Slashdot Mirror


Free Software on a Cheap Computer

Shell writes "Is this the solution to free software on a cheap computer? NetBSD and Yellow Dog Linux have both begun to support the Mac Mini. This article from IBM looks at open source operating system options on this new contender in the embedded PowerPC platform space." From the article: "This article looks at the current state of Linux and NetBSD support on the Mini. If you need all the hardware and options fully supported, these open source options won't do it for you ... yet. But, if all you need is a stable kernel, a C compiler, and network support, the code is high-quality and the price is unbeatable." This is part two in the series. Part One was covered a while back.

625 comments

  1. OS included? by WilyCoder · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is it possible to get a mini without the apple OS?

    If you can't, then whats the point? You've already paid for an OS....

    1. Re:OS included? by lederhosen · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The sam could be said for most winboxes.

      The answer is that you can get a _free_ os with 64-bit support.

    2. Re:OS included? by ciroknight · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The computer's so cheap, Apple's pretty much undercutting themselves in the OS's cost. Those machines probably cost every bit of 2-300$ to build, which would pretty much say the entire profit margin goes to selling their operating system. Apple is a software company, that just so happens to expect the best when it comes to hardware and peripherials.

      --
      "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
    3. Re:OS included? by cowscows · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That's what I was thinking. Anyone who's got needs so specific that, as the article write up says, they don't include the full functionality of the hardware; well, if that's you, you're probably capable of building your own systems for a even cheaper.

      The mac mini is cool and all, but it's not the first solution to cheap machine with free software. Maybe the first powerPC machine, maybe the first that has a the fancy case design, but that's about it. This is not going to be the piece of hardware that finally brings linux to the third world masses. You'd have to bring the price down quite a bit more for that.

      --

      One time I threw a brick at a duck.

    4. Re:OS included? by lederhosen · · Score: 2, Informative

      of course g4 is 32 bit, but people say the same about g5 systems

    5. Re:OS included? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm with you on that. This is a solution in search of a problem.

    6. Re:OS included? by AaronBrethorst · · Score: 3, Informative

      Bullshit. Apple is a hardware company that happens to need to make software in order to move their pretty plastic boxes (and I am typing this on my iBook G4, FWIW).

      --
      No, but I used to work for Microsoft.
    7. Re:OS included? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i agree, whats the point, unless a PPC can be bought without going thru Apple...

    8. Re:OS included? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Redundant

      It's for people like me who like Apple HW, but think that OS/X sucks. If you don't like it, don't use it and STFU.

    9. Re:OS included? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Dude, just because Debian id my favorite OS and just because I know how to build a computer doesn't mean I can't afford paying someone else to do the dirty work. Stop stereotyping.

    10. Re:OS included? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      and might i call BS again? apple is both. they were the pioneers of many software innovations, and they make some of the most stable, brilliantly designed hardware systems on the market today. they don't just make Mac OS X, iLife, Final Cut Pro, DVD Studio Pro, Logic, Motion, etc. so their boxes would sell. they could sell those machines (with x86 processors) with windows on them and still make a killing. but they are hardware AND software innovators, and make quite a bit of money doing both. last time i checked, they were billions out of the hole, and had $5.2 billion in cash alone, no debt. thats more than can be said about a lot of PC-based companies.

    11. Re:OS included? by ciroknight · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Odd, you know what motivated me to buy one of their pretty plastic boxes (iBook G4 as well)? iTunes.

      I was so impressed on how well iTunes worked for me, though not being perfect, it seemlessly worked with my iPod and my crappy Riothingy I had at the time. When time came to buy a laptop for college, I looked at my options and saw OS X. Now, I'd seen OS X before; 10.0 disks came with my teacher's G4 desktop (our school's video editing machine), but it wasn't quite the beast I was looking at on Apple's website. I thought, "an entire operating system, as seemless as iTunes, as crashproof as OS X, and good battery life on their laptops." I was sold.

      I would have NEVER considered an Apple product had it not been for OS X 10.3. 10.0 was fine and dandy, but it seemed sluggish, nothing seemed to work quite the way it should have, and required expensive hardware to run on. OS X 10.3, however, was stylish, integrated, things Just Work(tm)ed and on top of it all, it was a HELL of a lot cheaper than the Wintel laptop I considered (1300 w/ educational deal, plus 69 for another iPod, vs 2100 for the Dell I would have otherwise got [centrino]).

      --
      "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
    12. Re:OS included? by jericho4.0 · · Score: 5, Funny

      I call BS on all three of you. Apple is a magical place, staffed by gnomes, that sells hardware, software, and drugs to children.

      --
      "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
    13. Re:OS included? by bonch · · Score: 5, Informative

      Except that the Mac mini isn't a 64-bit G5.

    14. Re:OS included? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I call BS on all you four. An apple is a piece of fruit.

    15. Re:OS included? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for the laugh. :)

    16. Re:OS included? by jacksonj04 · · Score: 1

      I'm with you on this, I'm currently looking at getting a Mac simply because iTunes and iPod are so slick at working together, and given Apple's reputation for keeping on at something until they get it right (along with a quick prod at OS X) I think it's safe to assume everything is just seamless.

      --
      How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
    17. Re:OS included? by pvera · · Score: 1

      And OS X can run a lot of BSD stuff without too much work.

      --
      Pedro
      ----
      The Insomniac Coder
    18. Re:OS included? by amonredotorg · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Mind reader.

