple will sue it to death. Remember the eMachines eOne? Looked just like an iMac, but had the heart of the Intel inside. I'll bet Apples lawyers are all chomping the bit to be the first to repress this one too.

Re:Wait until someone trys to market one...

[MadBiologist]

Who's got more lawyers... Apple or Intel.. that'd be interesting to see... like a reality show for geeks.

Also good to see...
Nintendo vs. Sony
IBM vs. Microsoft
or
SCO vs... (oh wait a minute... never mind)

Re:Wait until someone trys to market one...

[gubbas]

You really think Intel will build this PC? Re-read the links. Intel is attempting to inspire PC makers. It's the Emachines, Dell's, HP's... that will product the system. They will be the ones on defense against Apple.

Re:Wait until someone trys to market one...

[toddestan]

As if the all-in-one iMac form factor computer was something that Apple invented. I distinctly remember Compaq Prolinea (sp?) 486 all-in-one computers, which crammed a CD-Rom, Floppy(!), and all the other needed parts into an oversized 14"-15" monitor. Picture here.

Likewise, a computer the size of a Mac Mini is hardly original - people have imagined stuff like that for years. Apple is just the first company to pull it off on such a large scale.

Re:Wait until someone trys to market one...

[-dhan-101]

um. how about going back even further to the original Mac. That was an all-in-one.

Re:Wait until someone trys to market one...

[rxmd]

As if the all-in-one iMac form factor computer was something that Apple invented.

My Macintosh SE/30 says they did, and its ancestors agree, starting from the original Mac 128k. Well, maybe Apple didn't invent the form factor entirely, but they definitely were the first to deploy it on a large scale.

I distinctly remember Compaq Prolinea (sp?) 486 all-in-one computers, which crammed a CD-Rom, Floppy(!), and all the other needed parts into an oversized 14"-15" monitor.

Yes. This form factor was rather popular at the time. I don't know when the Prolineas hit the market, but the Macintosh Performa 520 appeared in 1993.

Re:Wait until someone trys to market one...

[brainstyle]

As if the all-in-one iMac form factor computer was something that Apple invented.

No kidding. I mean check this thing out - it's ancient. It totally predates the iMac, so I can't see how Apple gets all the credit for such a design.

Re:Wait until someone trys to market one...

[Thag]

There were plenty of all-in-one computers before the first macs came out, too.

Google for the Commodore PET or CBM.

Jon Acheson

Re:What Benifit?

[MPHellwig]

No good software? You mean those overpriced games? Anything else is in one way or another availible for the mac, you might need VirtualPC though.
Being overpriced? How in * name can you call the mini overprized? If you want comparible performance with a commercial OS you will at least pay the same if not more.
The benefit of a mac is that most things work the way it supposed to do instead of not working or working but not the way it supposed to.

But anyway it's a nice wrapped up troll, you fooled me.

I still don't understand...

[Gruneun]

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.

Re:I still don't understand...

[2nd Post!]

Because the Mac mini shipped. It's why Doom 3 shipping is news, while the milestone of Duke Nukem Forever is not.

Mini ITX boards have been around for years; Mac minis are 1/3 the volume and 1/2 the size. Nano ITX has been announced many months before the Mac mini, but hasn't shipped yet, while the mini has. Even still, when someone took a prototype nano-itx board and tried to fit it into a Mac mini, it was discovered it didn't fit; they hat to saw down the heatsink AND they had to remove the optical drive, so the Mac mini is STILL smaller than nano-itx.

There's nothing revolutionary about the mini, other than it's size AND price; the only similar PC is the Cappuccino PCs, which are slightly smaller, but nearly twice as expensive. Even Shuttle based boxes, which can hold almost 3 Mac minis inside them, cost more.

Re:I still don't understand...

[cowscows]

The mac mini qualifies as news less for its form factor and more for its price. An actual Apple computer for $500? Scandalous. It's certainly applicable to slashdot, where for years people have been talking about how they're fascinated by OSX, they respect the general quality of Apple's hardware, they just couldn't justify the high prices for a machine to play around on.

All of a sudden, an entry level Mac is now truly entry level on price. And a lot of people have said that price was the biggest thing that PC's had over Macs.

The empty box from intel is interesting just because it's so obviously inspired (copied) from Apple. It really looks like they just painted over the apple logo, put a couple lines across it, and glued a little digital clock to it. It's amusing for the same reason that the early imac knockoffs were. There's hundreds of ways to make an all-in-one machine, and using curvy, translucent, brightly colored plastic isn't the most obvious one. I'm all for sharing and the progression of knowledge, but there's a difference between building upon what came before, and just throwing out a me-too product.

Re:I still don't understand...

[Gruneun]

Which was predated by the MicroATX and its respective basrebones cases. You're missing the point.

Re:I still don't understand...

[10Ghz]

Nano-ITX, while relatively new, was announced many months before the Mac Mini or this empty box from Intel.

Yep, it was "announced", but it's still not available! have you seen one for sale? Anywhere? Not to mention that their performance sucks when compared to Mac Mini. And their price is more or less the same as the Mini. And you can't run OS X on one ;). I'm no Mac-fanboy, but I would like to try out OS X. The Mini suits me perfectly. While I could almost get the same size with Mini-ITX, with comparable price (but not the performance), I couldn't run OS X on it.

The Mini is interesting and newsworthy because it does the same thing Mini-ITX and the like do, only better. And because it's the cheapest Mac there is.

Re:I still don't understand...

[drinkypoo]

The mac mini is only $499 with the slower processor, smaller disk, and too little ram. It does not assuage the average slashdotter's belief that macs are too expensive. If they truly wanted to make a cheap mac they wouldn't have mucked around with trying to make it tiny. The proof is in the proverbial pudding: A used graphite G4 costs more than a new mac mini due to artificial price inflation. Same chip. Same basic capabilities. Already designed, so there is no R&D cost. Put it in a plain case and bingo, you have your cheap mac. Apple built a "first time's free" model, except of course it's not free because Apple has to recoup their costs. However, it's just an attempt to rope people in. The funny thing is that your average computer user doesn't quit any apps so the 256MB on the mini is going to run out quick and they're going to wonder why OSX is so slow when it's supposed to be so much faster than Windows. (Hint: it isn't. It is superior in other ways, but not faster due to overwhelming eye candy.) For $500 I can build a PC with about the same amount of processing power, a dvd burner, and 512MB ram. Whoop-dee-doo. A lot of nerds are buying them because they are not outrageously expensive, only unnecessarily so, and they like they way they look. As always, macs are sold primarily due to aesthetics - as this particular story submission shows.

Re:I still don't understand...

[mjfrazer]

Just looked this up and thought I'd share:

Cappuccino PC specs: www.cappuccinopc.com/cappuccinoez3.asp#specificati ons

Mini specs: http://www.apple.com/macmini/specs.html (and scroll to the bottom)

Cappuccino: Analogue VGA up to 1280x1024
Mac Mini: DVI up to 1920x1200

Re:I still don't understand...

[Gruneun]

MicroATX is so much bigger than what anyone would reasonably consider SFF.

Maybe now, but it was pretty damn small, then.

You also miss the point. The trend is towards smaller computers, which would be somewhat newsworthy, but hardly earth-shattering. Touting the Mac Mini or the empty Intel box as anything more than a step in this progression is ridiculous. There's no innovation here, just general evolution.

Re:I still don't understand...

[drinkypoo]

F-U-D

It's easy to call something FUD when you don't agree with it or understand it, but that doesn't make it FUD. I have done the cost comparison, have you? You're probably one of those people who thinks that Apple is open sourcing parts of their operating system because they think it's the right thing to do. It's Jobs at the helm, not the Woz, fool. They do it because they need to foster good will to continue to push their product, so Microsoft can't paint them as "just another Unix system" (never mind that most every Unix is superior to Windows.)

Re:I still don't understand...

[atcurtis]

...someone took a prototype nano-itx board and tried to fit it into a Mac mini, it was discovered it didn't fit; they hat to saw down the heatsink AND they had to remove the optical drive, so the Mac mini is STILL smaller than nano-itx.

So I guess the spec to wait for is the pico-itx and femto-itx?

Also, where would you find a quarter-height form factor slot-load cd drive?

Nah... all seems like too much effort and my time is worth more than that ... I'm very tempted to get an Apple after 10.4 is released.

Re:I still don't understand...

[(H)elix1]

You may want to double-check the specs on the mini-itx boards again, as both the itx and mini-mac boards are about the length of a stick of ram. If the cases are larger, it is just the manufacturer using off the shelf parts.

My car's Linux based mp3 player uses a fanless eden 533mhz itx board - the DVD drive is mounted under the mainboard. I had to build the case myself, but what I ended up with was just about 1 cm longer and wider, and a bit shorter than the minimac. I got it because of the low voltage requirements rather than the form factor - and paid less than $250 for all the parts a couple years ago. Looks very much like the case shown in the article or the new Apple box, except it was made from stainless steel and mounted in the boot. About bloody time more case options were out there.... Folding and spot welding are not what I would call fun.

Now what is interesting is the processing power of these low voltage, small form factor machines is 'good enough'. I could play a DVD video with the help of a MP2 hardware decoder on the via 533 or play Diablo if I booted Win32 on it. The stuff today has enough beef to do software MP2 decoding with reasonably low voltage/heat output! Not that you would play Doom 3 on this type of kit, but for those looking to build out silent home theater applications this is a good trend. With Apple now producing a competing (if not superior) option to Via's low voltage / small form factor boards, it looks like Intel may make a more serious push in that direction. That size case requires you to be real careful about heat output, which made the P4 on a small form factor real ugly. I would buy the minimac mainboard alone for my next project, if it was possible - without wanting the extra $350-400 expense from the case, laptop hdd, DVD, and OS. Nice to see the industry starting to trend that way.

Re:I still don't understand...

[ciroknight]

Other noteworthy differences include:

Cappuccino (here on out CPC) has full legacy ports (1LPT, 1 Serial, PS/2 Mouse/Keyboard).

CPC only supports SD-RAM.

CPC has no DVD Writing capabilities

CPC comes with the incredibly nice option of having a "solid state" hard drive; a compact flash card stuck into an IDE channel.

All in all, once configured similiarly, the Mac Mini is still cheaper. It's a wonder that Apple isn't selling those babies at a huge loss..

Re:I still don't understand...

[toddestan]

But, as a response to the original poster: Yes, Mac Mini sized PCs do exist, and the Cappuccino PC predates the Mac Mini.

Re:I still don't understand...

[Niomosy]

Yes but what are you getting for that $500? It's obviously not a gaming machine. 256mb standard with a 40gb drive. To upgrade, you're looking at some bucks. If you're a PC user, you'll need a keyboard and mouse. Want a DVD burner? Add in some more. Before you know it, that $500 machine is now $732 with a keyboard, mouse, 512mb of RAM and a 4x Super Drive. Should you want to upgrade that 40gb drive it's $50 to go to an 80gb drive or you can just get an external firewire drive.

When Apple can put out that $732 mini at $500, I might be interested.

Re:I still don't understand...

[swillden]

Even Shuttle based boxes, which can hold almost 3 Mac minis inside them, cost more.

This part isn't true. I just bought a Shuttle SK43G with socket A Sempron 2800+, 512MB RAM, 200GB Maxtor HDD, 128MB nVidia 5200FX (for the DVI output) and DVD-ROM / CD-RW drive for $512 after some mail-in rebates. That cost a bit more than the Mac mini, but if I'd downgraded the processor, RAM, HDD and video to match the mini's configuration, the total would have been in the low $400s. Of course, that's without an OS (my new box runs Debian), but adding an OEM copy of XP wouldn't get you up to $499. Oh, and the Shuttle would still be a tiny bit better than the mini in two ways: better audio (the onboard VT8233 has SPDIF I/O) and expandability (PCI and AGP slots, two slots for RAM, can use larger-capacity hard drives).

If you count the price of all of the other software that comes with the mini, then it's cheaper than a comparable Shuttle box, I suppose. If you're using F/LOSS software, then the Shuttle is cheaper.

Don't get me wrong, I think the mini is a great deal: small, quiet, sleek, loaded with good software (although I actually like Debian and the apps I use better, after having used OSX, iLife, etc. on my wife's iBook), but I don't think it's accurate to say it's cheaper than a Shuttle in as close to an apples-to-apples comparison as you can make.

I actually went through this decision process last week and opted for the Shuttle over the mini for my new media PC.

Re:I still don't understand...

[2nd Post!]

How much would it have been without rebates then?

But yes, the cost of software isn't inconsequential; how many people out there can claim they can use equivalent F/LOSS to replace the functionality of the Mac mini (which isn't a media PC, so that's probably why for your purposes a Shuttle is a better deal). At the least if you're going to run Windows, it's about $200 of software including the OS, multimedia apps, and productivity apps.

Re:I still don't understand...

[drinkypoo]

And if the ram thing really, really bothers you, replace the ram stick and sell the 256 one. It will be about that 50 usd price difference to do that, and then you will be able to run that oracle server.

That's a nice idea, but as the memory is not an apple-specified user-replacable part, I don't think I want to own one and replace anything. If I break the case clips off, I could void my warranty. I also refuse to buy any computer where the official case opening tool is a sharpened putty knife. I was pissed off enough at the long-ass torx driver you need to open the doorstop macintoshes.

Re:I still don't understand...

[2nd Post!]

Yes, just like the original Mac predated Windows.

Or the Creative Nomad predated the Apple iPod.

What exactly was your point? That first to market is best? My point is that first to market gives you an advantage, but you lose that advantage if second to market has better execution.

Price a 40gb 256mb CDRW/DVD 1.2GHz Cappuccino. It should be something like $900.

Price a 40gb 256mb CDRW/DVD 1.25GHz Mac mini. It should be something like $499.

Faster Processor

[COMON$]

Define Faster Processor.

http://www.barefeats.com/macvpc.html

I always love to hear from people who equate MHz with speed and and power.

Re:Faster Processor

[antifoidulus]

Heh, I'm a mac fan, but for starters the page you linked to obviously compares the performance of G5s vs Intels offerings, and the mac mini is a g4....

Re:Faster Processor

[coder.keitaro]

I agree totally.
But what processor metric should we be using?
I know that Hz is an anachronism, and only tells you the power within a processor family or architecture, but which out of the many spec ratings should we use to determine the power of a processor?
Flops? Mips?
What is a good way to determine the relative power of a processor across different families and architectures?

Just curious? Not flamebaiting.

As an example of the daftness of Hz as a standard. I have an 800 MHz G4 iBook running OS X and a 1.6 GHz P4 running XP Home. They have, roughly, the same amount of memory.
Overall the performance of the iBook is superior.
It opens Word documents faster [Without Word running in the background], and seems to handle lots of open windows more smoothly.

Re:Faster Processor

[Ironsides]

Personally, (after having used Intel, AMD and Apple), I'd say the best Flops and Mips as a generic measure. Unfortunately, that still doesn't come close due to all the other problems that can come up. So, say a couple of benchmarks on programs that do testing of those two. Say, distributed.net for the mips (or something similar) and MPEG2 Encoding (at a specific setting) for the flops using, oh say, Tsunami MPEG. And add in LameMP3 encoder for a combination of the two? And PovRAY for something else?

There's no one real benchmark for testing raw cpu power as it mostly deals with what you are doing. It's mainly a matter of benchmarking it with whatever application you are going to be using it for.

Re:Faster Processor

[coder.keitaro]

The problem I have with benchmarking applications is that I am not too convinced that they give me an unbiased view of the power of a processor.
It is all dependant on the compiler implementation on the target platform.
For instance, a Java based benchmarking application, i.e. platform independent bytecode, is dependant upon the JVM implementation on the target platform. If the JVM implementation is poor, slow graphics 2D rendering or poor math implementation, then the benchmarking tool will be benchmarking the JVM as-well-as the system the tool is running on.
The same can be said of compiled languages. The compiler implementation on specific target machines may differ in quality and performance.
This is definitely true of closed source benchmarking tools, such as using an FPS game to see which machine is more powerful. This is more a test to see if the developers did sloppy work porting it to another architecture, rather than if the machine itself is weak.

I guess this concern is what you meant by "There's no one real benchmark for testing raw cpu power as it mostly deals with what you are doing. It's mainly a matter of benchmarking it with whatever application you are going to be using it for.

If I want to use an FPS game, then find the machine that performs best for that application. If I want to render 3D graphics, use the machine that renders 3D the best.

This basically indicates that there is no real way to benchmark a processor. There is no raw processor metric that can be used to determine the processor power.

hmmmmm.

only if Intel says it's okay...

[qwertphobia]

Let me see if I have this right...

Apple creates something beautiful again, and everybody says "Wow, it's perfect, but it's an Apple".

Then within a few months {"Intel", "Dell", "Microsoft", "Compaq"} tells the rest of the world "it's alright, go ahead and start copying Apple".

So everybody does, and tells {"Intel", "Dell", "Microsoft", "Compaq"} how great they are.

again.

Re:only if Intel says it's okay...

[Altus]

the shuttle was more of an attempt to knock of the Apple G4 cube.

But where's all the software goodness?

[KajiCo]

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.

Re:But where's all the software goodness?

[pseudosocrates]

[Insert link to Linux flavour of choice here]

Re:But where's all the software goodness?

[cyfer2000]

but this one could keep my lunch hot.

Re:But where's all the software goodness?

[ztirffritz]

Who says you need OS X for a Mac? http://www.yellowdoglinux.com/ http://developer.apple.com/darwin/

Re:But where's all the software goodness?

[truesaer]

On that note, may I ask why Apple building those software products into their systems isn't evil an monopolistic? I mean, surely there are competitive products for Macs to do those things. What if Microsoft tomorrow announced that they would be bundling a suite of programs like iLife into Windows?

Re:But where's all the software goodness?

[FidelCatsro]

also not to mention the mini is near totaly silent , The design matches functionality with Build ,(However opening it could have been easier with some minor adjustments) .Anyone who says the machine is underpowerd is totaly missing the point of the computer.
The only two areas i find it to be slightly lacking are , Games(although it plays halo rather well) and sound(due to a lack of an audio in , which could be sorted with some extra equipment).
If you want to run a high powered server pushing more flops than the Grammys , then this isnt for you.
If you want to be running your games at 1600*1280 with FFAA and anisotropic filtering , then this is not for you.
If you want to be compressing GBs of vidio then you can find a better machine for that.
However If you want a computer to work on , that is totaly silent , Comes with alot of good software ,has OS X,Comes with great Dev tools, has the ability to run X apps along with native OS X and older Mac programs , you can if you wish run linux on it with a duel boot or so And finaly to have a Form factor which makes it wonderfully portable and easy to handle and gorgeous to look at , then this is the machine for you .