      1. Installing Linux or BSD takes time and experience; Mac OS X comes preinstalled.
      2. You can run most Linux/BSD software on Mac OS X. X11 comes preinstalled, too.
      3. Mac OS X doesn't lack any package management systems: Fink, DarwinPorts and now even Gentoo MacOS.
      4. No need to compile and install drivers for any devices you have. They are preinstalled.
      5. If you don't like the Mac OS X GUI, run X11 with your favourite window manager in fullscreen. It works perfectly.
      6. You can easily use X11 and the Mac OS X GUI at the same time. It works perfectly, too.

      The list goes on.

      "Free Software on a Cheap Computer" doesn't mean getting rid of Mac OS X, dammit.

    19. Re:OS included? by Jicksta · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Bullshit, Bullshit, Bullshit, Bullshit, Bullshit!

      Everybody knows Apple doesn't exist...

    20. Re:OS included? by John+Seminal · · Score: 1
      Is it possible to get a mini without the apple OS?

      If you can't, then whats the point? You've already paid for an OS....

      Plus, if you have the Apple OS, why go through the trouble of installing linux on the computer? The Apple OS has more support for more things right now. Or am I missing something?

      The sweet thing about linux is it's free, and if you are stuck without an OS you have something.

      --

      Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."

    21. Re:OS included? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Free Software on a Cheap Computer" doesn't mean getting rid of Mac OS X, dammit.

      Yes it does. Mac OS X isn't Free Software in the FSF sense, and it isn't free software in the no-cost sense. You still pay for it, it's just that it's included in the price of a Mac Mini.

      You might argue that there's no point in replacing it when you already own it, but that doesn't make it free or Free.

    22. Re:OS included? by Anne+Honime · · Score: 1
      In my humble opinion, it may be a good idea when you have already stacks of other architectures, to have a single OS for maintenance easiness.

      For instance, here, I've got 3 Sun, 2 x86, 1 alpha... if I ever buy a mac, there are good chances it ends up with a linux of some sort.

      Also, some free OS are better suited to some tasks (like making big clusters) and the cheap price of the mini makes it interesting to build such a cluster.

    23. Re:OS included? by duffbeer703 · · Score: 5, Informative

      "...it was a HELL of a lot cheaper than the Wintel laptop I considered (1300 w/ educational deal, plus 69 for another iPod, vs 2100 for the Dell I would have otherwise got [centrino])."

      That's like saying that a Honda Civic is better than a Bentley because the Civic costs $13k and the Bentley $130k.

      A $1300 iBook is a much lower end machine in comparison to a $2100 centrino machine. The Dell you compared had a bigger, higher resolution screen, faster CPU, more memory and hard disk.

      Mac hardware is excellent, but more expensive -- you could get a laptop similar to your iBook for about $300 less.

      I'm buying a Powerbook when Tiger is released, understanding that I'm paying a premium over what I would pay for another functionally similar Thinkpad T42 or T43.

      --
      Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
    24. Re:OS included? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My iMac didn't come with any drugs. Neither did my iPod. I've been ripped off!

    25. Re:OS included? by Lord+Kano · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I would have NEVER considered an Apple product had it not been for OS X 10.3.

      I stopped buying Apple right before OS 9.0 was released. When Apple decided that "beige was bad", no one should make clones and everything had to be clear plastic, I lost interest.

      The Mac Mini is the first piece of Apple hardware that I have seriously considered buying since Steve Jobs returned.

      It was a smart move. Now that there are linux distros trying to add support for the new hardware, it's just looking more attractive.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    26. Re:OS included? by d34thm0nk3y · · Score: 1

      Is it possible to get a mini without the apple OS?

      The sam could be said for most winboxes.


      The difference being that it IS possible to get a PC without an OS but it is NOT possible to do so for an Apple.

    27. Re:OS included? by argent · · Score: 2, Informative

      And OS X can run a lot of BSD stuff without too much work.

      Yeh, it's a checkbox in the installer.

    28. Re:OS included? by ciroknight · · Score: 4, Informative

      At the time, the machine I compared it against had a smaller HD (40gb vs the 60 in my iBook), a faster processor (1.8 centrino), the same amount of memory, and a bit better screen resolution (15" display, 1280x760 or something really weird like that), and a bit of a better warrantee (3 years, which I guess I have the option of getting with Apple; Dell wanted to force it down my throat. Also, take in account this was before Dell was giving away the world with their machines..). The thing is, I wouldn't need that much power if the damned operating system that came with it (Windows XP Pro, another few bucks on the price, regardless) would simply do its job and not require as fancy hardware. Yes, I evaluated Linux as a possibility; I run Linux on my desktop machine at home, simply because it's a bit older, and all of the stuff that came with it (by the graces of a few donating coders in the world) was supported. I knew if I got a laptop, I wouldn't be so lucky. Also keep in mind I only evaluated Dell; by the time I saw Panther, I was sold.

      --
      "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
    29. Re:OS included? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the mini has a 32 bit processor and is limited to 1GB of RAM. What's the point of a 64bit OS here? Besides, wait two weeks when Tiger will be out.

    30. Re:OS included? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Dell is also a few pounds heavier, with significantly less battery life (3 hours vs. 6)

    31. Re:OS included? by croddy · · Score: 1, Flamebait
      people keep saying that all my Unix/Linux apps work "just fine" on OS X -- but have you tried them? Gentoo/MacOS is horribly broken, and Fink is not too far ahead -- probably because OS X's filesystem layout is so bizarre (not to mention the strange executable formats Apple have grafted onto the OS).

      apple's X11 implementation is sluggish and flaky compared to native offerings, and its default Aqua toolkit is not exposed to developers except through apple's non-standard Cocoa and Carbon frameworks.

      certainly, OS X has a nice kernel and they've got most of the BSD userspace tools working fine on it -- but for a serious Unix, OS X is just not quite there, yet.

    32. Re:OS included? by Elranzer · · Score: 0, Troll

      Funny how NetBSD seems to work on toasters, wristwatches and Gameboys just fine, but it took them *this* long to get it to work on the Mac Mini, which is an actual computer.

    33. Re:OS included? by croddy · · Score: 1

      also.... no /proc filesystem. seriously, wtf...???

    34. Re:OS included? by qengho · · Score: 1


      Apple is a software company, that just so happens to expect the best when it comes to hardware and peripherials.

      BZZZT! Apple is a hardware company (check out the third row of slides) that's in the enviable position of being able to control the software that runs on its products.

    35. Re:OS included? by RoLi · · Score: 1, Interesting
      If you can't, then whats the point?

      The point is that KDE supports multiple desktops and MacOSX doesn't.

      The point is that KDE supports Unix-style copy/paste (pasting with MMB, and yes MacOS-style is also supported) and MacOSX doesn't.

      The point is that I can have partially overlapped active windows in KDE and not in MacOSX (and neither in Windows btw.)

      The point is it is impoosible in MacOSX (at least the version I tried which was IIRC 10.2) to switch off all animations (for example I could choose between 2 minimize-animation styles, but I couldn't turn them off)

      The point is that Konqueror has a great session management, which means after logging in all windows are loaded at the exact positions and geometries and on the correct desktops just like they were when logging off. (I must admit that I didn't try Safari though, but since neither Mozilla nor IE have it, I doubt that Safari has session management. And Opera's session management sucks because it supports just one window (and also isn't aware of desktops))

      In KDE I can jump a scrollbar with middle-click, not so in MacOSX.

      Yes, I know that MacOSX is marketed and is supposed to be the most usable system out there. And indeed I was very impressed in the first 2 hours of use - but after you have seen all the shiny animations and they just slow you down. In day-to-day use I much prefer KDE over MacOSX even though I'm sure that MacOSX fares much better in demos.

    36. Re:OS included? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Free only in Stallman's perversion of the word. My time is worth something. I used to be a Debian zealot, but I got tired of it. I have better things to do than to futz around with random config files.

    37. Re:OS included? by gsasha · · Score: 1

      Well, I have just one comment to this (and please keep in mind that I write this on a Linux laptop). Screw session management! Seriously, I'd kill for a proper implementation of sleep functionality - in which case I wouldn't mind even a complete lack of session management - I'd boot the machine once in ... don't know ... minor OS release? And that's a thing that Macs invariably get right. No flames please, I'm still a Linux user.

    38. Re:OS included? by SA+Stevens · · Score: 1

      Well, I have some Sun Ultra 1 boxes here that were nearly free (they cost about the the same as the shipping and handling charge for a Mac Mini) and they run a Free OS called NetBSD/sparc64.

    39. Re:OS included? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. Steve Jobs quit selling cocaine in the late 80's, and he quit selling it to children soon after the Apple IIe launch.

    40. Re:OS included? by Donny+Smith · · Score: 1


      Dell Dimension 4700 (Pentium4 2.8GHz) with a 17" monitor: $449 (after rebates)
      http://www1.us.dell.com/content/products /features. aspx/outrageous_desktops?c=us&cs=04&l=en&s=bsd

    41. Re:OS included? by sumin+k'adra · · Score: 2, Insightful

      AFAIK, fink has packages for KDE, ie you can run KDE on top of OS X ... same goes for Gnome and a couple other window managers http://fink.sourceforge.net/pdb/search.php?summary =kde

    42. Re:OS included? by galaxy300 · · Score: 4, Informative

      I disagree. I think Apple hardware is getting much more affordable. I feel pretty strongly that a G4 iBook at $999 (add $25 for an extra 256 MB RAM aftermarket) is one of the best deals out there.

      That may be because I just bought one, but I did my research first, including having a couple of other laptops at home to play around with. A laptop "similar" to the iBook for $300 less would simply be a cheap laptop, and that's *not* a good deal.

    43. Re:OS included? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The real question here is:

      Why would I give a crap about a free OS for a computer which already comes with a better one as a standard feature?

      I mean, if I'm building a cheap AMD tower for $300, then yes, load her up with Linux or BSD and save myself the "Microsoft Tax." By all means, great idea. I get a better OS, and save myself about a hundred bucks. Fantastic.

      But the mini already comes with an OS which not only works better than any of the free alternatives, but will run most "free" software (plus a lot of apps which a Linux box won't.) What would be the point, unless I'm a "free as in speech" Stallmanist cult member?

    44. Re:OS included? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And why should I jump through all those loops to get some half-assed Linux work-alike, when I can just install Debian and have a real Linux?

    45. Re:OS included? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's that goo between your heat-sink and the system on the G4 iMac. They say it's head-conductive grease, but that's just to throw off the feds. The Mac works fine without it.

      Open your Mac up and lick that stuff off. It's a trip like no other, man.