If intel pull off a simmilar machine , i will be impresed , say well done and see how it compares . right now though a plastic box is not impressing me ,I no idea how much a machine like this from an intel partner company would cost, no clue if it will come with any software or if said machine will realy be as silent or powerfull .

So untill this is a real product and not a plastic case model i will reserve judgment on it

Re:But where's all the software goodness?

[northcat]

You can get all that and more with Linux. On a PC. And on a Mac. And on a shit load of other architectures. Don't equate Windows or any other OS to x86.

Re:But where's all the software goodness?

[MasterOfUniverse]

may I ask why Apple building those software products into their systems isn't evil an monopolistic?

Sure you can ask, and sure I have an answer:

"In a 1998 meeting in which Jobs asked Adobe Systems executives to develop a Mac version of their consumer video-editing program changed his mind. 'They said flat-out no,' Jobs recalls. 'We were shocked, because they had been a big supporter in the early days of the Mac. But we said, 'Okay, if nobody wants to help us, we're just going to have to do this ourselves,'"

Re:But where's all the software goodness?

[LoudMusic]

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.

I think the whole point of the Mac Mini is to offer a cheap Mac to pursuade users to move from Windows / Intel to Macintosh / Apple.. But I'll argue against what you've said as if it were more accurate.

Windows XP comes with a photo editor (Microsoft Photo Editor), movie editor (Movie Maker), and music player (Windows Media Player). I honestly don't know if Movie Maker does DVD authoring and I'm pretty sure there arn't any music composition apps included.

Now look at the target market. People who want cheap ass computers. Are they even going to be doing any kind of content creation? If so they probably need a better computer anyway. The people buying these caliber computers are going to surf the web, send email, and play music.

Adware / spyware / viruses. Fair enough. But none of my computers have had any of that installed on them for the past six years. And I've seen Macs degrade into a metal whirring box because of software that the user [i]wanted[/i] installed.

I think the Mac mini is pretty cool. I think OS X is pretty cool. But I think Apple has more refinement to do, which they are constantly on the chase. However, Intel and Microsoft, if they were to set their minds to it, could crank out one hell of a little box. Look at the Dell Axim or the other (HP, Toshiba) hand held computers. Barely larger than a cell phone and more computing power than something from just five years ago. They just need to [i]get it right[/i] instead of doing it half assed (like they useually do ...).

Re:But where's all the software goodness?

[Ironsides]

In short, because Apple doesn't (usually) try to drive out a competitor (that charges money) providing a similar product. And they provide fully documented APIs so that their products do not have a leg up on their competitors. They also don't intentionally break competitors apps while theirs amazingly work perfectly (either through manipulating security updates or file formats).

The only time Apple has ever broken apps from reverse compatability was from OS9 to OSX. And they warned everyone about that ahead of time and provided info on what the programmers would have to do.

Re:But where's all the software goodness?

[styxlord]

To be an evil monopolistic you need to have a monopoly. If Apple controlled 95% of the desktop market they'd have to decouple their products too. It is humurous that Safari, Mail, iTunes, iMovie, iCal can all be uninstalled from a Mac and it still runs!

Re:But where's all the software goodness?

[chihowa]

It's amazing how often this argument is incorrectly brought up.

Microsoft was found to be a (near) monopoly. Therefore any abuse of their monopoly position is a bad thing.

Apple (or whever else this argument is used against) is not a monopoly. Therefore bundling whatever software they want isn't (as) bad. They are not even close to being a monopoly, so their actions definitely can't be monopolistic.

monopoly (mnp'l) , market condition in which there is only one seller of a certain commodity; by virtue of the long-run control over supply, such a seller is able to exert nearly total control over prices. In a pure monopoly, the single seller will usually restrict supply to that point on the supply-demand schedule that will maximize profit. In modern times, the accelerated production and competition brought about by the Industrial Revolution led to the formation of monopoly and oligopoly. Since the notion of monopoly is antithetical to the free market ideal, it has never been popular in capitalist nations. In the United States, the most famous monopoly was John D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil Trust in the late 19th cent. Despite such legislation as the 1890 Sherman Antitrust Act (the first significant legal statute against monopoly), it was the Supreme Court that forced the break-up of Standard Oil, along with other monopolies. Since the 1960s, however, the U.S. Justice Dept. has occasionally been more active in attacking monopolies or near monopolies (such as AT&T and IBM); a major case in the 1990s involved the Microsoft Corp. (see Bill Gates).

The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition Copyright © 2003, Columbia University Press.

Re:But where's all the software goodness?

[spooje]

Actually Apple does it all the time. Look at what happened with Audion, Confabulator and Watson. All excellent third party programs that ended up on the scrap heap. Apple is pretty notorious for screwing smaller companies.

Re:But where's all the software goodness?

[Anonymous Coward]

;) Didnt you once say the IPOD wouldnt be big , heehee
I Think i will take this as a sign the mini will take over the world

Re:But where's all the software goodness?

[clontzman]

The kinda funny (and often ignored) sidestory is here that, despite bundling and monopoly, the markets for multimedia products is much more competitive on Windows than on the Mac. Who in their right mind is making a jukebox for the Mac anymore? Or a video editor? Or a photo organizer? Apple, whether good or bad, has really put the kibosh on development of those types of utilities by bundling them with their OS.

On Windows, there are tons of good media players, video editors, photo organizers, etc. If anything, there are so many that there's no clear leader.

While Apple's not a monopoly, they're developing into a monoculture. The products are very good, but if you want something else (say you don't like iMovie), your choice of competing products is extremely limited.

Re:But where's all the software goodness?

[Ironsides]

Can you clarrify which part apple "does all the time" and provide links to Confabulator and Watson? I found Audion, but there were a few too many possibilities for the othe two.

Re:But where's all the software goodness?

[LoudMusic]

What the fuck dude. Do you have nothing better to do with your time?

The standard "iPod" is stupid. It's not physically small enough and has an outrageous storage capacity. The iPod Mini is hot snot. Infact I've got one on the way (fo` free) (: The iPod Photo is rather stupid - other than storage capacity it offers no benefit that a digital camera can not do. A digital camera with an mp3 player built in would be cool ...

By the way, it's green. I figure it's the least appealing of the colors and therefore the most rare.

Re:But where's all the software goodness?

[Moofie]

Are you seriously saying that Photo Editor and Movie Maker are even in the same league with iLife? If you are saying that, I don't think you've actually used the packages in question.

iLife is seriously good software. Microsoft's stuff is buzzword-compliant junk.

You're not seriously putting forward Dell as technologically innovative, are you? What do handheld computers have to do with desktops? Are you seriously thinking about editing movies on your PocketPC?

Re:But where's all the software goodness?

[Moofie]

Audion and Watson's dev teams were offered opportunities to work with Apple, and they declined. Konfabulator is handy, but it's a memory pig. I'm certain Dashboard will be much better engineered. Konfabulator is also not substantially different on the surface from Desk Accessories that have been incorporated in MacOS since 1984. I've paid for Konfabulator, and I use it all the time, but I'm really eager to get to use Dashboard.

Maybe I'll see if I can transfer my Konf license to Windows. That'd be nice.

Re:But where's all the software goodness?

[LoudMusic]

You're not seriously putting forward Dell as technologically innovative, are you? What do handheld computers have to do with desktops? Are you seriously thinking about editing movies on your PocketPC?

No, I'm saying that Intel can put a lot of computer power in a small space. Are you seriously thinking of editing movies with a base Mac mini? Ha ha ha ...

Re:But where's all the software goodness?

[Moofie]

On Windows, how many Office packages are there? How is that a monoculture?

Apple doesn't prevent other people from developing products. Their file formats are relatively open (except for the proprietary codecs like Sorensen that they pay lots of money to license), and their dev tools are really good.

Seriously, though: What's not to like about iMovie? What doesn't it do that you want it to do? I'd rather have one really good tool, than a bunch of half-assed ones (which is often the case with Windows solutions).

Re:But where's all the software goodness?

[Moofie]

Er, "How is that not a monoculture?"

Re:But where's all the software goodness?

[Moofie]

Uh, yeah. Throw some RAM in there, and it's just fine. How do I know? Because I do it on my Powerbook, which is very similar spec.

Re:But where's all the software goodness?

[FidelCatsro]

Ill second that , due to the fact im sitting on my mac mini , editing a bit of vidio right now . It isnt perfect and i could probably have a faster enviroment for doing it , however the fact remains i can do it and is not painfull .
fair enough i do have 512MB of RAM in the machine now , but it was fine with 256MB(well it worked)
The speed is comparable , or quicker to my athlon xp-m 2400 barton based laptop
if that makes for an easier comparison to you

Re:But where's all the software goodness?

[clontzman]

The conversation, though, was about the impact of bundling. Office isn't bundled with WinXP. You're right that outside of the WordPerfect Suite and OpenOffice, there's not a lot out there, but at least the product doesn't come in the same box.

Apple doesn't prevent other people from developing products. Their file formats are relatively open (except for the proprietary codecs like Sorensen that they pay lots of money to license), and their dev tools are really good.


You're right, but, again, that's always been the argument made against MS bundling products -- if they bundle WMP, no one will buy, say, MusicMatch. My point was that the opposite seems to be happening. Instead of WMP taking over the market, there's a thriving market for media players (I use J. River's Media Center myself) -- everything from iTunes to WinAmp to MusicMatch to Media Center to FooBar to many more. On the Mac, pretty much everyone uses iTunes.

Seriously, though: What's not to like about iMovie? What doesn't it do that you want it to do? I'd rather have one really good tool, than a bunch of half-assed ones (which is often the case with Windows solutions).

Don't get me wrong -- iMovie is a really nice product. What I'm saying, though, is that Apple has actually done what lots of people were afraid that Microsoft would do: kill the market for competing third-party software on its platform. There are lots of video editors on the Windows side, some good, some bad, but at this point, not much other than iMovie on the Mac. Most of the third-parties are making their money with add-on packs rather than competing products.

If you don't like monopolies and monocultures, it's something to think about -- I'm not saying it's horrible or anything.

Re:But where's all the software goodness?

[Moofie]

My argument against monopolies and monocultures is that "They're bad when they lead to lousy products". Since Apple must have state-of-the-art software in order to survive. If they were turning out crappy software to sabotage their competition, that would be one thing. As long as they're turning out best-of-breed solutions, I say more power to them (particularly since they have done a pretty good job of working with third parties when those parties are amenable).

Re:But where's all the software goodness?

[jo_ham]

I have edited broadcast shows for TV on a PowerMac 9600/300 back in the day. That's pre-G3 hardware, a 300Mhz CPU.

I have also used Final Cut Pro on a 12" Powerbook during an emergency edit when we were nowhere near our main edit suite (DP G5s). The 12" Powerbook was an 867Mhz G4 with 384MB of RAM, 32MB GeForce and 4200rpm HD and it was more than adequate to not only capture video via firewire, but to edit and export back to tape.

The Mac mini has a 1.25Ghz CPU and the same speed HD and graphics card. It is far, far more than is needed to edit movies in iMovie.

You really should only talk about things that you understand.

Re:But where's all the software goodness?

[Moofie]

Whee, nice sentence fragment. Guess that happens when you have a server crash in the middle of a /. post. I love my job.

Re:But where's all the software goodness?

[clontzman]

Can't argue with that, I guess, although the argument against IE vs. Netscape wasn't that IE was a crappy product pushing out a better one -- it was that the competing product wouldn't have the chance to get a foothold because of bundling. I'm not saying that's the argument you're making, but that's the usual one.

Your argument of "whatever makes the best product" is actually a really logical one, but not the argument most people make. You only get into trouble if there's something you want to do that Apple's products won't let you do (like, say, play WMA files in iTunes). Without competition, you're kinda SOL if you want to push outside of their products. For most of their customers, though, that's probably not a major issue because they're products tend to be solid.

In my case, I don't like Windows Media Player and I'm not enthusiastic about iTunes, so it's nice to have an option from a smaller company in Media Center.

Re:But where's all the software goodness?

[FidelCatsro]

Indeed , My old mac is a 400mhz Imac g3 DV se+, IIRC the first Imac with firewire
I used to do alot of vidio editing on it , certainly not to profesional standerds , and it did take a while , Though the fact remains that it was more than what was needed to get the job done . Basicaly i am doing the same stuff i did on that 400mhz g3 that im now doing a 1.25ghz G4 based system with faster ram on a faster OS (I have 10.2 on the old machine)
(Also on a side note Tiger will have 64bit code optimisations for the g5 chips and is due out soon as i saw you mention that earlyer)

Re:But where's all the software goodness?

[servognome]

Apple (or whever else this argument is used against) is not a monopoly.
Monopolies are difficult to define. It could be argued apple is near monopoly on software for their systems. A similar example would be the automakers. No one manufacturer has a monopoly of industry, but they were found to have monopolistic practices when it came to parts & services for their individual products (ie Ford has a monopoly on Ford truck repairs). The automakers were therefore ordered to post the diagnostic codes so 3rd party repair shops could use them.
monopoly (mnp'l) , market condition in which there is only one seller of a certain commodity;
Apple has a dominant control in the apple software space due to their bundling practices. I recently purchased a powerbook and went into the mac forums to ask what 3rd party software I should get. Almost every application I needed was already made by apple and bundled in the system (save for Photoshop and Word). You don't think apple gets an unfair advantage in the online music sale arena by bundling iTunes?
I'm not saying necessarily that Apple a monopoly, but arguements can be made that their practices have unfairly locked out competition.

Re:But where's all the software goodness?

[truesaer]

How many sellers of Apple computers are there? Exactly 1. If you buy a Mac, you will get a certain suite of software....anyone who makes a competing product is at a severe disadvantage because a product comes preinstalled. Right now that includes photo software, video software, music software, internet browsing software, and more.

iLife sounds cool so I don't necessarily have a problem with it, but people really let Apple do things Microsoft never could (or can't anymore, at least).

Re:But where's all the software goodness?

[Queer Boy]

Now look at the target market. People who want cheap ass computers. Are they even going to be doing any kind of content creation? If so they probably need a better computer anyway.

To the best of my knowledge the MPEG 2 standard has not changed in the last 10 years. Ten years ago we were using 133MHz Pentium MMX and 120 MHz 604. So, you are telling me that content creation cannot be achieved on a 1.25 GHz G4?

Fascinating.

Re:But where's all the software goodness?

[rreay]

I edit on a 800 G3 iBook and while renders can be slow it it otherwise works just fine. The UI never lags on me (except when rendering) and for just cutting scenes together I never need to render.

My work flow would be different on a machine that could do live previews of effects, but I still get plenty of stuff done.

Re:But where's all the software goodness?

[LoudMusic]

To the best of my knowledge the MPEG 2 standard has not changed in the last 10 years. Ten years ago we were using 133MHz Pentium MMX and 120 MHz 604. So, you are telling me that content creation cannot be achieved on a 1.25 GHz G4?

Yeah if you want to put a 10 year old operating system on it, go right ahead. But in case you hadn't noticed, OS X's minimum system requirements include a minimum of 128MB of memory. That's HALF the memory of a base Mac mini (as I stated in the first post of this stupid thread). Then you run whatever silly apps and configuration you like, add iMovie to the mix, then try to open that 200MB file you're going to EDIT.

Cool -

[IainMH]

I was looking at my setup the other day. This little box could just be another thing coming out of my USB hub(s).

The hub is the computer(TM)

Re:Cool -

[IainMH]

Not seen the Sun tagline then huh?

There will no doubt be

[pseudosocrates]

countless "it's a rip-off" posts, and countless others responding to the "none of the Mac Benefits" flamebait remark.
What neither of these will take into account is that copying other people's form-factor and design concepts is all part of the tech merry-go-round. Nobody complains (or should) about other portable MP3 players being 'iPod rip-offs', if there's a market why not enter it. And not even the most avid Mac-fan would try to argue that there are no 'Mac drawbacks' as well.
I for one welcome our new Small-Formfactor-PC overlords.

Re:Wow, Deja Vu

[SamSeaborn]

If it wasn't for companies like Apple, there would be NO innovation in the computing world.

There's a world of original ideas in the universe, but the PC world repeatedly chooses to steal Apple's designs.

The only reason there's PC cases in colors other than beige is because Apple created the iMac. The only reason there's a Windows "XP" is because there was a Mac OS "X". The only reason you can import and organize music with Windows Media Player is because Apple created iTunes. The only reason there's a Windows Movie Maker is because Apple created iMovie. The only reason there's slim lightweight Pentium M class laptops is because Apple created the PowerBook. And now, the only reason Intel is floating this mini PC is because Apple created the Mac mini.

Apple takes all the creative risks. Thank goodness for the innovations of companies like Apple, Google, and those Linux rebels. Or we'd all be using big beige boxes and Windows 95. (Heck! There wouldn't even be a Windows 95 if it wasn't for OS/2 and Geoworks!)

Sam

Re:What Benifit?

[falcon5768]

Its so flamebait but Im going to bite and not mod it down more.

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.

Intel Repairs Segmentation Fault ?

[ehack]

So far, Intel has enforced market segmentation: You could get a laptop *or* a space-heater. This model is an indication that laptop processors will now be allowed to trickle into the general market. Ipod sized servers and child-pizza sized desktop comps are well within Intel's ability - just look at the size of the "computer" in your laptop.

Microsoft will doubtless resist the move: if it's not a "PC" then clients might not want "Windows", that clunky 19th century command center for a steam-powered computing box. Dell etc will also resist, because clients might get into the nasty habit of upgrading their CPUs only; even worse, some might dump laptops in favor of just taking their company "mini desktop" home in the backpack.

Summary - the Mac mini has broken Apple's hi-price policy, but it has also broken many of the unwritten laws of the PC cartel. Clearly, a form factor who's time has come !

It's the operating system, stupid!

[kajoob]

I was a Dos/Windows (then to some extent Linux) user my entire life. I now am the proud owner of a Mac Mini. I haven't booted into windows once since I got it. I got sick of all the viruses/spyware/malware in windows and the fact that , althought windows gets the job done, it's not enjoyable to use.

I would have NEVER bought a mac had they not released the mini because I was not about to pay a premium for hardware when I don't do any graphic design work or play many games. So all these companies that are trying to release a Mac Mini killer are barking up the wrong tree when they just release a traditional pc with a small footprint. It's the operating system, stupid! I don't have an answer for them because I just don't think linux is ready for prime time yet, but I am evidence that people are ready for an alternative, but it has nothing to do with the fact that our computers are too big now. If apple had released a $499 machine that was the size of a G5 tower, I would have bought that as well.