    46. Re:OS included? by Taladar · · Score: 1
      I run Linux on my desktop machine at home, simply because it's a bit older, and all of the stuff that came with it (by the graces of a few donating coders in the world) was supported. I knew if I got a laptop, I wouldn't be so lucky.
      I guess I must be hallucinating then. Here I was thinking the 2 1/2 year old laptop and the new one sitting next to me on the table were both running Linux exclusively with everything except the winmodem working flawlessly.
    47. Re:OS included? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a terrific comparison. I'd much rather have the new Honda Civic than a Bentley.

    48. Re:OS included? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And how much did that cost back when he was shopping for laptops?

      Dumbass.

    49. Re:OS included? by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      What the point? The Mac Mini is cheap! Show me a comparable system without an OS that's less expensive.

      Sometimes the value meal is cheaper than the hamburger and fries but no coke. So you buy the value meal and throw away the coke.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    50. Re:OS included? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes it does. Mac OS X isn't Free Software in the FSF sense

      Actually, as long as you don't load Aqua, it does.

      Boot to the command line, load up X11, and you can go on being a free ("libre") software bigot all you want without being a hypocrite.

      You'd still be an ass, sure, but at least not a hypocrite.

    51. Re:OS included? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congratulations. You are the first person I've ever meet who actually thinks switching a computer from OS X to Linux will make maintenance easier.

      Clicking on the button to accept those weekly software updates must be very confusing to you or something. I can just see you scrambling around for a way to minimize that window and load the console, so you can download and install this new tarball which the OS seems to be saying you need.

      "Goddammit! How the hell do you load up the package manager on this stupid piece of crap!? Why can't this be as easy as running Linux???"

    52. Re:OS included? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Boot to the command line, load up X11, and you can go on being a free ("libre") software bigot all you want without being a hypocrite.

      What makes you think that I am a Free Software bigot?

      Mac OS X is not Free Software. Some of its components might be, but Mac OS X is not.

    53. Re:OS included? by swillden · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Mac hardware is excellent, but more expensive -- you could get a laptop similar to your iBook for about $300 less.

      Depends on what you consider "similar".

      I bought my wife an iBook for Christmas and researched it pretty thoroughly. At the end, I decided that I was paying something of a premium for the Apple hardware, but it wasn't $300.

      First, if you want a small laptop (12") in the x86 world you're stepping into the realm of "ultralights", and they cost a lot more (and they're smaller and lighter than the iBook). My wife wanted small, but didn't need tiny, so in that respect I couldn't really find a truly comparable machine to her very specific needs.

      Beyond that, I looked at many laptops around $800 that had similar specifications to the iBook, so on paper I figure I paid a premium of about $200 (and I was okay with that, see below). However, I don't think that's quite true, either. The iBook is a better machine than those $800 x86 competitors, in lots of ways that don't show up in the typical list of features.

      One thing I noticed right away was the quickness that the machine resumes from sleep. That may be hardware-related, or it may be OS-related, I don't know, but it's very nice. From the moment you open the lid, the machine is ready to use in two seconds, tops.

      The sleek design is obviously another issue, one more important to my wife than it would be to me, but it is an issue. It's a pretty computer, and she likes that. You can get pretty x86 laptops also, but not for $800. It also has all sorts of other little goodies, like the design of the power adapter -- sleek, functional, clever -- the "heartbeat" sleep mode indicator, the battery status indicator build into the battey, etc.

      The machine also *feels* like a well-built piece of equipment, rather than some cheap POS. I don't know if that will translate into corresponding reliability, but I actually expect it will.

      All of that said, I still think I paid a bit of a premium for the Apple logo, but less than it would appear on paper.

      I did it because I knew that I absolutely did not want her to have a laptop running Windows. I had just eliminated the last Windows machine in my house, and I didn't want the support burden of adding another one. My Linux laptop is pretty high-maintenance, but that's because I choose to mess with it a lot. I pretty much ignore the rest of the Linux PCs in my house (server, media PC, my desktop, kids' desktop) except to run the occasional "apt-get upgrade", but I seemed to spend way too much time fixing Windows boxes when I had them. OS X has turned out to be as pleasantly low-maintenance as I expected. It requires a bit more than my Linux boxes but that's mainly because I don't know the OS as well.

      So from my maintenance-focused perspective, an x86 laptop running Linux would probably have been ideal, except that I'd have to be careful that all of the hardware had Linux drivers available. That, plus the fact that I haven't yet found a good Printshop-like application for Linux made me opt for the Mac. Oh, and the fact that the Mac came with Quicken (unfortunately, we later found out that Quicken for Mac sucks).

      On balance, she likes the iBook, and so do I (though I'd put Linux on it if it were mine), so I think it was a good purchase decision.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    54. Re:OS included? by RoLi · · Score: 0, Troll

      Does Fink support multiple desktops and Unix-style copy/paste?

    55. Re:OS included? by RoLi · · Score: 1
      Yes, I partly agree with you here.

      My point wasn't that KDE/Linux is better than MacOSX for everybody.

      My point is that KDE offers a lot of advantages over MacOSX that may make it a better choice for many. And you don't have to be a zealot or crazy in any way to find KDE better than MacOSX, there are a lot of objective things where KDE excels.

    56. Re:OS included? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The thing is, I wouldn't need that much power if the damned operating system that came with it (Windows XP Pro, another few bucks on the price, regardless) would simply do its job and not require as fancy hardware.

      I can maybe understand your problems about XP and its inability to do its job in regards to laptop HDs being slower. But for my desktop systems, I have Windows XP running on 500Mhz Pentium 3's numerous desktop systems at home, and it runs perfectly fine. You just gotta make sure you have 256MB or more memory for it to run snappy... but is that any different with any other desktop OS?

    57. Re:OS included? by Luke+Mewburn · · Score: 1
      but it took them *this* long to get it to work on the Mac Mini

      Just how long is "*this* long" ?

      If you'd RTFA, you'd see a link to a mailing list message showing the boot output of a Mac Mini, posted two days before the machine shipped.

    58. Re:OS included? by mrchaotica · · Score: 1
      The point is that KDE supports multiple desktops and MacOSX doesn't.
      Actually, there's a desktop manager for OS X, and I think it's pretty cool (but then again, I like eye-candy). However, after having tried it, I actually like Exposé better. It takes a little while to get used to, though.
      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    59. Re:OS included? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where did you get them? Please tell me! I want to get a cheap Sun Ultra 1 box too!

    60. Re:OS included? by Moofie · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hold on a second.

      UNIX-style copy and paste? You mean, totally inconsistent, different in every application, and generally useless? Hell, I HOPE MacOS doesn't support that.

      My car doesn't support square wheels either.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    61. Re:OS included? by macshit · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Plus, if you have the Apple OS, why go through the trouble of installing linux on the computer? The Apple OS has more support for more things right now.

      Sigh. If you don't really care what OS you're running, then sure, why not run OSX? If you want to use a device which requires proprietary drivers, then maybe you have to.

      But some of us do care, don't like Apple's GUI (the main reason somebody would want to run OSX), don't need to use proprietary devices, and are clueful enough that installing a new OS is Not A Problem.

      So ... why not install a nicer OS? Installation is a one-time pain that will make life generally happier afterwards. While OSX is a pretty good solution for a large class of people, it's hardly some kind of ultimate good.

      An aside: when I first saw a mac mini in a store, I was shocked to see what an awful blurry mess the font-rendering was, far less readable than what freetype produces on my home system. Is OSX font-rendering mis-configured by default or something?!? C'mon guys, this is your bread-n-butter!

      --
      We live, as we dream -- alone....
    62. Re:OS included? by spectre_240sx · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's like comparing apples to oranges. A PC is a generic term for an x86 / amd64 based computer (essentially it's become a term to denote a system that will run Windows). Apple is a company just like Dell or Gateway or HP. They just happen to sell a specific variant of PPC based computers. The only difference is, Apple ships their own operating system with the machine while "PC" brands just come with Windows for the most part.

    63. Re:OS included? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My company has had a lot of trouble with last year's iBooks: displays randomly failing, disks dying, constant over-heating. They were outlasted by cheaper Dell laptops. Apple refused to fix half of them under warranty has they claimed the problems were due to software! Never again will we consider Apple hardware. The OS is nice, but not that much better than XP.

    64. Re:OS included? by KillerDeathRobot · · Score: 1

      Ok, so you like KDE better than OS X, but you've still missed the point. It's stupid to say that the Mac Mini is the solution to free software on a cheap computer, because part of the price already includes the software. A cheap computer to put linux on could be built for quite a bit less than 500 dollars and getting rid of OS X gets rid of most of the reason to buy a Mini.

      --
      Thinkin' Lincoln - a web comic of presidential proportions
    65. Re:OS included? by kabloom · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I personally think that being able to describe something as being both "UNIX" and "simple" is quite an achievement that you shouldn't pooh-pooh.

    66. Re:OS included? by John_Booty · · Score: 3, Informative

      The real question here is: Why would I give a crap about a free OS for a computer which already comes with a better one as a standard feature?

      No, the real question is, "did you read the opening post?"

      Not the linked article - the opening post. It clearly says, "This article from IBM looks at open source operating system options on this new contender in the embedded PowerPC platform space"

      Key word here is "embedded", which implies a whole different ballgame compared to desktop or server computers. Google if you're unfamiliar with the term. A feature-rich GUI desktop OS is not ideal for the embedded market.

      --

      OtakuBooty.com: Smart, funny, sexy nerds.
    67. Re:OS included? by Anne+Honime · · Score: 1
      You completely missed the point ; I don't care about OSX being whateverfriendly, I care about consistency. And as far as I know, OS X on an x86 or a sparc is juste a pile of binary rubbish. So, in a mixed environnement, I know that only Linux and some BSD will behave exactly the same among architectures, making my life easier.

      Got it, now ?

    68. Re:OS included? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If your linux app does not work correctly, it is the linuxism you used that are the problem, not osx. Any app that requires glibc, etc is NOT portable.

    69. Re:OS included? by diamondsw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Bullshit or FUD, I can't decide which. Gentoo/MacOS is brand-spanking new, and has a handful of things running - it's nothing more than a technology demo at this point. Fink, on the other hand, is very mature and works extremely well.

      Apple's X11 implementation is extremely fast, being OpenGL accelerated and such. For a silly example, fire up an xterm and run "sudo ls -R /" and watch it fly. For better examples, run KDE or Gnome - they run very well, as well as on any Linux system.

      Oh no, Aqua is only available to Cocoa/Carbon which are *gasp* non-standard! Non-standard to who? These are the default frameworks and API's for the platform. I could say just as well that X11 is non-standard on Mac OS X, or Win32 is non-standard on anything but Windows. That is such a completely bogus argument it's trollish.