Re:It's the operating system, stupid!

[mosb1000]

"I have a friend"

Oh, right I've heard this one before. I've been using macs for ~10 years, and I've never sun into these fabled incompatibility problems. In fact, if you worry that someone won't be able to read your file (which is never the case with MS office, or plain text files, or any images) you can save anything you can print as a PDF and send them the PDF. There's practically no way they'll have trouble with that.

Most of the applications people commonly use are available for the Mac and have interoperable files. For anything else, there are(usually better) alternatives.

Re:It's the operating system, stupid!

[Reality Master 101]

Oh, right I've heard this one before. I've been using macs for ~10 years, and I've never sun into these fabled incompatibility problems.

What, you think I'm making it up? Dude, you're probably not having these problems because you've been USING THEM FOR TEN YEARS. You know how to avoid the land mines. I haven't the faintest idea how to tell her how to fix it. She's using some standard writer program. Open quote is encoded as 0x13; close quote is encoded as 0x14. Single quote is encoded as 0x12. This is horribly, HORRIBLY non-standard.

IT'S CALLED A LAPTOP

[hydroxy]

Probably end up cheaper once you buy KB, Mouse, 15-16" LCD. It also comes with batteries! Seeing as how the only reason for a "portable" pc such as the Mac-Mini would be if you have a really long extension cord....

OMG!

[neuroking]

OMG! You mean they showed a computer that was a square and had an optical drive!?!?! When will the rip offs END?!?!

Besides, the mini is just an mini/micro ATX rip off. Anyone remember this from Slashdot days of yore...
http://www.ibuypower.com/mall/pocket-epc- lobby.asp

So, it's the...

[10Ghz]

...Mini Me Too?

Re:So, it's the...

[MasterOfUniverse]

ooh ooh i got another one..

Mac mini was poor mans mac..

intel mini is poor mans mac mini.

Microsoft + DRM integration talked about as well!

[SuperficialRhyme]

Why is no one talking about this part of the article:

At the same time that Intel is looking to push computermakers on the design front, it is also working to improve the quality of such devices. It is also working to ensure that content can be secured to the satisfaction of Hollywood studios, which will decide whether or not to make their movies available on such machines.

MacDonald brought Microsoft eHome executive Joe Belfiore on stage to talk about collaborations between the two companies. He spoke about an effort to make sure Microsoft's digital-rights management technology is compatible with Intel's push for standards to enable content to move among home devices easily while still being protected from widespread distribution.

A Disney executive also spoke about the potential for bringing its Moviebeam service to PCs. The service, which offers more than 100 movies on demand, currently works only with set-top boxes.

That seems to be more disturbing than Intel trying to get manufacturers to compete with a mini-esque PC.

Re:What Benefit?

[Proteus]

I've yet to see anything good about a Mac. What Mac fans consider good, I consider "limiting". Mac users want a tool; I want a toy. If I wanted a tool, I'd buy a shovel.

I don't know if that's true. Now, I'm no Mac fanboy -- I don't own one, and I won't buy an iPod (no FLAC, no OGG, I don't use iTunes... why would I want to pay that much?). But I'd disagree with the "toy vs. tool" desires of Mac users. What I've found is that people who use Macs want something that will "just work" with relatively little hassle. These are the "no maintenance" people who take their car to the dealer for an oil change; they place convenience and simplicity higher than cost and flexibility.

Now, I see nothing inherently wrong about that. Mac hardware is solid, and the OS is one of the best around (despite my personal distaste for it). But, you pay, and pay, and pay -- and when you're through paying, you have a machine that you can't dig into or modify to the extent you can a PC. Apple is realizing that some people want such flexibility, and they are slowly supplying it (OS/X has a CLI, for Cthulu's sake), but they are being understandably cautious about alienating their core customers.

The dichotomy I see is that both PC and Mac users want a tool/toy -- that is, they want a tool, but something they can play with as well -- but that Mac users value convenience and a pleasant, consistent interface over cost and flexibility, while PC users tend to value low cost (relatively), ubiquity, and high flexibility (e.g. think how many GUI's are available for x86, and how many themes for them, etc.).

Re:Wow, Deja Vu

[Claire-plus-plus]

well, I'm not a troll, and as far as I know Apple did steal from xerox. The only debate I have ever seen on the issue is on exactly how much of the Apple Mac OS was invented by Xerox PARC. Not that I care. Hell they are all Von Neumann machines anyway. A computer is a computer is a computer.

Inspiration and Innovation

[standards]

Sadly, it does seem to me that Apple is the only one out there that innovates and inspires.

At one time, Compaq, Dell, and even Microsoft could be expected to innovate. Just look at the original Armada. Visual Basic 3.0. the Pre-inspiron laptops. Ya, they weren't the best products ever, but they were very innovative, industry-changing ideas at the time.

Now they're just a slow evolution of an old idea. For people who don't like the press that Apple gets, and would like to see others garner some press time - well, what the hell has ANYONE in the industry done in the past 5 years?

Intel does not need to inspire the industry with a Mac clone. The industry has seen it - and is merely betting that people won't switch.

That's a good bet, but it shows me how much the PC industry has totally lost it's spark of innovation, despite loads of inspiration from a non-competitor.

Re:Inspiration and Innovation

[toddestan]

Sadly, it does seem to me that Apple is the only one out there that innovates and inspires.

Did Apple innovate the small form factor computer?
No.

Did Apple innovate the harddisk based MP3 player?
No.

Did Apple innovate the all-in-one computer?
No.

Apple is very good at taking niche market products, and making a version that's a hit with the masses. But I don't see a whole lot of innovation.

Re:Inspiration and Innovation

[Scudsucker]

Did Apple innovate the small form factor computer? No.

Yes, they did.

Did Apple innovate the harddisk based MP3 player? No.

Yes, they did. They had a large capacity in a tiny size with faster transfer rates. That is the definition of innovation.

Did Apple innovate the all-in-one computer? No.

Did anyone say they did? No.

Do you not have a damn clue as to the difference between invention and innovation? Yes.

Re:Inspiration and Innovation

[toddestan]

Did Apple innovate the harddisk based MP3 player? No.

Yes, they did. They had a large capacity in a tiny size with faster transfer rates. That is the definition of innovation.

Go look up the Rio's and others that existed before the iPod. Apple made them smaller and faster, thus better. That's evolution, not innovation, not invention.

Re:Inspiration and Innovation

[korielgraculus]

Err, Commodore Pet, Late 70s

Don't be fooled... like I was

[revery]

I followed the link. I clicked on the photos. I was impressed.

Well let me tell you people, I've been informed that the third picture... it's a picture of cell phones... CELL PHONES!!! This is just like that time I was taken in by bathroom grafitti... I'm probably end up having to apologize to another ethnic group...

I'm so embarrassed...

Re:Don't be fooled... like I was

[rootofevil]

wow, that pink thing in the middle sure is ugly. and its kinky.

like this girl i dated once...

Re:Don't be fooled... like I was

[jakob_grimm]

Why haven't you called me?

lunch box?

[anothy]

my lunch box was way bigger than either this or a Mac mini when i was a kid. how much lunch could you fit in one of these? must be one of those low-carb lunches.

Re:What Benifit?

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot
News for Nerds , Stuff that matters

as opposed to

SLASHDOT
Flames by nerds , x86 Roxors PPC boxors

Re:Fabulous

[2nd Post!]

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.

Re:What Benifit?

[Claire-plus-plus]

A mac is a device using a Von Neumann architecture and a RISC chip. A PC is a similar device using a slightly different architecture and an X86 series chip. Windows and Mac OSX are kernals just like linux. Don't go splitting hairs with me.

What's funny about this...

[artemis67]

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.

Re:What's funny about this...

[pinkocommie]

The other part of the demographic that would like a couple of tiny pc's around the house (as someone else referred to it as media junk ...) instead of the big hulking ones, even the SFF pcs are relatively huge compared to this.

Re:What's funny about this...

[babyrat]

Logically, for Intel to compete against the Mac Mini, they need to develop an iPod killer, not another desktop system.

Logically for me to respond to this comment, I would have to eat 3 soft boiled eggs with rye toast.

So to compete against the Mac Mini they should kill an entirely different product? I don't get it...and I defintiely don't get the logically part.

Re:What's funny about this...

[Pionar]

I get it. The driver behind the Mac Mini is Windows users of iPods and iTunes (like me). They've seen a glimpse of the other side, and want more, but not at the price of Apple's usual fare (like me). So, Apple trots out this baby step of a switch, and expects those people will find it more palatable before really stepping up and buying a "real" mac (and believe me, they're thisclose to snagging me).

So, in order to compete against the Mac Mini, Intel (or a PC maker like Dell or HP*) needs to come up with something so awesome, so cool, so easy, so let's-get-a-taste-of-PC, that people will buy this machine just because of that previous device. Business people call this a "loss leader", because while it's almost certain that Apple doesn't make a large profit off the Mini, it'll probably lead many people into stepping up into the major profit products.

*probably HP, because Dell puts nothing into R&D.

Re:What's funny about this...

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Who, exactly, is the target market for the x86 Mini?

The marketing position for the Mini PC is to convert Windows iPod users who are sold on the Apple brand but think even the iMacs are too expensive.

Re:What's funny about this...

[porcupine8]

a) The people who will buy the Mini (or who it's marketed to, at least) are iPod users who now want a Mac b/c of their experiences with iPod. b) If less people had iPods, less people would be directly exposed to Apple, and less people would consider switching and buying a Mini. Therefore: One effective way to kill Mini sales is to kill iPod sales.

Re:Fabulous

[justforaday]

Because we all know that the only OS a PowerPC can run is OSX...*rolls eyes*

Mac equivalent of the Cobalt Qube

[Greg Larkin]

Have a look at the Mac G4 Cube here:
http://www.cubeowner.com/photopost/showphoto.php/p hoto/674/sort/2/cat/501/page/1

If you stuff an upgrade card into one of these, you'll have a neat looking machine with plenty of power. This site is the place to go to learn about about the G4 Cube.

The Aztec

[justforaday]

This is exactly the same as when Intel unveiled the Aztec prototypes right after the introduction of the original iMac...

the emperors new ...

[ericcantona]

device convergence;

media PC + t.v. (=mini-mac)

mobile phone + pda

..etc. dull

More interestingly, isn't it about time somebody here gave apple a hard time about the mini-mac. This is not a flame. I like some of the things they do. But, the mini-mac is a non-story tech-wise. So, its white and fairly small. So what ?

A more interesting story is how how has apple managed to convince even most of the /. crowd about the mini-mac ?. Their marketing isn't that good. What is it ?

Re:the emperors new ...

[pebs]

There's nothing special about the Mac Mini. They were just big idiots for not doing this sooner and now that they finally did it seems brilliant.

Re:the emperors new ...

[ericcantona]

yes, but how have they convinced the emperor to wear his new cloths ?

there is *nothing* of note in a mini-mac, but somehow they have convinced people there is. This is quite a feat!

First Impression

[SilicaiMan]

The case is much uglier than Apple's.

Did they demo it? Or is it an empty box?
Did they mention a price range?

Not about small. About cheap

[famazza]

Mac-Mini is not about a small computer. Mac-Mini is about cheap/low/entry-level to Apple products. Of course that their target audience is also people who already has an old mac and wants an upgrade.

Take a look to Apple releases to SOHO since revolucionary iMac. LCDs, all-in-one, expensive, disposable upgrades, even keyboads and mouse should be upgraded. Mac-Mini is not single boxed. Upgrade-only-what-is-needed, that is what Mac-Mini is about.

Motherboard?

[H8X55]

none of the Mac benefits

Ok, i'm not going to touch that one with a ten foot, flame retardant pole.

But I wonder? Why would Intel release a case?How about instead a motherboard that would fit in the damn thing?

But an ubersmall PC does have merit. Just have it use the PIII mobile cpu that's in the centrinos. And FDB lapop hard drives are finally starting to come out... that would be nice and could compete w/ the mac mini.

Re:What Benifit?

[cosmo7]

It isn't "Von Neumann", it's "von Neuman"

And Windows and Mac OSX are more than kernals.

Otherwise, great post!

Re:Wow, Deja Vu

[fracai]

Then do some research and learn that the Xerox PARC trip where Jobs and others saw the Xerox GUI was part of a technology exchange. Also PARC was an R&D house. The GUI and many of the other projects demoed there were research only. Xerox had no intention of developing the system.

Let's say you see robot sitting in a trashcan. you look it over, the owner comes out and talks to you about the ideas that went into it and you both walk away. Is it stealing to go off and build your own robot?

No.

Nothing was stolen.

In general read this http://www.mackido.com/Interface/ui_history.html

Re:Wow, Deja Vu

[Claire-plus-plus]

The only reason there's PC cases in colors other than beige is because Apple created the iMac. The only reason there's a Windows "XP" is because there was a Mac OS "X".

Personally, I attribute the change in the appearance of PCs to two things, the case modding community (a lot of new PC cases look a lot like case mods to me) and the computer music people (the first non beige PC was stage black and came out before the IMac). XP, to my understanding, occured because they were porting the home version of windows to the NT shell rather than leaving it as a pretty front end tacked onto MSDos. I am not saying that Apple are not innovative, I am saying that they are not gods who drive the entire innovation in the industry.

Spinners, Bentleys, Es-ca-lade

[gelfling]

Pimp my ride, beotch. Put da PC in the dashboard where it will control noting, but it will look phat. Blue neon flames.

They've got it designed wrong

[cornswaggle]

If someone wants a little cube like this, let them buy a mac. The design is all wrong. Who wants to have all the hookups in back?!! What they should design is one about same size but that stands on the side and has sytlized hookups in front (maybe with the rubber plug dealys).

Re:Fabulous

[Angry Toad]

Troll? Sheesh, don't knock the Macs I guess.

Anyway, I actually meant the ability to run Windows, with all the associated fun software, in addition to Linux et al.

I honestly could care less about Mac stuff.

Let's not forget..

[klubkid79]

We often forget what is was like not knowing the first thing about computers and the buying decisions we made then. PC People of the lowest common denominator don't know that a Macintosh is a "real" computer just like they think Internet Explorer is the internet. These same people look at me blankly when I tell them that their hard drive actually contains files and folders. Their brains simply can't cope. So many times I've seen people choose PC's over Macs for this reason...

Not Mini Knockoff...That Was Intel's New Heatsink!

[Zemplar]

That was NOT Intels new "mini" computer, only the new heatsink required for the next generation of Intel processors.

Maybe I'm just biased...

[The Wooden Badger]

But I think that just looks sexier than the Mac mini. That said, I won't be buying either one anytime in the lifetime of Sol.

Re:What Benifit?

[Claire-plus-plus]

It's Von NEUMANNactually (I am glad I payed attention in my Operating Systems and Assembly Language classes). Ok yes they are more than Kernals, so is Linux these days. Windows and OSX (and Linux) are Kernals that come packages with a lot of extra software. In that way Windows and MacOSX are no different than linux except in that you can update the kernal in Linux but not in Windows (no idea about OSX sorry).

All operating systems consist of a Kernal and it's support software. Depending on the design more or less of the core of the system is directly controlled by the Kernal. The Kernal of windows is just not transparent to the user.

Intersting

[SWTP_OS9]

1) Imitation the sencerest form of flattery.

2) Its not the power brick, powering this unit. But the cooling tower you also need to hang off of it! With the earplugs included in the box!

3) Intel been doing this "odd shape case thing" for years and no one has coppied them yet. Remember the Aztec pyrimid? Uggly shape and colors.

4) But Microsoft want to go to the "Teddybear" form factor case!
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=5459 78&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312/

5) The "low heat" and also "low power" micro/Pico-ITX form factor MB are not made by Intel but are being driven by VIA CPU's and chipset!

6) And is this from the same Intel that was hyping so much bleeding edge stuff, over the last few years. That after X months usually said we can't do it?

Misses the point

[smcdow]

Until Max OS X runs on Intel, it don't really matter what form factor Intel trots out.

Re:Fabulous

[DavidLeblond]

Since when was the ability to run Windows a good thing?

So what else is new?

[rjung2k]

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.

Re:So what else is new?

[2nd Post!]

True, the Cappuccino was first; but now the Mini is cheaper AND faster (but that's technology for you).

Why do you think the mini doesn't support tv?

The Cappuccino deserves credit for being out two years ago, but they really didn't do anything with their lead; They weren't targeting the right markets, I think.

Re:So what else is new?

[RapmasterT]

As any Apple-watcher will tell you, this has been SOP with the Wintel world for decades now.

And as any industry-watcher will tell you, this is the oft repeated mantra of the Apple fanatic that ignores every blatent rippoff and blunder that Apple commits.

Let's see if I can pull a few things off the cuff that Apple has copied from the "PC" industry...

1. USB

2. PCI Bus

3. IDE drives

4. Everything remotely related to the iPod

5. Apple mini form factor (Intel's announcement aside, smaller PC's than this have been around for YEARS).

but I forget, Apple is allowed to copy anything they like without any comment from you idiots.

how about this: how about we just accept that building upon the ideas of your competition and one-upping them is what has spurred the personal computer industry to grow faster than any in history. Of course that would require you to quit your childish bitching...then where would you be?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

The Mac Mini is still the better buy!

[Luscious868]

I've been a Wintel user my whole life (well not exactly, my last two PC's have had AMD processors, but you get the point) and I recently made the switch to the Mac Mini. I still keep my other PC for gaming purposes, but I absolutely love my Mac Mini and use it for everything else. Let's face the facts, for everything other than gaming, Mac OS X is superior to Windows (and from my prospective, to Linux as well from an ease of use standpoint). Then there's the included iLife '05 bundle which totally rocks! AppleWorks is there for basic word processing and spreadsheets and it also includes Quicken 2005 for money management. That's a heck of a lot of value for around $550.00 (if you upgrade to 512 MB of RAM .. and you'd be crazy not to). I doubt any of the PC clones we're likely to see will be able to provide that kind of value (in terms of both hardware and software, easy of use and security) for that price.

A Wintel box would have Windows installed, so in addition to the OS you need antivirus software (that will cost you yearly to keep up to date) and some kind of additional third party firewall (Windows Firewall in XP SP2 just doesn't cut it). You'd need to buy several additional applications to get functionality similar to what you get with iLife.

All in all, the Mac Mini is a much better value than a Wintel Mac Mini close is ever going to be.

Grout lines

[DavidLeblond]

What are those things on the top of the box that look like tile grout?