      OS X has a nice kernel, all of the BSD userspace tools, good debian-based package management (although I do look forward to Gentoo/MacOS, as emerge is very nice), a full X11 system that can swap back and forth between OS X and X11, full hardware support, "mainstream" applications - what the hell more do you want?

      The only people OS X will not satisfy are RMS-style free software zealots, and those who want complete tweakability and control (which is perfectly valid). For everyone else who wants a UNIX workhorse that is stable, has full driver support, has "It Just Works" down pat, and wants to get work done, OS X is peerless.

      --
      I don't know what kind of crack I was on, but I suspect it was decaf.
    70. Re:OS included? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It just looks attractive. Functionally, Mac OS X is no better than Linux or Windows. In fact, it'll probably be overtaken by SUSE in the next few years.

    71. Re:OS included? by mab · · Score: 1

      They may be cheap in the US but here in OZ a 1.42 GHz mini mac with 1 GB RAM and a superdrive with no wireless or keyboard is AU$ 1,624 or US$ 1,254

      I can by a Dell laptop for that.

    72. Re:OS included? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Not for long. Linux is eventually going to kill Mac OS X before it even takes a noticable chunk out of the Windows marketshare.

      Think about it..people who use Mac OS X are mainly using it because they hate Windows.

      Any company who ports their software to Mac OS X either ports it to Linux, or is going to in the future.

      Linux runs on faster, cheaper hardware.

      Take a look at a Linux desktop distro 5 years ago. Now look at a modern one. See the difference? Eventually, there will be no reason to buy a Mac - it will simply be an expensive piece of hardware with an OS equal or inferior to a free one, and fade into obscurity like the Amiga.

    73. Re:OS included? by dmarcoot · · Score: 0

      a 1.8 centrino is not faster than any G4 processor. above 1 gz

    74. Re:OS included? by rjstanford · · Score: 1

      For everyone else who wants a UNIX workhorse that is stable, has full driver support, has "It Just Works" down pat, and wants to get work done, OS X is peerless.

      So, no P2P file sharing, eh? The RIAA must just love that...

      Heh.

      I agree with your points, by the way.

      --
      You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
    75. Re:OS included? by rjstanford · · Score: 1

      The point is that I can have partially overlapped active windows in KDE and not in MacOSX (and neither in Windows btw.)

      Just one comment here - Windows does offer this, its just a registry setting. The easiest way to enable it is through TweakUI - click on "Mouse" and select "Focus Follows Mouse (X-Mouse)". Pretty simple, really. Or tweak the registry by hand if you prefer, but I don't recall which setting it is.

      --
      You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
    76. Re:OS included? by geekee · · Score: 1

      "Why would I give a crap about a free OS for a computer which already comes with a better one as a standard feature?"

      Isn't the question, "Why can't I buy a Mac mini without MacOS for $400, instead of paying $500 for one with MacOS?" Maybe I'd rather have the $100 than the "better" OS.

      --
      Vote for Pedro
    77. Re:OS included? by ickoonite · · Score: 1

      OS X power uses like myself don't use minimise, except when showing off the pretty visual effects. In normal use, it is slower and there is often no mouse-free way of extracting the window from the Dock. Instead, we Command+H to hide windows, which reappear when Command+Tabbed back to. Hiding has no animation - it is a holdout from the NeXTSTEP days - and it's incredibly efficient and tidy.

      iqu :)

    78. Re:OS included? by generic-man · · Score: 1

      BZZZZZZT!

      Oh, I'm sorry. That was my Smarmy Troll Zapper. My, that was a big one.

      Oh shiBZZZZZZZT!

      --
      For more information, click here.
    79. Re:OS included? by Selecter · · Score: 4, Insightful
      People that are using Mac OSX just possibly, maybe, prefer it to Windows or Linux, and dont give a SHIT how free the software is. They use their computers to do things, and they will pay for whatever gets the things they want done faster, easier, and simpler.

      I have never met a Mac user that would even consider Linux, not in 15 years. But there are tens of thousands of linux users who have adopted OS X. What operating system do you think all the science geeks who went out and bought powerbooks last year use?

      It's not linux.

      But ya know what? WHO GIVES A FUCK? The whole argument about who "wins" in the computing world sucks. Use whatever you want, it used to be a free country.

    80. Re:OS included? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhm yeah ok.

      That's why Billy Gates owns 49% of apple, Because they make so much money yup.

      And all that talk about them almost declaring bankruptcy before bill gates came in was just smack right.

    81. Re:OS included? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      How, exactly is this Flamebait? The Flamebait moderation is used almost exclusively to mod down posts which don't comply with the groupthink.

      Fucking fanboy moderators. Hopefully this sort of abuse will be dealt with in meta-moderation.

    82. Re:OS included? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, that's great, but they're talking about laptops, not cheap, cheap desktops...

    83. Re:OS included? by cheekyboy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree the mac is missing lots of stuff, but id rather run macosx and port/recompile other stuff to it than use raw native linux on it.

      Yes finder sucks, they should open source it and make it 100% async/threaded/cocoa. Its the one piece of apple os that is PURE CRUD that needs fixing, it has many many many faults in it.

      --
      Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
    84. Re:OS included? by JFitzsimmons · · Score: 1

      My bets are on Gnome, and metacity. Check out these visual developments we have on luminocity (metacity development testbed) right now.

      That being said, I'm not entirely sure what's hapening with SuSE. It is traditionally a KDE distribution (I think... I've never actually used it until recently), but Novell seems to be really into Ximian, which has pretty close ties to Gnome.

      --
      Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master. -Anonymous
    85. Re:OS included? by JFitzsimmons · · Score: 1

      Actually, Bill needed to keep them in business so that Microsoft didn't have a huge dump taken on them for monopolistic practices. We're calling Microsoft monopolistic now, but imagine what it would be like if there was no Apple around to even make a token competetion.

      --
      Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master. -Anonymous
    86. Re:OS included? by Craig+Ringer · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I don't agree, personally.

      The only people OS X will not satisfy are RMS-style free software zealots, and those who want complete tweakability and control (which is perfectly valid). For everyone else who wants a UNIX workhorse that is stable, has full driver support, has "It Just Works" down pat, and wants to get work done, OS X is peerless.


      I'm not satisfied by OS/X, and I'm no free software zealot. I don't want complete tweakability and control (KDE drives me nuts for that reason) either, though I do want some minimal control - turn off all the godamm "eye candy", mostly.

      I'm not satisfied with it because I need a UNIX platform for most of my work, and MacOS/X is not UNIX. It has a UNIX/BSD compatible subsystem, but uses a different binary format, "interesting" linker arguments, has different shared library handling, and has a relatively poorly integrated X11 environment (X11 its self works great, but launching apps etc is PITA) that isn't installed by default. It's UNIX-compatible enough that apps need little porting to run under X11, but it ain't UNIX.

      My solution to this is very simple - don't buy Apple hardware. I don't see the point in buying an Apple machine only to try to kludge Linux onto it - it'll never work particularly great (Apple aren't big on open sourcing drivers or releasing specs) and it'll cost more for the power you get.

      So ... I'm with you on that. Why do this? Just buy an x86 box and drop Linux or a *BSD on it if you want UNIX.
    87. Re:OS included? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *Bzzzzttt* FALSE.

      PCs can be self-assembled.

      Aside from being able to pick the brand and to a certain extent the specifications of each component.

      I can choose what OS I want to buy, if I feel compelled to pay for an OS.

      Try doing that with a Mac.

    88. Re:OS included? by bani · · Score: 1

      Except apple didn't achieve it -- at least not first.

      Jobs achieved it with NeXT in 1990, 11 years before apple did with OSX in 2001.

    89. Re:OS included? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Contempt without investigation has a name: ignorance. Grandma's and graphic designers use Macs. Real nerds use Linux.

    90. Re:OS included? by bani · · Score: 1

      My coworker is a mac user who switched to Linux.

      So nyah. :P

    91. Re:OS included? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People that are using Mac OSX just possibly, maybe, prefer it to Windows or Linux, and dont give a SHIT how free the software is. They use their computers to do things, and they will pay for whatever gets the things they want done faster, easier, and simpler.

      People that own a Mac Mini just possibly, maybe, prefer Linux over OS X, and don't give a SHIT about how productive it makes other people. They use their computers to do things, and they don't care if all geeks in the world think OS X makes them more productive, when really Linux is a much better fit for what they are doing.

      I have never met a Mac user that would even consider Linux, not in 15 years. But there are tens of thousands of linux users who have adopted OS X.

      I own a Mac, and it hardly gets used because I am waying more productive in Linux. OS X is great and all, but for me, its just a toy to play with, and hardly lives up to the hype. I feel bad letting my Mac Mini go to waste just because OS X is not what I thought it would be, so I would love to install a Linux distro (dual-boot) to actually get some use out of this machine that I payed a premium for the form factor for.

      Macheads, get over the fact that not everyone thinks OS X is the greatest OS.

    92. Re:OS included? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Grandma's and graphic designers use Macs. Real nerds use Linux.


      Yes, and professionals use BSD. Go back to your mom's basement, bitch.
    93. Re:OS included? by AaronBrethorst · · Score: 1

      I'm not deriding their business model. On the contrary, they're kicking ass and taking names. What I was doing, instead, was disagreeing with the parent poster who was claiming that Apple is a software company that happens to sell hardware. Take a look at page 28 of Apple's last 10K filing with the SEC. Notice how their software sales are well below their hardware sales.

      --
      No, but I used to work for Microsoft.
    94. Re:OS included? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The point is Apple makes all its money off hardware sales. Right now iPod sales are what's filling the company's coffers.

    95. Re:OS included? by jim_v2000 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      People that are using Mac OSX just possibly, maybe, prefer it to Windows or Linux, and dont give a SHIT how free the software is. They use their computers to do things, and they will pay for whatever gets the things they want done faster, easier, and simpler. As a tech support agent for a product aimed at business users, I can attest to the fact that to people who need their computers to do a certain function, price is nothing. The software my company sells is 300 bucks per license. And there are large companies with 500+ employees that all have licenses w/multiple machines. Plus support contracts for $500. The cost doesn't matter to them as long as it does what they need.

      --
      Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
    96. Re:OS included? by bani · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Actually I'm rather tired of OSX treating me like an idiot all the time.

      The "one button mouse" comes along with the apple apologist excuse that "two buttons would confuse beginners".

      Ok. I'm not a beginner. Can I please have a non-beginner apple mouse?

      The rest of the OS has serious usability issues (OSX is a step backwards in usability compared to MacOS 9 for example). OSX finder was recently awarded the worst OSX application ever on arstechnica mac forums.