Re:Grout lines

[ikea5]

The grout lines's Intel's view of "Style". You know... just like the highly polished finish on Mac Mini.

Newsflash:

[Anonymous Custard]

Newsflash: Intel launches empty grey plastic box! Film at eleven.

One button remote?

[rikkus-x]

Is that a one button remote control they're showing with it?

Rik

Re:flamebait

[northcat]

Clue train: Windows != x86/PC. We have Linux (which works on Macs too).

iMac, seen it before

[JojoCoco]

After the original iMac came out (and was hugely successful) the PC industry made a lot iMac "Knockoffs". Bulbous ugly things that also came in fruity colors. And we all remember how well those things did.

It's not the casing, Intel should hire Linus!

[phooka.de]

It's the software, it's OS X. That's why I bought a powerbook.

So, Apple took a freely available UNIX and built on it to release a great operating system. Of course, they had all their old software that could still run in "classic" until replaced by native apps.

So, what should Intel do? Hire designers for boxes?

No, the painpoint is the OS. They should hire Linus (or msome team with knowledge about UI-design and operating systems) and build an Intel-Linux that does away with the major roadblocks for the adoption of Linux on the desktop:

Installing Software: On the Mac, it's drag and Drop one icon and the software is installed. Find an alternative for Packages or make it insanly simple to use them.

Choice: Sounds stupid, why take away choice? Because your dad doesn't want to chose between KDE and Gnome. He wants one application that does the job easily and smoothly, not five that all fall short on what he needs in different aspects.

Compatibility: Either make sure that people like your and my dad can install MS-Office on the new OS as easily as on Windows or offer an alternative that's 100% compatible. People want to be compatible to Word, no matter what.

Intel has the deep pockets for this. They should give it a try.

Why Linux?

OK, BDS would also do the job. They could even try Darvin. What's important is, that they have a platform with tons of applications. Apple had OS9 and the classic-mode. Intel doesn't have that. They need a base to build on.

Why ditch Windows?

Because they don't control it and they don't collect the Microsoft-tax. They should try to lock in their customers, maybe by putting a frontend and API on top of the kernel that they control. Then put together a team that choses OSS-applications for the major uses - hey, mirror iLife for starters! - and ports them to the easy installer I mentioned above and to the new UI-API they should create, thereby making them unusable on any other version of the underlying OS.

Is it likely?

Sadly, no. They already have most of the stuff above, it's called Windows. But if the pain of using Windows increases (viruses, trojans, worms, adware, spyware... you name it), what I've outlined might come as a great relief for their huge existing customer-base. It could be like running OS X on your cheap x86-hardware.

Of course, they'd have to find a way to stop it from running on AMD...

Young whippersnappers

[fgb]

This is what a real mini looks like.

YDL Briq

[tubbtubb]

The Mac Mini's ridiculously small case design is only possible because of the low power consumption of the PPC74xx/G4.
Even companies other than Apple have done similar things with the G4 a loong time ago, does anyone here remember the YellowDog Linux Briq
This is not just an x86 issue, even Apple will have a hard time putting a G5 in it's current Mac Mini Case.
Its the result of deeply pipelined processor designs. More latches, more stuff to clock, more power consumption and heat dissapation.
Ah, the good old days of 4 stage processors.
Fetch, decode, execute, commit/writeback. That was it.

Re:YDL Briq

[NutscrapeSucks]

As you point out, the Mac Mini is ridiculously small -- much smaller than the average user needs a computer to be.

If anything the size is more of an excuse for the for the inevitibility that a low-end Apple model will have poor specs compared to more expensive Macs. That is, Apple's product matrix demanded the G4 no matter the size.

That having been said, if PC manufacturers can shove a desktop P4 or Athlon64 in a laptop, they could also shove it into a approximately Mini-sized computer.

Re:YDL Briq

[tubbtubb]

That having been said, if PC manufacturers can shove a desktop P4 or Athlon64 in a laptop, they could also shove it into a approximately Mini-sized computer.

True, but can they do it and still have decent specs, very little fan noise and sell it for $500?

If they put P4s in laptops then they must be able to put them in network equipment, military hardware, embedded applications, etc? Why aren't x86 desktop processors more popular in those applications?
Also, you make a good point about the utility of the form factor. One could make arguments about desk or TV console real estate, but its really just the 'cuteness' that has appeal to so many people.
It may not be a rational desire, but I bet Apple will sell a ton of them.

Re:YDL Briq

[tubbtubb]

One other example -- If they can stuff x86 desktop processors into laptops why not put them in gaming consoles?
Certainly the developer support base for x86 is so much greater, it would be a no-brainer to go with a x86 solution.

Why, then, are all the next-gen game consoles likely to be PPC based?

Re:YDL Briq

[DeadScreenSky]

Because they tried that already with the Xbox 1. It wasn't really a bad decision (the Xbox 1 is currently tops in the US console sales charts last time I checked), but it was an expensive and inefficient one. A PPC based console will likely just be cheaper to make, and probably more than powerful enough. After all, x86 compability doesn't really get them anywhere special, and in some ways it could actually be a small disadvantage.

I imagine another good reason to use PPC is that it is an easier architecture to do the extensive multicore stuff Sony and MS want for their consoles.

Re:YDL Briq

[NutscrapeSucks]

True, but can they do it and still have decent specs, very little fan noise and sell it for $500?

They most certainly could (Pentium-M both uses less power and is faster than G4), but who would buy it when you could get a more full-featured system for the same price?

The main reason the Mac Mini is desirable is because it's the only Mac option at the price. The form factor is purely secondary.

Why aren't x86 desktop processors more popular in those applications?

Are "desktop" PPCs popular for embedded applications?

Re:Wow, Deja Vu

[Claire-plus-plus]

Well, I have learned my lesson. I made a JOKE at the expense of Apple and I get modded down to an incredible degree (as "flamebait" or "troll") yet badly researched mac bigotry with lines like "if it wasn't for companies like Apple, there would be NO innovation in the computing world." gets modded up. It seems one can say anything as long as it's pro-Mac. The Mac bigots have spoken.

Re:Microsoft + DRM integration talked about as wel

[MasterOfUniverse]

Why is no one talking about this part of the article

Simple, b/c nobody reads TFA!

Big to small or small to big?

[zogger]

I was thinking why try to shrink some x86 solution to fit inside some small space? Wouldn't it be easier to start with some decent PDA that had "good enough" features to it and then increase it in size to get close to this size form factor and add in an optical drive and some ports, then encase that in a nice enclosure? What would be a good (price+features) stock PDA to start from?

Well...

[jrushton]

Well good for them. Most people are too stupid to make use of one computer, let alone a house full. So when some fool says - "Hey I have one computer more than you", you can say "Yes but im not a complete f*cking moron" :D

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

vprMatrix

[carambola5]

Check out vprMatrix. These x86 laptops are fairly decent in quality (my ~3 year old laptop still works great), and they're designed by F. A. Porsche GmbH. The thing has style.

Re:vprMatrix

[TheGavster]

FA Porsche has to be the most overrated attribute to a computer component. Is it really *that* challenging to say 'put it in a silver brick'? Radio Shack has been selling the brick shaped enclosure for years; a new color isn't revolutionary.

Re:vprMatrix

[hawk]

Ahh, but RS's doesn't have a spoiler to make it go faster!

:)

hawk

Re:vprMatrix

[dickens]

Looks just like my Fireant circa 1999 only bigger.

Flash mob!

[KlaymenDK]

Now there's THREE of us! Yay for that.

Re:Flash mob!

[starrsoft]

Me too!

*grins and groans at same time*

Re:Wow, Deja Vu

[Richard_at_work]

The only reason there's PC cases in colors other than beige is because Apple created the iMac.

Sorry, I was buying non beige PC cases way back in 1996.

The only reason there's a Windows "XP" is because there was a Mac OS "X".

If thats true, what about the AthlonXP?

The only reason you can import and organize music with Windows Media Player is because Apple created iTunes.

You do realise iTunes origionally started out as a third party player that Apple bought?

The only reason there's a Windows Movie Maker is because Apple created iMovie.

And MS couldnt have gotten the idea from the hundreds of other Movie creation software packages out there? And the fact that firewire capable home movie cameras were becoming highly popular, so something in the end was bound to happen?

The only reason there's slim lightweight Pentium M class laptops is because Apple created the PowerBook.

Now that really is just fanboiism. Thin and lightweight laptops have been available for years - well before the PentiumM, and as long as, if not longer than, thin Powerbooks. I recall owning a thin and lightweight Sony Vaio back in 1998 - based on a PII chip!

And now, the only reason Intel is floating this mini PC is because Apple created the Mac mini.

Intel have floated such concept devices beforehand - and dont even THINK that Apple created the mini PC market - as many have pointed out, see the Cappachino PC - hell, even Mini ITX systems.

I own two Macs myself - a Mac Mini and an Ibook, so Im in no way anti Apple. But everything you just said is nothing but blatant fanboiism pure and simple. Apple is NOT the be all end all of computing - and surprisingly enough it doesnt innovate as much as you would like to think.

Re:What Benifit?

[Claire-plus-plus]

lowercase v shitstain.

no wonder you're not good at math - you're fucking stupid!

If one is referring to the person a lower case v is appropriate. However, when referring to the architecture, as I was, a capital V is standard. Either way ending with 2 'n's is correct.

If you wish to insult me please don't resort to petty insults and hiding behind anonymity. Oh and please get your facts straight as well.

Does it come with fries?

[cyk]

Does it come with fries and a shake?

Intel Won't Make A PC

[theManInTheYellowHat]

I would be suprised if Intel actually made a PC. That would totally piss off all the PC makers which buy their componants.

Huh? A Prescott would melt any box that size.

[guidryp]

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.

Qube!

[BYC(VCU.EDU)]

"...Now if only someone would make a Cobalt Qube knock-off for me."

I second that!

Now all I need is a KVM switch

[raider_red]

That way, I can stack a Mini-PC on top of my Mac and use it whenever I'm feeling really mascochistic and want to flog myself.

Re: I don't need extreme performance in a mini-pc

[KlaymenDK]

Check out http://mini-itx.com/ or http://g-b.dk/bin/view/Jan/MyComputer if you're really looking to build a pc that is small, power-lean, and "just fast enough" for "normal" use.

Faster processor?

[phorm]

Well, at least it will probably have a faster processor

It's been my experience that PC's tend to have faster processors than their Mac counterparts anyways. The difference is made up by the Macs being better optimized for what they do - especially in the area of graphics etc - and the OS+hardware being better tied together.

Re:Fabulous

[mandrake*rpgdx]

Hmm. I've gto my PowerPC dual booting with Yellow Dog Linux. Too bad YDL doesn't support my sound card, or else it would just be booting to YDL.

How much money for design?

[jfengel]

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.

Re:How much money for design?

[emilymildew]

You're right, I was trying to make the argument as simplistic as possible by saying that it was to pay the designers.

Obviously I failed.

Re:How much money for design?

[lpret]

It's not just the cost of design, it's the materials used. Dell used run-of-the-mill plastic that is ubiquitous and easy to get a hold of while Apple uses metals and specific fans, etc. This all comes together to make it a very different price.

Re:How much money for design?

[Deliveranc3]

I think you're looking at this wrong. Pc Manufacturers look at what is easy to manufacture take those concepts and craft them into a computer, this is cheap and easy to produce.

Mac designers look at what they would like to have then compromise enough to make it work.

Most people realize if they made a few more compromises they could get their lappys under $2k (cdn $), but of course they don't.

The mentality stems from customers willing to pay $3-4k as opposed to everyone else who wants to hold onto their money... Next time you look at your lappy realize $700 went towards those looks.

There's something else curvy you could get with that money, in my book that's 21 dates :P

Now make the real comparison, is the mac mini more sexy then.... something something.

Re:How much money for design?

[cthrall]

> So I really don't think that it's the design
> driving the price of the units.

The cost of the design doesn't stop at the designers' fee...it's decisions made by the designers that influence the cost of the product.

Apple probably spent a good amount of time finding the cheapest way to produce the thumbwheel on the first-gen iPod, but it had to be more expensive than just using simple buttons.

Jobs' talent is being able to spot a design that the market will like but he can still make a profit off.

Re:How much money for design?

[peragrin]

It depends. Your suburu also won't last as long, or hold it value as long.

That mercedes could be passed on to your childern. The suburu will fall apart by then.

I will admit that the line is getting fuzzier every year. That lower end cars are catching up. Though if given the cash I would take a mercedes convertible for it's form and function over a lower cost one. Though buying an SUV from Mercedes doesn't make much sense.

Re:How much money for design?

[pocomoonshiine]

There is virtually no limit to how much design can cost, because for every successful design, there are dozens, maybe hundreds of failures. Some end up on the drafting room floor, 86'ed, others get to market a month too late and nobody wants them.
On the other hand, bad design has unlimited downside potential that can drive you into the ground.

Re:How much money for design?

[alnjmshntr]

I don't think you can justify the price premium of an Apple based on design and manufacturing costs.

Apple simply charges a price that (some) people are willing to pay - they position themselves as a premium product and therefore they *have* to charge more - even if their costs are no higher than any body elses.

There's a very interesting article on Joel Spolskys site about pricing.

Re:How much money for design?

[jfengel]

Oh, boy, do I know how you feel. Every time I say anything on Slashdot and fail to turn in a disseration exploring all the details I'll get corrections up the wazoo.

And I overreacted a bit; I should have read "design" for "designers". There was an interesting reply to my post about how much those fancy cases cost to make. I apologize for being pedantic.

I still think that the economic forces of what people are willing to pay are a bigger determinant of the price than the cost to manufacture. In some ways the critical measure is the price to manufacture a cheapo PC. Unlike Apple, Dell has competition, and the price they charge is perilously close to the minimum. I can't build a PC cheaper than Dell can. I think the differences in the economics have interesting consequences.

Re:How much money for design?

[jfengel]

You should take a look at some of the sibling posts the parent. One of them talks about why the manufacturing of those parts is so expensive, if not necessarily the materials.

It wouldn't surprise me if Apple spends extra on ultra-quiet fans. So yeah, the grandparent is rather devoid of useful numbers, but he's not necessarily wrong, either.

Re:How much money for design?

[LMariachi]

There's something else curvy you could get with that money, in my book that's 21 dates :P
Now make the real comparison, is the mac mini more sexy then.... something something.

It's sexier than any date that puts out for $33.

Re:How much money for design?

[ruzel]

The real economic factor that so many firms miss is that good design makes a profit. I'm talking about software design, product design, automobile design. Once an object loses its status as some unique category it becomes a commodity. Once it becomes a commodity people become more concerned with price. Design something really well and it gains in personal value and loses the stigma of commodity. Invest in design (and maybe use a real design firm like Apple does) and you will be rewarded for it.

Consider vacuum cleaners. They're a commodity. Everyone's got one. So how do sell a vacuum cleaner for $500 when anyone can get one for $100. Simple. Re-design it. Look at the reviews! People are swearing up and down that this Dyson vacuum cleaner is the best vacuum they've ever used. It's likely that Dyson won't take over the market. But it is likely that they will have a stable totally loyal users that will buy only that brand. Hmmm. Sound like anyone you know? (Of course it sounds like Apple, but were you also thinking Saturn? Google?)

It never ceases to amaze me when people claim that Apple is not important because they only have 4-5% of the market. They're not in the commodity business! BMW does not have more than 4-5% of the market. Neither will Dyson. Because they are not commodity firms. They are design firms (as in designer goods). Taking over huge amounts of the market by make cheap unattractive crap is not what they do.

To sum up:
1. Design
2. Profit!!!

Re:How much money for design?

[phasm42]

Along these same lines, it's interesting to note that while Apple can take the whole market, no PC company can take the whole PC market (yes, I know, Macs are PCs, blah-blah). There are a lot of interesting reasons for the way things are between the Mac and PC markets.

Re:How much money for design?

[antic]

I believe that the point of difference for a Dyson vacuum cleaner goes beyond the general appearance. They are bagless vacuum cleaners which rely on varied technology/engineering -- if people are touting their vacuums, then the engineering could well be a significant part of that.

Re:How much money for design?

[Vokbain]

It depends. Your suburu also won't last as long, or hold it value as long.

That mercedes could be passed on to your childern. The suburu will fall apart by then.

Other way around. The Suburu is quality car. The Mercedes is cheap junk that rich people buy because they think they're cool cars.

Re:How much money for design?

[Ohreally_factor]

Perhaps by "dates" he was referring to "tricks". If so, then I imagine that Hugh Grant wouldn't find the Mac Mini sexier.

Re:How much money for design?

[ruzel]

Yeah, absolutely. I should clarify my usage of "design". I don't just mean aesthetics. It was my intention to include engineering in my use of the term. And sometimes, in something really new, it really is both. The ipod click wheel is a shift in aesthetics from other ipods but it's also an engineering feat.

Re:How much money for design?

[peragrin]

Other way around. The Suburu is quality car. The Mercedes is cheap junk that rich people buy because they think they're cool cars.

if that is the case why is that you can buy a 20 year old mercedes with 200,000 miles on it in decent condition, while you can't buy a 10 year old suburu with 100,000 miles on it? No I have never owned a mercedes. When I was 18 I was looking at both of them as options when i went to buy a used car. I ended up with 1992 olds cutlass ciera with 60,000 miles.

Re:How much money for design?

[RollingThunder]

You can buy the 20 year old Mercedes because 20 years ago they were what you think they still are.

Re:How much money for design?

[BasilBrush]

That's no different than Apple. Dyson's sell at a premium price because they are better vacuum cleaners, as well as looking good. Macs sell at a higher premium price bcause they are better computers, as well as looking good.

The thing that both Dyson and Apple would agree on is that design isn't just about general appearance. Engineering is not separate from design. In good design form follows function.

Re:How much money for design?

[RGB000111]

I don't understand why an adience that favors Open Source and competition for MS is so positively inclined to Apple. They are worse that MS because they have a monopoly on HW AND SW. In Europe they are a lot more expensive than comparable PCs (they are mostly bought by graphics professionals). I think the Intel-AMD-etc PC is a lot more compatible with a free market model and competition. But choice is demanding and needs more thought than plunking down a lot of money for a proprietory computer like Apple's.

Re:How much money for design?

[jfengel]

Because Slashdot isn't some guy with a penchant for open source. Your Slashdot ID is seven figures. With that many people you're gonna get fans of just about everything.

In addition, even individual people can value good design while disliking the way that design is produced and marketed.

So basically don't look for consistency from Slashdot; you're not gonna get it.

Re:Fabulous

[Frumious Wombat]

You mean that there's an Apple-AIX as well? I've been dying to use SMIT on my home box!

Re:flamebait

[gb506]

day-to-day Linux on the desktop (even on powerpc) is for people with a helluva lot of time on their hands. I have work to do.

Re:Try proofreading!

[gubbas]

Chomping at the bit is a reference to a horse biting down at the bridal bit in its mouth in anticipation to moving forward. Try to think before you reply.

... and Quicken 2005

[green pizza]

Mac Mini also ships with Quicken 2005.

NANODE beat Mac Mini by a year... oh, hang on.

[Dogtanian]

Yeah. The Nanode. That was announced *way* back, almost a year ago, long before the Mac Mini was even a rumour.

One snag; it wasn't and STILL ISN'T AVAILABLE!

If they'd released it around the originally intended time, there would have been nothing to touch it (*). Now the Mac Mini with a similar kind of form and size has really stolen its thunder; the Nanode, if and when it does arrive, is going to be labelled as one of the typical "me too" clone PCs that always pop up in the wake of Apple's launches.

Don't get me wrong; there are styling differences, but the basic shape is the same. Don't even think about buying one in white or off-white, as rightly or wrongly, you'll be labelled as the kind of wannabe fashion geek who'll buy a cheap iPod-alike.

I still wouldn't mind one (if I had the money), but only if they release it in a copper or red finish (they cut down the colour range of the most recent Cubit, so I'm not holding my breath).

Long and the short; Hoojum lost this one big-time.

Re:NANODE beat Mac Mini by a year... oh, hang on.

[Ohreally_factor]

Can you correctly identify who said, "Real artist ship"?

On the other hand, I do think the Nanode cases are extremely cool.

Refinement?

[green pizza]

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.

Re:Refinement?

[LoudMusic]

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.

They make a single G5 Mac with AGP video, it's called a Power Mac and it costs $1,500 and only comes with 256mb of memory - you need a minimum of 512mb to make OS X enjoyable. And why must you have a G5? OS X isn't even 64 bit (:

The same is true with the Mac mini - if you don't increase the ram you won't have a very good Mac. Not even for web and email use.

Re:Refinement?

[FidelCatsro]

Im sorry i must dispell this myth , The mac mini is fine with 256MB of ram ,I just upgraded my mini to 512 as i like to do some design work on it and Adobe CS realy munches ram , however for Web browsing and email and some types of Development (i use nano and vi so that is perhaps a little cheat as anything could run those) 256MB is fine , so long as you dont have loads of programs running at once , but with a messenger program , a browser , an email client and text editor open then 256MB is fine , if you close a couple of things then image editing on a light scale is fine or even whatching a vidio while you do that . expose` also runs perfectly well so long as you dont flood your desktop with open windows .

with 512 everything is smoth as a button , and i can really start to keep things running , but the 256MB comment is nothing more than a myth

Re:Refinement?

[iluvcapra]

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.

Not so loud. They'll set the price at $1500.

Re:Refinement?

[mrchaotica]

I know I needed more than 256MB for web browsing, but that might have something to do with the fact that I tend to have about 50 Firefox tabs open on my iBook (with 640MB) at any given time...

Re:Refinement?

[FidelCatsro]

That is very true *hee* , Not to mention the fact that Firefox is quite poor on OS X , I still use it as my main browser though it has a great deal of room for improvment on the platform. .I would use safari perminantly on OS X, but im very attached to adblock , mouse gestures and my tab options

Re:Refinement?

[mrchaotica]

Yes, it's all about the tabs -- the simple fact that I can fit more tabs across the screen in Firefox, and that there's only one close button on the right side instead of one on each tab, is what keeps me from Safari.

Re:Refinement?

[LoudMusic]

Holy shit you guys are talking in circles. What corporation are you employed as a manager for?

So does a standard Mac need more than 256MB of memory or not? That is if you plan to do anything with it? Most people will want to browse, email, IM, and listen to music at the same time.

OS 128 - 180
mail 20 - 50
web 20 - 100
IM 10 - 20
music 20 - 50

Total 198 - 400

So bare minimum? Maybe ... But if you're ever going to stretch your legs, you better have 512. And that's not just "Mac" requirements. I can't believe Apple / Dell / HP / etc even sell computers with less than 512MB.

Re:Refinement?

[mrchaotica]

Talking in circles? We were having an off-topic discussion about the Mac version of Firefox.

But anyway, regarding memory requirements: for basic usage, 256 is (barely) enough. Both of us need more (my iBook has 640), but that's because we do more than basic usage (even if it is sometimes only web browsing in my case). In other words, I agree with your assesment.

Depends...

[gubbas]

I think "champing at the bit" is the euro/uk idiom. Here in the states it is called "chomping at the bit" to mean eger to do something.

Re:Depends...

[Redundant offtopic t]

Actually, even here in the semi-literate US, "chomping..." is a twisting of "champing..." It's as incorrect as "mute point" and "intensive purposes".

--yr obt. technical writer

Re:Depends...

[rk]

It's as incorrect as "mute point" and "intensive purposes"

It's not quite that bad. "Chomp" is a word that doesn't already carry any other meaning. You're correct in that it derived from "champ", but the twisting you refer to happened before anybody alive today was born, and has become a generally accepted (though I would concede informal) part of American English.

Unless you're talking about a point made without sound, or designs which are forceful, "mute point" and "intensive purposes" are just wrong.

"Mute" for "moot" is a big pet peeve of mine, second only to the even more pedantic distinction between "disinterested" versus "uninterested".

Yes, mods, I'm offtopic. I'm not posting with my karma bonus, so go easy on me.

Re:Depends...

[Redundant offtopic t]

Yeah, I'll agree--I overstated that chomping... instead of champing... isn't just plain wrong like mute point (at least they're synonymish) but I would say that even today, it's mistaken.

Lamentably, that saying is going (or as you say, has already gone--allow me to remain in denial) the way of that/which and uninterested/disinterested.

If I were born a frog, I'd probably be one of those purity of the French language nudnicks.

Think you're off topic? Off topic is my middle name!

Re:Depends...

[Ohreally_factor]

Yes, mods, I'm offtopic. I'm not posting with my karma bonus, so go easy on me.

Actually, I think you should be awarded a Pullet Surprise.

Re:Depends...

[MysteriousPreacher]

I think it's a common 'mistake'. Seems similar to the confusion over "Have your cake and eat it" (The modern version), and "Eat your cake and have it" (Closer to the original version of the quote). Although the former is more common, it's confusing. The latter and original makes more sense to most people.

it is a bit embarrasing though when you correct someone, rub it in a little and then realise that you're both sort-of right. Depends whether you speak English or American.

It's a Sun IPC... or IPX...

[bpechter]

Nothing new here...
I wish I could just find a PC motherboard with SCSI for all my old IPC/IPX cases.

Bill

Re:Wow, Deja Vu

[throughthewire]

Hell they are all Von Neumann machines anyway. A computer is a computer is a computer.

Posting from an array of Tinker Toys, are you?

The hardware may be described as "all Von Neumann machines," which, while accurate, ignores speed, size, efficiency, heat output, noise level, cost - all of which are design factors/selling points for small PCs. Or almost all computers, for that matter. You are generalizing beyond the point of usefulness, and in a directon that the classification "Von Neumann machine" is not intended to go.

And ultimately the software has the most significant impact on our experience with computers, and it can't be so trivially described.

crappy cappuccino

[green pizza]

I've been wanting a cappuccino-like PC since about 1999 but the specs don't impress me at all.

The Mac Mini is $500 ($479 for students) which is a ROCK BOTTOM LOW PRICE for Apple. They even managed to get a real GPU (Radeon 9200) in there and a DVI port. Why can't the Cappuccino have similar video and for a lower price?? I would really like a second PC like that. The only really decent SFF PC option is something like a Shuttle, which is about 6x - 8x the size of a Mini. Either that or a Mini-ITX system which is slower than a Mac Mini and still about 2x - 3x the size.

Windows XP interface *flexible*?!

[Dogtanian]

PC users tend to value low cost (relatively), ubiquity, and high flexibility (e.g. think how many GUI's are available for x86, and how many themes for them, etc.).

And think how many people out there are still running Windows XP (one GUI) with the one appearance (cartoony XP widgets) in the default colour scheme (playschool blue with red and green bits).

I find it ironic that the appearance of Windows XP is even *more* restricted than that of the old dull-as-ditchwater Windows 95/98 interface (yeah, you can use that with XP, but who wants to?). And I know there are add-on programs that can change XP's appearance, but they don't come from Microsoft and they don't come with Windows XP.

If anyone is going to mention Linux's interface choice, don't. The typical "PC user", like it or not, is interested in running Windows, not Linux.

Re:Windows XP interface *flexible*?!

[Proteus]

If anyone is going to mention Linux's interface choice, don't. The typical "PC user", like it or not, is interested in running Windows, not Linux.

The typical user you speak of buys the PC because it is cheaper than a Mac, and they don't want to mess with it. Thus, they are valuing cost over other concerns. This is in line with my statement. Some PC users are using the PC because it is cheap, other because it is ubiquitous, others because of the flexibility -- choice of GUI is but one example.

And I know there are add-on programs that can change XP's appearance, but they don't come from Microsoft and they don't come with Windows XP.

It doesn't matter if they are included in the box, they are available. That means you have a choice about your interface, and you have more choice about it than on Mac.

If anyone is going to mention Linux's interface choice, don't. The typical "PC user", like it or not, is interested in running Windows, not Linux.

I didn't mention Linux because you can run Linux on the Mac as well. However, the PC supports *BSD, Solaris, and a host of other operating systems. And, if you run Cygwin, you can use many of the Linux wm's. There are entire alternate desktop systems that run under Windows, completely replacing Explorer. That demonstrates the flexibility of the PC.

Mostly, though, you missed the point. Choices of GUI are merely one way that PC's are extremely flexible. Again, the points are that a PC user will value hardware because it is (a)low-cost, AND/OR (b)ubiquitous, AND/OR (c)highly flexible. I choose PC based on the last two criteria, some use just one, but a combination of (a) and (b) is probably most common.

Help me undestand this

[NAACPsupporter]

In our church, a busines donated fairly new G4 Apple computers. Some were still in the boxes, unopened. They were running the new OSX. I was very eager to set them up. However, from the very beginning they all seemed slow. Everyone complained that the browser would take a long time to open. Initially I thought the ethernet interface was throttled down, but then others said opening office applications was a lot slower than what they were used to with the Windows XP machines. We still have the apple computers, but only kids seem to use them for educational programs that we also received as a donation from another business. Why would apple computers be so much slower than PC computers? I understand there is some heated arguments over this, but I am really looking for an answer. Do you think I need to update to the latest version of OS X?

Re:Help me undestand this

[Queer Boy]

Why would apple computers be so much slower than PC computers? I understand there is some heated arguments over this, but I am really looking for an answer. Do you think I need to update to the latest version of OS X?

You'd have to describe what you consider "fairly new". If the machines are not running Mac OS X Panther (10.3) then they need to be upgraded. There were a ton of optimisations done in the OS to take advantage of the G4's vector unit.

The G4 has run from 450 MHz to 1.67 GHz in Macs. The minimum usable amount of RAM in a Mac OS X setup is 256 MB but 512 MB will almost eliminate the usage of virtual memory for what you need. That may be why you are perceiving a speed difference in the G4s and XP machines. I have a friend with a 1.2GHz Celeron laptop and my 700 MHz G3 iBook does everything faster, including launch Microsoft Office.

Kids are much more impatient than adults, I find your assertion that games run faster on the Macs than on the PCs but non-taxing software such as a web browser and "office applications" open slowly very peculiar. I have a Dual 2 GHz G5 and if I install or remove fonts Word takes forever to load while it is "optimising the font menu" after that, relaunches are near instant.

Misreading

[rogueroo]

InadequateCamel,

Looks like you are misreading emilymildew. The 9:45 post offers a suggestion to counter *others* who mention Macs being "outrageously expensive".

Re:Serious question (PC design)

[FuturePastNow]

Sony makes some nice looking computers. Never owned one, though. And the nicest case for a do-it-yourselfer I've seen is the Lian-Li PC-6070.

Re:Wow, Deja Vu

[SamSeaborn]

> The only reason there's a Windows "XP" is because there was a Mac OS "X".

XP, to my understanding, occured because they were porting the home version of windows to the NT shell rather than leaving it as a pretty front end tacked onto MSDos. I am not saying that Apple are not innovative, I am saying that they are not gods who drive the entire innovation in the industry.

You're wrong. "Windows XP" was never "XP" with bright green and blue fisher-price colors and "big" 48x48 pixel icons until "OS X" came out and started getting rave reviews for it's revolutionary new look (Aqua) including giant scalable 256x256 pixel full color icons. Microsoft gave XP it's kludgy face-lift only because of Mac OS X's Aqua.

Heck, XP Home out-right stole the user logon screen from Mac, complele with little icons of rubber ducks. There was even an infamous article in PC Mag where a columnist who saw OS X after using XP accused Apple of stealing Microsoft's UI ideas!

With respect, this is a fact.

Sam

TacoPod

[Nastard]

No wireless. Less hardware than a Dell. Lame.

No, what you're missing is ...

[Dlugar]

Maybe I'm missing some kind of inside joke.

No, what you're missing is:
2 replies beneath your current threshold.

In particlar, this one.

Dlugar

Mini is more Qube legacy than you probably realize

[Alexander]

Considering the original engineering and marketing Cobalt staff were all ex-Apple....

They were ex-Quadra/Pippin/Newton, etc.. guys who left pre-Steve Jobs.

You sound like the zealot

[denjin]

Aren't you the one taking time out of your day to post this? I mean, hard to argue with their points in this thread, since all Intel did was show a hunk of plastic.

Which processor?

[iamsure]

Talk about vaporware.. While the nano-ITX MB design has been released, its not available anywhere.

Even with a functional version, what about the cooling for the processor?

I'd be impressed if it was like IBM's cell, with multiple chips, each with low heat output.

That would be both interesting and potentially functional. Of course, Intel isn't likely to promote IBM's chips, which begs the question..

Which Intel processor can fit in that box, be cooled, AND compete in any way with a G4?

Re:Wow, Deja Vu

[throughthewire]

> The only reason there's slim lightweight Pentium M class laptops is because Apple created the PowerBook.

Now that really is just fanboiism. Thin and lightweight laptops have been available for years - well before the PentiumM, and as long as, if not longer than, thin Powerbooks. I recall owning a thin and lightweight Sony Vaio back in 1998 - based on a PII chip!

Actually that one really does have a shred of truth to it. Apple's original PowerBooks - the 100, 140, and 170, released in 1991, IIRC - were (relatively) thin, light, had built-in trackballs, and were the first to have the keyboard towards the rear of the case, allowing the front to form a wrist rest. And they were dark grey. Damned near every laptop since then has followed this design and layout. Prior machines (including Apple's own Portable) were of the beige-and-luggable, 'just roll the mouse on your thigh' ilk.

Still doesn't have diddly to do with the Pentium M, though.

THIS IS NOT A TROLL!!!!

[amichalo]

Moderators - the parent is not a troll - come on, there is not one inflamatory or offtopic remark. The person is sparking open conversation, not trolling, by sharing his experience from switching from XP to OS X.

Somebody should patent viruses

[anno1602]

Somebody should patent viruses/worms. Then, everytime a new version of a worm is released, sue the pants off anybody in sight!

Small PC == innovation???

[megalomang]

Just because both companies release a small PC, both of which look like a game console doesn't mean that either have innovated. As the article states, this is only a reference platform that Intel created to demonstrate that IA is a viable candidate for the living room.

It is obvious (i.e. no innovation here) that people don't want a tower in their living room. And it is obvious that consumers are ok with putting a game console form factor in their living room. So, it is not a stretch that a PC which looks like a game console (i.e. Xbox) is a tolerable form factor for IA in the living room.

Giving Apple credit for this idea is a bit absurd and making a mountain out of a mole hill. Blaming Intel for taking so long is also absurd since they only supply the CPU and chipset. The motherboard and system design (and to a lesser extent the CPU heat dissipation) dictate the unit size. It has been within the power of the OEMs to create a small PC for a long time, but most people obviously don't care how big their PC in their office is. As long as it performs well and they can swap out IO cards if needed.

Re:Small PC == innovation???

[standards]

Giving Apple credit for this idea is a bit absurd and making a mountain out of a mole hill. Blaming Intel for taking so long is also absurd since they only supply the CPU and chipset.

Nope, I'm not blaming Intel. I'm blaming the PC vendors, who have been quite lacking in new designs.

Instead, every signifcant PC vendor has produced the same exact box for the past 10 years. Sure, the guts have changed a little bit - but it's virtually the same box.

On the flip side, Apple is betting a large amount of cash (through design and marketing) to make something different than the standard PC desktop box. The other significant PC vendors are failing to push the envelope in ANY direction. Sure, they made a few blue and purple and multi-colored PCs... but that's the extent of their creativity in design.

Is this, in the end, important? No. But I feel it's an indicator of how they approach their business - no innovation, no improvements, no willingness to take a risk. Because their direct competitors aren't doing it.

Re:Small PC == innovation???

[2nd Post!]

I think he was blaming Microsoft, Compaq, and Dell, not Intel, for lack of innovation.

I think you understate the value of small PCs. It's not that people don't care; it's that no small PCs were sold! There is also a second problem; PCs don't have to live in an office, and small PCs solve that problem. You can now place a Mac mini in your kitchen, your living room, your bedroom, AND your office.

Of course the constraint is now the monitor and not the tower, but Apple is working on it I'm sure.

Re:What Benifit?

[Dogtanian]

Um, yeah. I mean those overpriced games. You know, the ones that made more money than Hollywood?

So, some people are willing to give the makers lots of money; how does that mean they aren't overpriced?

IIRC, the 'more money than Hollywood' quote was inaccurate, but that's not the point.

Everyone seems to really like 'em.

No. The people who are already into computer games really like 'em. No surprise there. The industry is making enough profit (I assume) to sustain itself, but this obscures the important fact:-

Most people do NOT play computer games.

There is a HUGE untapped market for 'casual' gamers. These people (and I'm probably one of them) probably aren't obsessed with state-of-the-art graphics, they don't want to play for hours, and they don't want to pay through the nose. They might be your parents, or even your grandparents.

I remember nothing 4 or so years back, just after the PS2 came out, that the most played computer games on the face of the planet must have been either...Microsoft Solitaire or the Nokia 'Snake' game. Sheesh! Even then, the snake game was crude; but my PS2-owning flatmates still played it.

Anyway, let me add my own perspective here; computer games aren't films, and in my opinion made the (unsurprising) mistake of going for improved surface gloss over increased flexibility and interactivity.

Sure, sometimes that's what we want. When I play a car racing game, I don't *want* to have to master a complex car. I want an nth-generation Pole Postion descendant. But for all its realism, that game will *not* let you drive off the track, etc. etc.

If you want to stage a road-rage attack on the driver that cut you off, you can't. Unless the feature was explicitly programmed in.

Hey, I'm kind of rambling now; what do I know, I don't really play computer games.

Knock Off

[p0rnking]

Of course this is a complete knock off of the mini mac, because we all know that Apple's mini mac was the first small "PC".

And other than "stories" that have been going around, I have yet to see anything that says that the mini mac was suppose to go into the livingroom ... even Steve Jobs made some comment, denying that it was suppose to go there.

This I can see myself using for a HTPC in my living room, however, the mini mac's cube shape I can not.

Cobalt Qube

[bendsley]

I have a Qube 3 professional that I won at Quakecon in 2001. I've been thinking lately about putting a mini-ITX board in it.

Would make a nice little addition to a rack :)

Re: I don't need extreme performance in a mini-pc

[FuzzyBad-Mofo]

Very interesting, thanks.

Old school portability

[sobeks_eye]

I've already got my portable PC right here. It even comes with its own keyboard.

Of course, it's mainly a bookend right now, but still.

Since when...

[vettemph]

...is squeezing it into a smaller box:

A) innovative (VIA?)
B) copying (intel, apple, yada)

This is the road in which technology travels. Keep getting smaller, keep getting faster. This article is news but not in the light in which it is being illuminated.

Shuttle *cough* cube *cough*

[monopole]

The g4 cube died a horrible death but the SFF PC improved and flourished

Re:Shuttle *cough* cube *cough*

[Ohreally_factor]

While I want to believe that Apple is the source of all good things in the computer world, what came first? The SFF PC or the G4 Cube? Were there really no mini-ITX boards before the Cube?

I remember those....

[Doctor Memory]

That's actually the way I use my laptop: take it to the office, plug it into a KVM switch, bring it home, plug it into a KVM switch... It's nice to have the keyboard and screen if you're giving a demo or on the road (which I never am), but 90% of the time I'm using it, it's with an external keyboard/display.

To translate...

[SteeldrivingJon]

designed merely to inspire Intel's partners

means Intel was asking it's partners

What the hell is wrong with you people? Why do you insist on producing cheap-looking ugly shite?

Clean Uninstalling...

[nottsp1]

...you don't end up with dozens of files everywhere for a single program (makes uninstalling clean too!)...

Not as a rule. Simply trashing the XXX.app can leave various things in your libraries and system folder. Its best to use an uninstaller (if provided: usually run the installer again and select 'uninstall'). Failing that, Command-F and search for corresponding preferences, et al, and trash 'em.

Re:Clean Uninstalling...

[Fahrenheit 450]

Generally speaking, you'll only need to look in ~/Library/Application Support and ~/Library/Preferences.

Re:Clean Uninstalling...

[amichalo]

I contend it makes uninstalling easy for two reasons:
1 - smaller applications can be self contained in a single .app file
2 - because there is not the "explosion" of files all over the hard drive, the uninstaller process has an easier time cleaning up after itself. No registry entries to 'forget' to remove, none of that.

Of course, yes, an application does not have to take advantage of the encapsulation of .app files and can have directories and user preferences hidden all about the hard drive.

I do recommend the 'uninstall' process as a first resort, but for small apps downlaodes from versiontracker et al, the cleanup is as easy as drag to the trash bin.

Re:Clean Uninstalling...

[Ohreally_factor]

Usually this amounts to a single tiny XML based pref file in ~/Library/Preferences. If you don't mind the clutter, it will not affect your computer in anyway if you just leave it there.

This file is generally created the first time you run a program that you dragged to your HD (i.e., that didn't use an installer). It's possible to edit it directly if you know what you're doing, and a program might have undocumented features that you can access in this way. Not something I'd recommend my Dad do, but it's nice to known that it's possible.

Re:Fabulous

[DavidLeblond]

Macs are systems that are put together and designed for users without any hardware knowlege whatsoever.

That is simply untrue, just another Mac generalization. You can buy a G5 and swap out different parts just as easily as you can with a Dell. You can mod a mac just as easily as you can mod any old PC. Sure Mac users generally don't, but that doesn't mean they aren't "knowledgable" enough to do it, they simply don't want to.

Also, to those that have talked about windows security problems and mac superiority. Everything is breakable. I have personally found Mac's relatively easy to destroy. Usually due to the user's lack of knowlege or the machine's totally integrated structure.

There is a difference between having a "breakable" system and having a technology that allows executable files from random websites to have full reign of your computer. Active X was a good idea on paper, but the implementation was absolutely horrible.

Have you compared the mini to the shuttle?

[porkchop_d_clown]

The main difference in the Mini compared to other small form factors is that the took the tactic of pulling the power supply out into an AC adapter and they don't have slots for PCI cards. This means the mini is about 1/3 the height of of even a shuttle.

So, yeah, when Intel announces that they are pulling the power supply and removing the PCI slots, and puts it in a chrome box about the size of a CD drive - they're ripping off Apple's design.

Knockoff?

[DrXym]

There have been small form factor PCs for donkey's years. Over 12 years ago I recall a 286 no larger than a Mac Mini complete with a teeny tiny keyboard and monochrome monitor. There is nothing new or amazing about this.

In fact, various Mini-ITX machines, barebones boxes like Shuttle and of course the Cobalt Qube have been selling for the last five years or so. If anything the Mac G4 Cube and Mac Mini could be accused of being knockoffs of the Qube.

Re:Knockoff?

[Scudsucker]

If anything the Mac G4 Cube and Mac Mini could be accused of being knockoffs of the Qube.

Considering that Jobs worked at Next which was famous for its Cube, I'd say you're full of it on that one.

Depends.

[porkchop_d_clown]

You didn't specify clock speeds, so I don't know how old the boxes are.

If they are running 10.1 or 10.0 they are going to be sluggish. 10.2 wasn't so bad, 10.3 is better.

Nice troll, though.

Re:Depends.

[NAACPsupporter]

I am not trolling. I am looking for answers. All I remember is that the G4 machines were bought brand new in middle of 2003. They were towers and one of them came with a dvd writer. I do not remember the speed. I volunteer for this organization maybe twice a month. We are currently installing some Linux machines running Xandros 3.0. Xandros donated 20 packages and they run really nicely on old dells with 500 MGZ CPUs. I will try to install new version of OSX on the Macs to see if things get better. Thank you for your answers.

"Intel outside"

[arbitraryaardvark]

How much does it cost?
I could use a lunchbox.

Somebody told the engineers think "outside of the box."

Are there some quick hacks that would give it some kind of functionality? garage door opener? lighter? roomba companion? weed stash?

Is there a motherboard that fits this, so that slashdot joe with a screwdriver could assemble a working computer, load it with linux, firefox, and a suite of other open source apps, and come in around $400? Or does it have to wait for parts that aren't available yet?

Attack of the Clones

[Anonymous Coward]

(Note: I took the idea for the "Subject" field from the second Star Wars Movie).

Yes we all know that there is a big problem with cloning out there in the world: Cloning sheep, cloning computers, cloning other animals, maybe cloning people, cloning movies, cloning characters in movies, and don't forget cloning subprocessors, whatever that might mean (I will leave it up for you to decide).

But let us look at the benefits of copying!

-It is inexpensive (relative to paying someone with a new idea).
-It is enjoyable to use a copy machine.
-Kinko's is open past midnight where I live, which can be very convenient if I am up late.
-Sometimes it is nice to have a copy of something (like a worksheet) you can "give" to other people
-It was used on Star Trek to great effect (Think TRIBBLES!)

Okay, I am being cheap bringing up tribbles because they weren't really cloned and they were very adorable. But it is not so bad to copy or clone something if it is good and it happens all the time. It makes things that are expensive become less expensive so more people get good things. And what is good for the goose is often good for the gander! HA HA HA! Just make sure they are wearing a friendly smile!!!

Re:Attack of the Clones

[Jeff Benjamin]

(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...

Re:Attack of the Clones

[BasilBrush]

Slashdot this is. Source of star wars quotes inform us you need not...

Re:Attack of the Clones

[starrsoft]

This is slashdot, you need to inform the serious geeks that it was a joke. He was being facetious.

Microsoft has a head start

[computechnica]

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.

Salaries

[simpl3x]

Ives likely makes more like three to five hundred thousand a year. He drives a Bentley...

But custom as opposed to commodity parts cost quite a bit of coin. Of course, not the amount that would make up for a large cost diference, perhaps fifty bucks per. I remember going to the plant that produced the NeXT cube and well as Linn tonearms, and the mold was pretty amazing. The final piece also required custom finishing, as molds have seams, and Steve wanted a seamless design. The stuff is more costly than you think. Which is exactly why so few companies invest in the processes, people, and long term commitments to producing excellent design.

why so negative?

[jsailor]

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.

Re:why so negative?

[anagama]

Well - Isn't Intel Microsoft's running dog?

Full disclosure: Linux and OSX household here.

Apple wasn't the first wtih a Mini....

[BrianJacksonPhoto]

We were using some of these systems (http://www.atoz-ezgo.com.tw/) for over 1 year. It even has a gigibit jack and a pcmcia slot.

I'm not saying these are the best, but just something that's been on the market for a while.

Also, why do most people assume that when someone says PC, they think that == windos OS? It hasn't occured to me in the last 5 years to intentionally put a windos OS on a system.

I've got nothing against Apple nor the Mac (nowadays that they have a real OS), the stock has made me a lot of money over the past 9 months and I just ordered a Mac Mini the other day to port my software to the OS X platform.

And to answer the question about who would these small computers appeal to...me. We currently use Shuttle (http://us.shuttle.com/) systems as our in-field servers. We do action sports event photography and are schlepping 15+ computers with us. The smaller the better if you ask me :) It's not always about price, there are people who use computers for things other than games and neon add-ons.

Also if you travel and do a lot of demos and need several headless systems(not laptop)...these will do just fine. Pack 6 of these systems in your carry on and you're good to go.

Re:Apple wasn't the first wtih a Mini....

[Scudsucker]

Apple wasn't the first wtih a Mini.

You sure about that?

Re:Apple wasn't the first wtih a Mini....

[michaeldot]

I see your "sure about that?" and raise you this sure about that!

1988...

cheap PC hardware isn't the point

[passion]

Getting another cheap piece of commodity PC hardware out into the markey isn't the point. The point is that this is a small, cheap multi-media piece of hardware.

FTA: Intel on Wednesday showed off its living room PC of the future--and it looks a lot like the Mac Mini.

This can easily play DVDs, mp3s, record TV (think tivo or myth for that matter). How long until either Apple releases the software for running your own Tivo, or importing TV directly into iMovie. This is meant to be the digital jukebox that you use when you're not "working", but instead enjoying life.

One word:

[MattHaffner]

Sad.

Glad I hung on through the rough '90s with Apple. I almost ditched for any of my usage. I was down to mostly "domestic" tasks. But now, there's so little else worth considering. It's swung the other way and now I'm using my Macs for everything. The last big hurdle is hardware driver support (particularly science/engineering) from my angle. Fun ride.

Its the PRICE stupid!

[Shivetya]

Sorry but the mini-Mac isn't going to win over mom and dad. They will shop for a computer, see that they can get a e-machine/hp/compaq with printer, lcd, and keyboard/mouse for less than a mac-mini.

I wonder what they will buy?

Going the upgrade route? Same thing all over, they can get all these new things for a lower price.

Yes the Mac-Mini is neat, I am a geek, I think its neat too. I also think its $150 to much and would be much better in a bundle. That is where Apple is missing the boat. As a stand-alone device its cool for geeks, but not much of an interest for non-geeks.

Bundle the damn thing and get it out the door for $499 and they might have something. The claims of all the software it comes with is what makes it worthwhile fall short as most Windows PCs have suitable and similar products available. Combine that with what is available as freeware/open-source/etc and where is the advantage of the mac-mini?

I tried to see if my parents would want one, my mother does a lot of desktop publishing and was at one time told to use Quark by a print shop. Turns out the print shop was just as happy to take .PRN files from Windows because that is where the majority of their business was from.

I think what we have here with Intel is just a little stunt to show that people on x86 can think different too. There is nothing miraculous about the mac-mini or other similar systems other than "What in the hell took so long?" Why do I say that? Because I have dealth with thin-clients and variations for quite some time and they are essentially the same thing.

Re:Its the PRICE stupid!

[mrchaotica]

So, you're saying that your parents don't understand value and quality. I suppose they drive used Daewoos too?

Re:Memo to Dumbass:

[i41Overlord]

An anonymous coward... sounds like a Mac user :-)

I don't own a Dell. I build all my own machines. I have an Athlon64 3500. It doesn't get choked by malware because I keep on top of that stuff. I use firefox instead of IE, I run Ad-Aware regularly, and my PC is protected behind a router with a firewall.

earlier than that

[hawk]

Err, no. Plenty of things broke going from system 6 to 7. Particularly affected were things that used low-level interfaces. My multi-user calendar program was one.

Also, almost all (or was it all?) viruses were broken by the change.

And then there's the software that wasn't only not 32 bit clean, but directly violated the software guidelines--including the initial macwrite (or was it macpaint? It's been a few years . . .)

hawk

Re:earlier than that

[Altus]

yep... and those changes effected apples apps just as much as anyone elses. this wasnt a case of intentionally breaking a competitors apps. It was a result of massive changes to the OS between the two versions.

Money?

[drix]

Wait, how is costing half as much not a "benefit"? Apple is never going to dominate until they can either a) eliminate the "Apple tax" or b) convince people who can already work a computer reasonably well that it's worth paying twice the price for prettier fonts & icons. And I'm betting on a).

Re:Money?

[zpok]

Apart from the good point you're making...

Apple tax is already much reduced on their cheaper stuff - emac and mini. Their margin is much lower than on their +$1000 computers.
In the case of the mini, if you're looking for the cheapest hardware without the need for OS X and assorted goodies, you'll have to look hard to find something satisfactory. Of course you'll find something I'm sure, but this is already one cheap computer.
And if you do look at the software and OS, you won't find anything for that price, period. Even when you feel XP personal edition is comparable to OS X Panther.

Re:Money?

[2nd Post!]

Help me out, where can you find a mini like computer for $249?

Where can you find a 5 pound laptop for $499?

Where can you find a dual 64bit tower for $999?

Where can you find a 64bit desktop with 17" LCD for $649?

Re:Money?

[legirons]

"Apple is never going to dominate until they can convince people who can already work a computer reasonably well that it's worth paying twice the price for prettier fonts & icons."

Ohhh, there's an interesting comment. Perhaps you could back-up your numbers by showing us the $250 PC which is equivalent to the Mac-Mini without this "Apple Tax" you mention?

Re:Money?

[Queer Boy]

Wait, how is costing half as much not a "benefit"?

Because it still runs viruses, I mean trojans, I mean spyware, I mean Windows.

What's Inside?

[Capt_Troy]

It's more about what's running inside the Mac (OSX), rather than how tiny it is, and what processor it uses. For me anyway.

apple and others

[zpok]

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.

Homo Ignoramus (was Re:Still Misses The Point)

[pjt48108]

First, your response is patently offensive. It is a sweeping generalization obviously made in haste and based on non-scientific sampling, as far as I can observe.

Case in point: My friend, Kelly, married, mid-30s with two kids, and who a kayak rep who hauls pricey kayaks all over the US (with a huge van and trailer) and is a nationally-ranked kayaking instructor, owns an iPod. Try telling him he is a wannabe geek, tweenie girl, or crisis-laden man, and he'll just push your sorry ass into a snowbank and let his daughter (a very cute 3 year old) laugh at you. And I wouldn't hold it against him (or her).

Case two: I own an iPod. I am graduate student in arts administration, a former self-taught sys/net admin, have a penis, and have yet to reach middle age and embrace that crisis. I wouldn't so much laugh at you in the snow, but shake my head at your obvious ignorance.

Second... No... No seconds, here. Just ditto what I just said.

Oy.

Re:Memo to Dumbass:

[idsofmarch]

Man you are hopelessly obtuse.

The fact that YOUR machine "doesn't get choked by malware" is anecdotal at best and doesn't account for the millions of x86 PCs that are currently spewing out spam, or are hopelessly flumuxed by spyware, and the millions of users who have to put up with it.

Furthermore, the photo editing software, movie making software, etc. that comes standard with Windows XP is crap and can't hold a candle to the iApps IMHO. Lastly, how much time do you spend running Ad-Aware--and since you're such a conscientious user, anti-virus, etc--or how much memory and processor resources to you give up to protect Windows from the world.

I would never call PC users dumb or cowards for deciding that their platform of choice was useful to them, I just happen to disagree. And while you call Mac users zealots, haven't you noticed that you fall upon the sacrificial altar for x86?

So congratulations for being one of the people who can build a PC box here's a cookie.

Careful with that ax, Eugene!

[Thud457]

Good lord! Oh, the, for want of a better word, humanity!

When he said lava-lamp case, I was thinking of Rorschach.

umm itx anyone?

[Robocoastie]

these type of things already exist - they're called ITX cases with VIA's motherboard/cpu solution. if pentium m cpu's and boards were affordable we'd have been building these ourselves already.

Re:You Want One, Do You???

[northcat]

Uh, PCs support sleep mode too. (with different names of course)

Re:Nothing new

[ivano]

If you want to beat a great idea don't copy it, come up with a BETTER IDEA!

Hear, hear. I also can't believe that people don't see this too. Of course, you can see why they copy. Doing something better, usually means doing something different and that means taking risks. Doing the same will at least mean no one can point the finger at you and say "see, i told you it wouldn't work". Well that's one of the reasons why :)

Ciao

Re:flamebait

[rpdillon]

Meh, not really. I spent a lot of time back in college *learning* Linux, but now I spend a hell of a lot less time than my Windows-using friends keeping my (3) Linux computers up and running (updated, etc) than they do with their computers.

It's also an issue of what you're doing with it - people that only send email and surf the web and never upgrade, well, that's one thing. But you have to do apples to apples comparison - compare Windows users running servers, playing high-end games, upgrading hardware, etc to a Linux user doing the same. I honestly spend maybe an hour a week admining my laptop, MythTV and 64-bit main computer. I don't think that's a "hell of a lot of time", especially since most people will spend more time *watching commercials* in a week than that.

Shuttle?

[Mr.Ned]

Isn't the Mac Mini just a Shuttle knock-off? The article makes it sound like "another Mac innovation ripped off by the competition."

"It's not a bug, it's a feature!"

[Cska Sofia]

Two words: spyware free.

Why is this filed under "Apple"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is this filed under "Apple"? Did you file the iMac Mini story under "Intel"?

miniMac was the copy

[MDMurphy]

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

Re:miniMac was the copy

[DaDeacon]

No idiot, the mac mini been rummored for about a year now, damn fool. the pic you had even showed an apple next to it, in order to make you think it was the same device . Damn kid let the hate stop and the healing start

yeah right

[commodoresloat]

All the formatting is screwed up. The quotes are totally unreadable. She has absolutely no clue how to fix it, and is stressing about whether the college will get it correctly. That's the world you live in when you buy a Mac -- incompatibility with the most basic things.

Sure. And I bet it takes her forever to copy a 17M file....

With R&D you develop more products than you se

[mosb1000]

If course, that'd be in line with the cost if apple only designed machines they eventually went on to build and sell. However, with any bleeding-edge R&D company this is not the case. They probably begin development on 10 products for every one they eventually build and sell. Of course prototypes are much more expensive to build than production machines, and any given consumer-products device requires dozens of prototypes. Moreover, there are products that Apple has in development for years before they decide they are ready for market, and many that they decide are failures altogether.

At any rate, you shouldn't complain that companies charge as much as they can get away with. Apple is not the most profitable company out there, but they have relatively high margins. How can this be? They invest the extra money they make into developing new products, which allows them to continue earning high margins. This is why you so often see the rest of the industry copying apple. Other companies can't afford to do this kind of continual experimenting and development, because they are trying to sell as much as possible for as low a price as possible. That's why the clones nearly killed Apple, Apple could not longer afford to be innovative.

Diary of a Mac Fiend

[Jesus_666]

Business people call this a "loss leader", because while it's almost certain that Apple doesn't make a large profit off the Mini, it'll probably lead many people into stepping up into the major profit products.

Quite true. My first Apple product is a 12" G4 iBook, which I mainly bought because it was cheaper than every Linux-compatible notebook in town (and I didn't want to have a non-*nix on my notebook). I'm very pleased, especially with OS X.

I've been thinking about getting a new PC for a while, some kind of lean working machine.
With the Mac Mini I can get a machine that is fast enough to use it for work, tinier than any x86 box, supposedly very silent and running OS X. With some extra RAM I can get all that for a mere 700 EUR, which is quite a selling point when you're a student.

Now, if I switch over to the Mac and do all my work there, what will I probably buy once I actually have money? More Macs. OS X is addictive and the Mac Mini is a gateway Apple. First one's not free, but it's not expensive either.

I don't really think that's the point

[Barlo_Mung_42]

It makes a lot of sense for Apple to try and get a switch campaign going because even a small number of switchers is a lot for Apple. Going the other way the math works against them though. Even if 10% of Apple users could be convinced to switch it wouldn't add up to that great of an increase.
On the other hand I'm not sure what the point really is with this. I guess it's just to show that Intel can also produce boxes that look shiny but don't have much inside.

Re:With R&D you develop more products than you

[jfengel]

Oh, I'm not complaining about the fact that companies charge what they can get away with. I'm a fan of free-market capitalism. I'd hate to live in a world where you had to price things based solely on what you paid to make them; it makes it hard to put a price (and therefore a value) on innovation.

Free market capitalism, as long as the excesses are reined in (externalities and the anti-free-market forces that unscrupulous people use in pursuit of money) strikes me as eminently fair. If somebody can make a computer as good as a Mac and sell it cheaper and still make a profit, feel free.

if anything, Apple "knocked off" the PC world

[idlake]

Apple didn't invent the "little form factor" machine. With the Mac Mini, Apple has just been following a trend that has existed in the PC world for years now, towards smaller and smaller form factors, with a general arrangement of a DVD drive stacked on top of a motherboard. And while I don't know when Apple engineers looked at the Nanode, the Mac Mini is so close in its design to the Nanode that if anybody knocked off anybody, the Mac Mini is a knock off of the Nanode.

Apple's marketing department is really to be admired: when the PC world sells neat little PCs in novel form factors, it's considered as something that a bunch of weirdo case modders do. When Apple finally gets around to doing the same thing years later, from then on, anything else is a knock-off of "their" idea.

Re:if anything, Apple "knocked off" the PC world

[eluusive]

The similarity between the Mac Mini and that ugly thing at most the form factor. The similarity between this Intel thing and the Mac Mini is quite a bit more.

Re:first post

[danger_boy_13]

Typical ignorant, closed-minded comment. Why don't you try using a Mac and OS X for a while and then pull your head out of your ass and speak?

Hrm,

[RacerX]

And I had thought that apple simply copied the multitudenous small form factor pcs already out there. (www.mini-itx.com)

I guess the question is simply this, do you want to be trendy or do you want a more powerfull, more capable machine at a lower price point?

Besides, it's not really accurate to compare apple to intel (more accurate to compare motorola to intel) you should be comparing apple to Dull/gateway/emachines etc...

RacerX

Steal them back?

[ClosedSource]

There has been no significant loss of market share from intel-based computers to Apple, so there's very little to "steal back".

Re:Steal them back?

[kilfarsnar]

Good point. In addition, from a hardware standpoint, I doubt Apple is on Intel's radar screen at all.

Okay.

[porkchop_d_clown]

You have to be careful - the "Macs are slow" flame war has a long history.

But, a lot of people have complained about the speed of the OS X Finder compared to Windows Explorer. Generally the complaint is what you've mentioned - slow app loading speeds, rather than slow performance once they're loaded.

10.3 should help a lot with that. Another trick is that if these machines really are used rather than new-in-box they might need to be "optimized". Check sites like MacOSXHints for references to "update_prebinding".

Also, look for a tool called "MacJanitor" which can help clean up the grunge on older systems.

Cobalt Cube Replacement

[scarletire]

Not a Cobalt Cube replacement but Firstlight Networks is lining up their Argon as a Cobalt Raq replacement.

NO Its not!

[Johnny Mozzarella]

Its QUALITY at a good price!

Why doesn't everybody buy YUGOs, GEOs and KIAs. They are much cheaper cars and can drive just like any other car right?

We spend a lot of time in our cars use them for important things and hence we want QUALITY. When people buy cars they want a car that is comfortable and reliable! What if your cars engine needed to be reinstalled every couple months?

When consumers first started buying computers they were mostly a novelty and not critical to daily life. This is not the case any more. People use computers to do their banking, investing, shopping, entertainment(music & games), preserving their memories(photos & movies), etc.

As a result people want computers that offer QUALITY at a good price! Most Windows based PCs will give you a good price but not the kind of user experience the average consumer expects.

Apple is delivering an unrivaled level of QUALITY at a good price with the Mac mini. Most consumers WANT the kind of utopian computing experience that Apple offers. Unfortunately, MOST don't know such a place even exists. As more people are getting fed up with the status quo they are looking for alternatives and Apple is slowly getting the word out.

Your not forced to use Apple's software.

[Johnny Mozzarella]

You can delete iTunes, iPhoto, Safari and Mail, and replace them with 3rd party solutions. They are not integrated into the OS in such a way that they can't be removed.

For example if you remove IE from your PC...no more Windows Update.

Re:Your not forced to use Apple's software.

[truesaer]

Not really relevent. If you delete the IE icon and use Firefox it is the same as deleting Safari and using firefox. One way or another, you're using a competing product. The problem is the bundling...

You don't get it at all.

[nonsuchworks]

People who want cheap ass computers. Are they even going to be doing any kind of content creation? If so they probably need a better computer anyway. The people buying these caliber computers are going to surf the web, send email, and play music.

The whole point of the Mac is that anyone can make music, movies, digital photos, and DVDs. This is no longer the domain of professionals or hobbyists with thousands of dollars to blow; the technology is ready now, today, and it's perfectly affordable and perfectly usable to the amateur. Now, a "cheap ass computer" is enough. Far from Apple being "on the chase," your own outlook is several years behind the times.

This shit just made me laugh:

However, Intel and Microsoft, if they were to set their minds to it, could crank out one hell of a little box.

How comforting to know that the two most dominant technology companies have yet to "set their minds" to making a superior product. Has it occurred to you that what you've seen thus far is actually the best they can do?

Re:You don't get it at all.

[LoudMusic]

How comforting to know that the two most dominant technology companies have yet to "set their minds" to making a superior product. Has it occurred to you that what you've seen thus far is actually the best they can do?

Has it occurred to you that what they've done so far is make the most money? BMW, Lotus, Ferrari, Porsche ... they make the best cars. But Ford, GM, and Honda make the most money.

Re:You don't get it at all.

[fossa]

Thank you for saying that. Seems this important point is often missed.

Regarding cars though, from what I understand it was the quality of Honda and other Japanese brands that finally proded the American manufacturers into making more reliable cars. The most profitable manufacturers are currently all Asian according to The Economist. I wish the best product always won. I also wish that all cars didn't look the same, and that all cordless phones didn't look like crap and have obnoxious rings, and that I could find a pair of jeans that fit... I guess one-size-fits-all is more cost effective :(

OS X and keyboard shortcuts

[wersh]

As for the keyboard shortcut things, I am surprised how much you feel they are necessary. I don't believe, but admit I could be wrong, there is anything that cannot be done with just the mouse that can with a keyboard shortcut.

You are correct: almost anything that can be done with a keyboard shortcut can be done in some way with a mouse. But... so what?

When I switched from Windows to OS X, one of my biggest frustrations was that OS X has such a reduced number of keyboard shortcuts. Sure, I can do it with a mouse, but that's not the point. The point is that keyboard shortcuts are a means by which intermediate and advanced users can work faster. Taking my hand off the keyboard, grabbing the mouse, and navigating the GUI takes a LOT longer than a simple keyboard combo. It also causes a much greater interruption to my work flow.

In the grand scheme of things, that alone isn't enough to make me stop using Macs. I still use a Mac as my primary machine, and I would pick OS X over Windows any day. But there's definitely areas they should consider improving -- GUI shouldn't always be the only answer.

Re:OS X and keyboard shortcuts

[amichalo]

Try this. I find the first hit in Apple's knowledge base a good starting point.

Intel unveils WORLD'S MOST STABLE PC!

[Anonymous Coward]

Most power efficient, too, runs on a single watch battery.

What?

[El Kevbo]

"Intel and MS will make protected content flow freely throughout the home and make DTCP IP interoperate."

What the fuck does that mean?

Re:Fabulous

[delire]

http://ubuntulinux.org/works a charm, up and running in about 40 minutes. everything works with the exception of the Airport sadly. excellent performance in 3D albeit.

Didn't Cobalt folks sue Apple once??

[aztektum]

Didn't the Cobalt Qube folks sue Apple over the G4 cube because they thought it was too close to resembling the Qube?

Re:Didn't Cobalt folks sue Apple once??

[Scudsucker]

That would be fairly retarded of them, as the Mac Cube came after Jobs return, and Jobs had previously made a cube at Next.

Re:Didn't Cobalt folks sue Apple once??

[aztektum]

No one ever said the world was full of geniuses.

Innovation vs. Commodity market

[rsborg]

At one time, Compaq, Dell, and even Microsoft could be expected to innovate. Just look at the original Armada. Visual Basic 3.0. the Pre-inspiron laptops. Ya, they weren't the best products ever, but they were very innovative, industry-changing ideas at the time.

And look how they were rewarded... when someone came out with something cheaper that had similar innovations, they stole the market. Thus the reward for innovation in a highly commoditized PC market is *much much* lower than for the Apple market. Thus it's reasonable why the PC market players have no motivation for innovation. However, it's not until now that they're paying the price for lack of innovation. We'll have to see if their response can keep people from moving away from the PC platform.

haha, thats a funny sentence

[geekoid]

"And you should probably learn to read what other people are saying."

Neat trick, the best I can do is learn to read what other people have written.

this is, of cousr, just a funny observation, not a comment on your point, this is also an abuse of commas.

Re:haha, thats a funny sentence

[pyros]

you know, I spent a good 30 seconds pondering whether or not to correct it before posting, but thought it would follow the existing thread better if I left it that way. Anyway, I can't believe I got an informative mod for my post.

Re:Lian-Li

[loraksus]

You'd have a bit more credibility if your fucking links worked...

Marketing is more than ads and spin...

[podperson]

"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."

The Amiga was badly marketed in a lot of ways beyond not spending money on advertising. 1) you couldn't get good displays for it (as in displays you'd want to work at for significant lengths of time, 2) you couldn't get good business software for it (e.g. it didn't have a decent word-processor or spreadsheet).

Marketing sometimes means figuring out what customers want or need and then selling it to them in an attractive package (image, price, perceived value, etc.). Commodore never really did that (with the Amiga -- they did it with the C64).

$300k per seat in Silicon Valley

[peter303]

Its more like $300K = $140K average engineer salary plus 100% overhead for facilities and benefits. In India you can get $50K engineers, including overhead.

Mac Mini doesn't come with a fricken' monitor!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

In response...

[rjung2k]

What the hell is wrong with you people? Why do you insist on producing cheap-looking ugly shite?

And the partners respond,

To match the cheap-ass underperforming shite you give us for the insides.

Re:Already done...

[pressman]

Actually, Apple didn't copy XEROX PARC's research at all. They flat out used it as it and improved upon it. XEROX didn't see a use for either mouse or GUI technology, so they gave Apple permission to use it.

Intel Builds Latest....

[feloneous cat]

In wristwatches. Granted, it won't fit onto your wrist, but man, it looks just like a Mac Mini!

How cool is THAT?!?!

(Remote is optional and also contains a wristwatch).

i'm gooing to get flamed, but...

[sum.zero]

i'm sick of the wintel copies apple garbage.

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].

both "sides" innovate AND copy each other. it's just good business.

sum.zero

Re:i'm gooing to get flamed, but...

[Scudsucker]

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.

Wow!

[im_thatoneguy]

Computers are getting smaller! I *NEVER* saw that coming!

One could argue the mini is a rip off of the multitude of ITX and Shuttle designs. I would hardly call selling a small PC one of Mac's greatest innovations, more in line with their shuffle release. Old product, new package, mediocre performance.

FUD

[kuzb]

"Intel Flaunts Mac mini Knock-off"

Come on, this is so much FUD it's amazing. I mean, just because apple comes out with a small footprint box, that means that nobody else is allowed to do it?

There have been *many* small footprint PCs in the past, including the mini-itx boards, and the nano-itx boards at costs acceptable to those on shoestring a budget. They've been around a lot longer than the mac mini too. Perhaps we should be looking at who apple took the idea from instead of immediatly jumping on others because they released one around the same time apple did.

Forgive me for saying so, but it all screams of the standard apple zealotry I've come to expect.

Re:FUD

[Scudsucker]

I mean, just because apple comes out with a small footprint box, that means that nobody else is allowed to do it?

With what looks to be the exact same color and form factor?

Perhaps we should be looking at who apple took the idea from instead of immediatly jumping on others because they released one around the same time apple did.

Two words: Mac Cube. Now how about a nice, warm cup of stfu?

Forgive me for saying so, but it all screams of the standard apple zealotry I've come to expect.

And you're an anti-Apple zealot. Whoop de do.

Re:FUD

[eluusive]

If you're going to use the acronym FUD, at least use it correctly. It's an acronym and it stands for Fear Uncertainty and Doubt. So which part of that are they spreading again? FUD is what SCO does, this is not FUD.

Re:FUD

[radiojock]

I was at IDF, first, It does look like the mini-me, but, unlike the mini, it's designed as a set-top box, Secondly, it's not even the same color.... For those of you who are screaming "knock-off" well does anybody remeber the cappucino machine? if anything $teve J0b$ ripped off the cappucino machine... Well looks like apple is gonna lose again :)

Re:FUD

[kuzb]

And you're an anti-Apple zealot. Whoop de do.

Not at all - if you want to use a Mac, that's fine by me. But please, quit trying to make it look like apple is the only company that does anything right. While you're at it, quit trying to make it look like they're the only company who invents anything. Apple has "borrowed" it's fair share of ideas. A smaller box isn't exactly a new concept. Drinking your own cup of STFU might be in order.

Re:FUD

[kuzb]

I'd say the article as it is written on the front page is entirely FUD. They're making it look like intel blatantly ripped apple off. I'll have to remember not to store my things in the same size cardboard box you do, I sure wouldn't want to be accused of ripping off your storage idea.

Re:imitation

[kilfarsnar]

Please provide support for small form factor (akin to the Mini) PC's being "all the rage". They have existed for many years, yes, but they still represent a slice of the PC world. Apple has historically had success with form factors that never caught on in the PC world (eg. all-in-one Mac Classic, iMac, etc). I would not be surprised if Apple succeeds with the Mac Mini, while this new Intel box fades into memory. Because, as you say, it's nothing new in the PC world.

Re:imitation

[kilfarsnar]

I just read that back. Jeez, can I say "PC World" one more time?? ;-P

Innovation?

[DeVilla]

I've seen a number of post blasting Intel for constantly ripping off Apple's innovative ideas. I guess I'd like to know, how is making a gumball of a computer that matches your eyes and complements your shoes innovation? I'm not say Intel is any less of a ripoff artist, just that is sounds more like fashion than innovation to me.

Re:Innovation?

[2nd Post!]

Why are we talking about the original iMac, again?

Let me list the things they've done SINCE, as innovations:

Software, first
iMovie: Turning Joe Everyman into their own director and producer.
iDVD: Turning Joe Everyman into their own DVD factory
iTunes: For introducing to the world the concepts of database driven music libraries
GarageBand: Turning Joe Everyman into their own digital band

Hardware, next
iPod: The first true portable music library. It can count as ancestors the Creative Nomad (about the size of a Mac mini) and the PJB100 (about the size of a paperback book). The iPod, in comparison, was the size of a deck of cards, could be filled to capacity in 10 minutes instead of 10 hours because of Firewire, and could be used with one hand.
Wifi: They definitely didn't invent it, but they made it available, quickly, on all their hardware, they built in antennas into all their machines, and they built in first class support in their OS. It took years for others to build antennas, software, and hardware support into their laptops.
Firewire: In a world of USB, Apple decided to design, release, and adopt Firewire; easily 10-50 times faster, it was the computer that was the bottleneck and not the interface. USB2 wasn't available for WindowsXP until SP1 in 2002. Firewire was available on the first iMac by the end of 1999.
XServe: One of the worlds most cost effective OEM supercomputer cluster nodes; dual 64bit CPUs with vector processing units at 2.3GHz for $3k
iPod mini: If you thought the iPod was small, the mini was smaller still, and before any of their competitors.

Others, last
iTMS: They created the first music store where for $1 you could burn your purchased music to CD an unlimited number of times, upload to an unlimited number of iPods, and listen to on 5 computers; all other stores limited you to only listening to one computer, none allowed you to upload to an mp3 player, and non allowed you to burn to CD.

So do you really think Apple hasn't had any innovations since 1998, when they released the colored iMacs?

ok, better explanation about mystery firewire

[johnpaul191]

it's not literally a FireWire plug, but an unused connector on a card near the back of the Mac Mini... and the Mini already has FW on the back.

here are some pictures and info.....
http://www.lbodnar.dsl.pipex.com/macmini/macmini_i pod.html

i have one of the G4 Sawtooth machines with the odd FW plug on the motherboard. if i did not have my machine sideways on my desk i would have run a little extension to put the port on the front panel (i don't have the internal Zip drive in the extra bay). i guess it was never officially explained, but i guess Apple thought internal FW drives might catch on or something.

Quit it already.

[Shivetya]

Your arguments validity ended the moment you compared other offerings to Yugo's. You did not read a single damn thing I wrote, you simply flew off the handle into a fanatic tizzy.

Apple is delivering good quality but I disagree on the price point. They are delivering the best quality THEY have offered at this price point. You are not buying a whole system here and this is my point. Everyone I suggested a mac mini too wants a COMPLETE system. At that point the mini is not appealing. Too many of these people do not want to reuse equipment let alone have to pick the stuff out.

To become the commodity that they are PCs had to become package deals. This is why I think Apple needs to bundle the Mini with pieces people expect. The geeks aren't going to care, they can still buy the box by itself. Yet the majority are going to skip right past it because it isn't a system OUT OF THE BOX.

If the Window's PCs were not delivering the experience people expects then why hasn't Apple already made a comeback? You want the reason, its because APPLE isn't delivering the expected experience. It gets hyped beyond what it can truly support. These very same people here its a godsend to computing yet most NEVER see the result they expected.

Geeks are fed up with the status quo, but guess what most focus that energy into building their own machines, they are not going to go out and buy an Apple. I can only think of one Linux person among the techies I know who even considered it. Most just laughed and say "why bother, I use linux".

Apple needs to deliver a complete system for $699 that the public can take home, plug it all in per a pull out sheet, and use immediately. None of this "do I need what cable" or "having to swap cables around because they don't know what a KVM is" and other such BS. The mini is a geek toy, it has no real appeal to the average "windows" PC user, let alone one frustrated by it. I know a lot of people who can put up with a whole helluva lot of frustration before spending $500 to get over it. The same people harp about the price of the mini yet spend a 100 or so on cable/satellite or their cell. Do you understand that? How do you get them to see a picture that isn't there?

Re:Quit it already.

[Johnny Mozzarella]

I read your full post and completely disagree.

"Everyone I suggested a mac mini too wants a COMPLETE system."

Utter B.S. Apple's market research showed that PC owners do NOT want complete systems. Most have spent big bucks on a 17-19" LCD and do NOT want to buy another one. Several PC users I know are craving a Mac mini but kicking themselves because they just bought a PC less than a year ago.

"Geeks are fed up with the status quo, ... they are not going to go out and buy an Apple. I can only think of one Linux person among the techies I know who even considered it."

Welcome to Slashdot. You must be new here or have your head in the sand. Over the past couple years I've seen thousands of "I've switched from Linux to Mac" posts on these forums.

ignoramus

[Scudsucker]

Don't feel so clever, now do you?

wow I'm going to be posting this link a lot

[Scudsucker]

Sorry, Apple copied the PC when it comes to mini personal computers

Sorry, you're completely wrong, what a surprise.

And didn't Apple copy their stuff from Xerox PARC research to an astounding extent?

This turd was put to rest so long ago its not even funny anymore. Xerox got paid. Deal with it.

Apple

[Scudsucker]

And here's the proof. Not to mention that the Mini is a lot smaller than the smallest Shuttle.

Re:What a bunch of (f/t)ools

[kilfarsnar]

You definitely have a point, but I think that aesthetics can certainly play a part in a computer purchace. No, you don't walk into a store an pick the shiniest computer. But making something visually appealing makes it more appealing in general. Advertisers know this, and so does Apple. There are hot women in beer ad's. They have nothing to do with the beer, and you don't necessarily think about them in the store, but the image influences your thinking nonetheless. The auto industry works alot like this too; using imagery, styling, and suggestion to make cars more appealing.

In Apple's case, they are always looking for ways to differentiate themselves from other computers. Slick case design is a way to do this. Frankly, Apple's case design is often functionally superior as well, but I digress. Apple products have a reputation for being hip and cool. That makes them more appealing on an emotional level. And that does sell computers.

If they want to compete with Apple

[macintaz]

If they want to compete with Apple they need to get up pretty early in the morning

Everyone is going on about how small the Mac Mini is but we should be looking at how Small the iMac G5 is just 2 " thick and it has 3 fans and still very quite and its 64 bit

this is an amazing computer The main bulk of the iMac is the with and height of the screen 17" that is of top quality that would cost you about $450 online to get the same quality

It comes with the keyboard and Mouse (I know its a one Button Mouse Stop Bitchen)

All this for $1300 bucks take it out of the box plug it in to the wall and it works

No Im not saying you can't build it cheaper and or Faster but it cant be easier then that

You cant buy a complete System CPU Monitor (High Quality Not a Cheapo one) Keyboard and Mouse

I'm not even going to add the Software that you get with it just look at the Hardware

Just my two cents

Re:none of Mac mini benefits is a good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

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 ?

My experiences...

[runamok1]

This is probably good advice. I could go rant about how installing programs is not very intuitive on the Mac. But as you said, that's because I am used to windows with registry entries, 1000 DLL files, etc.

My Mac using friend downloaded the firefox binary (I believe it was a .DMG) and clicked it.

This essentially created a virtual CD on his desktop that included the Firefox executable.

He had no idea why, but if he deleted the original DMG file he could not run firefox anymore.

So I ended up dragging the firefox executable to the Applications folder and then dragged a "shortcut" to the Dock.

It was fairly intuitive to a geek but not so much for a non-geek. Not sure if this is standard practice for installing files.

Re:What a load of tosh

[Scudsucker]

small computers aren't new guys!!

Right, Apple came out with one back in 2000. Don't feel so clever now, eh?

i think you should reread my post...

[sum.zero]

i said "copies." the quote you reference and your response is out of context.

and do you seriously think apple is the only company to produce innovative technologies and products? lots of companies do, on both "side", as i said before.

sum.zero

Emily

[kris_lang]

Bravo!

I read what you write.

I like what you write. I agree with your point in its entirety.

try Asus

[Nailer]

Asus produce iBooks, or Powerbooks (I forget) for Apple and their own branded laptops are as close as you can get to Apple's.

That's not a lunch box design

[Tired and Emotional]

A lunch box computer has an inbuilt screen, a detachable keyboard that clips onto the front of the box when not in use, and is capable of accepting regular boards and disks. The first lunchbox computer was the HP Pisces back around 1985 (it ran Unix too!)

Its a very useful form factor that nobody seems to make anymore since it gives you portability with high performance and expandibility.

Yes, but I don't need to

[Nailer]

The Mac Mini isn't exactly a unique design. Its a small silver box, with a white top. Thee have been many other small silver box computers. You could argue its a smaller version of a shuttle case.

Since most OSX users seems to be angry zealots, I'd like to point out I own a Mac Mini lest you attack me.

Re:Yes, but I don't need to

[Caspian]

You'd be an angry zealot too if some Johnny-come-lately with the personal appeal of a sea slug came in, copied your ideas, renamed the "Trash Can" to the "Recycling Bin", renamed the "Finder" to the "Explorer", and convinced hundreds of millions of people to buy your software on no valid technical basis.

Re:Yes, but I don't need to

[Nailer]

You work for Xerox?

Re:Yes, but I don't need to

[Caspian]

Touche!

think again

[idlake]

Yours is a predictable but incorrect resopnse. The G4 cube is also a fairly small machine, but it uses vertical boards and a vertical drive. The G4 Cube lasted less than a year in the market. Not until Apple copied the design of the various compact PCs did they succeed in this form factor. It's actually evidence that Apple had a previous chance at this market and screwed up.

Actually...

[Draconix]

The formatting issues are the fault of Windows. A text document created on a mac will look fine on pretty much any OS... except Windows, while text document created on Windows may look like shit on OS X... and every other operating system that isn't Windows. And one really shouldn't send documents cut and pasted into emails, because you will run into formatting issues depending on what mail client you use, and what you use to send the mail, and so on. Attach it as a .rtf or .doc file, and it'll work fine on OS X and Windows.

Zuh?

[Ayanami Rei]

Subarus are known for being long-lasting and reliable. I can't really say the same for _current_ Mercedes. And why would you want to pass a car on to your children in this day and age? It won't have any of the standard features cars 20 years from now should have in a car in that price range.

Clock speed?

[skingers6894]

This is a box with a clock glued on the front. What do you think the clock-speed of this sucker is? On the positive side, the most reliable OS with an Intel box yet.

Re:Clock speed?

[macintaz]

How many clock cycles does it loose a year?? Just my two cents

Re:Mac Mini doesn't come with a fricken' monitor!!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Mac Mini doesn't come with a fricken' monitor!!

[starrsoft]

You're right. One nitpick, you said: "It's not bare bones, it's fairly full featured" He's not talking about features here, he's talking about mouse, keyboard, monitor. He means barebones as in just the box. What he said:

"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?"

Re:What Benifit?

[anagama]

Good post, but one quibble. Macs do have games. At least for casual "gamers" like me. I don't quite feel right calling myself any kind of gamer, but so be it. Right now, I'm in the middle of playing CSI on my PB. Truth is, the only game I've really had much interest in since the mid 90s is Civilization, and that's available for Mac. I also have the standard KDE card games set up on the PB as well. So, for my admitedly low key needs, my PB is way more of a game machine than any of my Linux machines. And if I really want anything more, I do have a PS2 (but I should sell it due to lack of use).

Interesting thing about CSI, it's basically a text adventure with pictures. I was watching the captions and it occurred to me that I could have just as much fun playing a text adventure in Terminal, and it wouldn't cost $30. That's what I'll do next.

I suppose I would modify your "no games" comment to be something like "no games suitable for teenage boys". But then, someone would argue that for all intents and purposes, that equates to "no games". C'est la vie.

Re:Microsoft has a head start

[ablair]

#1. Microsoft has already flooed the market;

#2. The XBox already costs MS more than USD$300 to produce.

Re:Memo to Dumbass:

[idsofmarch]

What are you 12?

Apple has 2% of marketshare for lots of really complicated reasons having to do with market forces, the state of IBM, the technology inherent in the Macintosh during its first years, etc. it's not just because of lame ass and popular opinion.

I use Macs because Windows is a piece of shit, a lame series of shells that can't help but be buggy, difficult, and ugly. Not because it was trendy, but because the Mac OS has always been useful.

And wow, critiques of individualism coming from a Windows fan-boy that's worth a bag of snot.

I think you like PCs because that's what your parents and friends use, because that's what you're used to and you can't wrap your mind around anything else, like FreeBSD, UNIX, Linux, etc.

And by the way, why are you so uncomfortable with yourself that you're so worried about being in "an art class surrounded by fags?" Maybe you're just a dumb hick who secretly loves Will and Grace. An art class would probably do you some good. Maybe you'd learn something.

Re:Mac Mini doesn't come with a fricken' monitor!!

[jedidiah]

...except it comes with only a 20G harddrive.

Upgrading it will be an expensive proposition or you will end up with some mess that is the antithesis of the minimac form factor.

It doesn't need to be "this small". It's a slight marginal improvement on where PC's were 4 years ago and those PC's didn't sucker you into overpriced upgrades.

You sound so intelligent.

[i41Overlord]

I'm joking- you don't.

Apple has 2% of marketshare for lots of really complicated reasons having to do with market forces, the state of IBM, the technology inherent in the Macintosh during its first years, etc. it's not just because of lame ass and popular opinion.

Of course. When you don't agree with the simple truth, make it sound like the truth is actually in your favor, but in an overly-complicated, totally abstract, completely unprovable way. Gotcha.

I use Macs because Windows is a piece of shit, a lame series of shells that can't help but be buggy, difficult, and ugly. Not because it was trendy, but because the Mac OS has always been useful.

So you say that I sound like I'm 12 because I don't like Macs, then you proceed to spew out this nonsense as if it's any better.

I think you like PCs because that's what your parents and friends use, because that's what you're used to and you can't wrap your mind around anything else, like FreeBSD, UNIX, Linux, etc.

I was into computers long before my parents were. I started with a C64, then moved into PC's. Macs were at my school but I just didn't like them. I gave them a shot later on but they kept the look and feel that repulsed me from them in the first place. My laptop runs RedHat. It's neat but it's just not as practical as Windows. I fiddle with it because it's something different to learn, but when I want work done I use Windows.

Re:Mac Mini doesn't come with a fricken' monitor!!

[storo]

As a long time pc user / professional developer and recent purchaser of a mini-mac, its actually a decent spec budget machine once you include 512mb memory and higher speed cpu / 80gb drive - around $700.

Many budget PC machines also require many options to get them to a decent spec level and the included software on the mini-mac is comparable to XP pro rather than XP home edition.

The performance of the hardware / software combination is good for many everyday tasks (other than 3d gaming due to the choice of video) and the OS is full featured rather than budget quality.

The built in Safari browser is somewhat slow compared to IE on the PC or FireFox, but FireFox on Mac OS offers much better performance than Safari.

The OS has many nice ease of use features without all the trial editon versions found in typical budget PC configurations. Sme tasks such as file searching are much faster due to aggressive caching despite the relatively low spec 4200 pm drives (some machines have included 5200 drives but perhaps thats in the 40gb spec machine)

Graphics quality is superb for non gaming usage - very good font, visual presentation and document layout support. However it's a pity Apple did not incude a reasonable cost but more powerful 3d video configuraton such as the ATI 9600 mobile graphics chipset.

One disappointing area is the much touted stability - realistically Windows XP is very stable when using brand name hardware. While I have not noted any stability problems using the Mini-mac software, playing a scratched audio cd on the Mini-mac can result overall slowdown problems that reuire a reboot to sort out - I am new to the Mac so perhaps it's some setting that I need to configure.

While this is not going to replace my much higher spec ( and significantly more costly) XP configuration machines, its a good Mac OS / unix box in a nicely designed small form factor for the price.

The small and quiet form factor is a bonus if you want to have a machine for home entertainment integration or need to fit an additional machine in a small office or home space. While the shuttle pc form factor is small, it does not get as quiet and still requires much more space.

I am not going to weigh in on which OS is better but I am impressed with the overall Mac experience.

correction: I *am* for innovation

[lambwolf]

An understandable mistake if you're not a native English speaker.

Lunchbox PCs? Great idea!

[Lizzy_Bee]

If only I still had my lunchbox from elementary school. I figure 'the lunchbox already has a handle, and Shuttle makes a 17" LCD with a built-in handle...the makings of a frag box?" Oh...and think of how easy it'd be to get into the "case," for upgrades/maintenance. :) Cheers! Lizzy

Best. Response. Ever.

[nsayer]

Intel appears to have even built a prototype.

Frankly, your posts need work...

[idsofmarch]

...because you end up sounding narrow-minded and immature.

So you say that I sound like I'm 12 because I don't like Macs, then you proceed to spew out this nonesense as if it's any better

I didn't call you 12 because you don't like Macs, I called you 12 because you--for all intensive purposes--called Mac users faggy art students. I think that's pretty immature. And I was offering an opinion, hence IMHO; we can get into the specific and numerous reasons Windows sucks and you can defend it all you want. But, that wasn't really my point.

Of course. When you don't agree with the simple truth, make it sound like the truth is actually in your favor, but in an overly-complicated, totally abstract, completely unprobable way.

History is always complicated, but I will direct you to daringfireball.netfor succint history of the reasons the Macintosh was not accepted into businesses and in large numbers by home users. And there are lots of business histories that tell the story even better. And yeah, history is complex, not the simple dipole you need it to be; deal with it.

I was into computers long before my parents were...

Fine, cheap shot, but your attitude needs work, your posts are all acerbic attacks supporting Windows. Fine, you like Windows, especially XP--that's great--but don't just attack other people calling them fags, sheep, etc. because they disagree with you. Grow up.

'Nuff said.

Re:Microsoft has a head start

[EXrider]

Win2K?! Why not put WinXP on it... Oh yeah, 'cause that 700Mhz PIII with 64MB of PC133 RAM is TEH SUCK . Running anything more than Win98, or Linux + Xfce on there would be pure evil.

Yeah, everyone's bitching how the mini doesn't have enough grunt to play Doom 3, or playback 1080i HDTV streams; Just wait 'till they get their hands on the awesome power that is the 700MHz PIII and 64MB of RAM Xbox for $300.

Tell me what "multimedia possibilites" would the Xbox have? If Microsoft tried to sell the current spec Xbox for $300 a pop, I'm pretty sure it would get ignored, and laughed at hard around here.

Now, throw a centrino chipset (Minus it's shitty video), 256MB of DDR, and decent video in something a bit smaller than the Xbox, for $150 less than the mini (With Windows), now that would have the potential to compete with the mini. I'll believe it when I see it. If it has a PCI slot for a tuner card, and is available without windows, for $75 less, I'll buy one.

Let the Xbox stick to what it's good at, being a game console.

Re:Mac Mini doesn't come with a fricken' monitor!!

[Alpha_Traveller]

Ah, slight nitpick... the Hard Drive is 40GB. You're off by 20GB. This is more than enough space for a Macintosh that would be used by someone who is focusing on reading email, writing documents and a few basic issues of why you'd by a small PC in the first place. You're not buying it to crunch numbers, you're buying it to be 'basically useful' to you.

Personally, I think Apple's done the right thing at exactly the right time. There are so many viruses, trojans, etc on the PC side of the house and virtually none on the mac side by comparison -that makes a lot of PC users and the media stand up and take notice. Finally Apple simplicity and anonymity pays off, and you really don't need to do much at all, just plunk down $499 and cannibalize the PC garbage lying around the house to escape the MS-Insanity.

The $499 version specs:

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
AirPort Extreme and Bluetooth optional