      Apple apologists will just put on the steve jobs blinders and parrot "its the apple way" which is basically the same as ford's "you can have any color you want as long as its black". That attitude really wins over lots of converts, you know? Might explain why my mac friends switched to Linux...

    97. Re:OS included? by bani · · Score: 1

      virtual desktops are far more efficient and tidy. no more overlapping window mess, no more having to hide/unhide windows. you just switch between entire populated desktop workspaces with a single keystroke.

    98. Re:OS included? by jezzball · · Score: 1

      FYI, it's not a "heartbeat" sleep monitor :) My Sawtooth G4/400 had a heartbeat sleep monitor - it pulsed approximately (from memory) once a second, or close to a resting heart rate. The iBook you have (and my iBook G3, and my G5 tower) have a more "resting breathing rate" pulse. About 4-5 seconds cycle time. This is a far more relaxing status indicator.

      Just another touch that Apple does.

      --
      ls: .sig: File not found.
      (A)bort, (R)etry, (I)gnore?
    99. Re:OS included? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, so you save yourself $100 and pirate the next version of Mac OS X to come across your desk.

    100. Re:OS included? by sexysasian · · Score: 0
      I have never met a Mac user that would even consider Linux

      Shit, I considered it, and even installed it on an old pIII I had sitting around.
      Then I realized Fedora and XMMS don't carry any easy mp3 support.

      'Jumped that ship pretty damn quick.

      At least OS X has iTunes...

    101. Re:OS included? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      cause it doesnt come with a better OS?

    102. Re:OS included? by bani · · Score: 1

      OSX finder was recently awarded the worst osx application of all time in arstechnica's mac forums.

      It's a step backwards in usability compared to MacOS 9. Which is a real accomplishment as MacOS 9's finder wasnt very good.

      Fink, Darwinports, etc arent base OS package managers. Eg there is no package manager for uninstalling Safari or Garageband etc. (sure you can just 'delete' the application from the /Applications directory, but that doesnt remove all the associated application cruft from the rest of the system directories).

      OSX's unix api also has annoying shortcomings/omissions which make it difficult, sometimes impossible to port some stuff which works fine on linux/bsd. Until very recently, OSX had no working dlopen() for christ's sake! You cannot imagine how annoying this is for programmers.

      Having to install all the fink crap just to get a usable development system doesn't inspire confidence. Yes, it's available, but it is as severe a PITA to install fink and all the packages needed for a usable development system, as it is to just install Linux and be done with it. A lot of the needed stuff isnt even available in fink stable, you have to go through fink unstable to get it.

      Developer-wise, Xcode 1.5 is a big pile of doggie poo. It's crashy, buggy, slow, and has probably the worst user interface EVER for an IDE. kdevelop, anjuta, etc are miles better than xcode, and msvc is miles better than either kdevelop or anjuta...

      Sure, go ahead and buy codewarrior for osx. Got $500 to spare? Because I don't...

      OSX is nice for grandma, but it's laughably bad for developers without a lot of bubblegum and bailing wire.

    103. Re:OS included? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I personally don't like the open file dialog box. Let's say I download all of the w3c recommendations and working drafts. They all look identical (since half of them start with Extensible...) in the stupid open file dialog and there is no way to resize the column of the stupid box. I have to hover just to get the name of the file. Resizing the box just adds more columns.

      I actually have no problems with finder

    104. Re:OS included? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Blame the patent system, not the distro, XMMS provides rpms that have full mp3 support and work fine with Fedora. They aren't hard to install, but to each his own.

    105. Re:OS included? by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      What the fuck is it with people's inability to realise that Apple is a computer company; both a hardware and software company.

      For God's sake, we should just call it both simply to stop these stupid "Apple is a hardware|software company" arguments.

    106. Re:OS included? by TheoMurpse · · Score: 1

      If Apple didn't exist, it would be necessary for Microsoft to invent it.

    107. Re:OS included? by ccoakley · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I am a mac user. I own a dual G5, a powerbook, and a mac mini. I also own 2 linux machines and one (currently dead, recovery disk in hand) windows machine.

      I wouldn't consider putting linux on my powerbook because I would lose the instant-on feature that makes the powerbook such a convenient laptop (I'd also lose MS Office, which is a requirement for work, and Open Office still doesn't properly open most word documents I try due to the presence of arrows and other non-alphabet characters).

      I wouldn't put linux on my dual G5 because I couldn't use a number of my commercial applications (Lightwave, Flash, iTunes), as well as devices (don't know if my printer, scanner, camera, iPod, airport, etc. have linux drivers).

      I might consider linux on the mini, but my girlfriend uses that computer and I have no real reason to switch... so I probably won't.

      As far as considering linux: I probably wouldn't replace my linux boxes with macs. I use them as headless servers, and they compile and run the programs I want without hassle. Minor corruptions are easy to fix (manually repairing a corrupted NetInfo database is a pain).

      Additionally, I can't drop my windows machine, even if I would like to. If the occasional side job comes in with "we need you to modify our windows device driver to do Y", it is much easier to do that with a windows development machine than without.

      BTW, I know two science geeks who run linux on their powerbooks. One is even running GNUstep / WindowMaker, which seems really backwards to me.

      --
      Network Security: It always comes down to a big guy with a gun.
    108. Re:OS included? by Biggs+Driut · · Score: 1

      In that case, lets steal the MacMini as well.

    109. Re:OS included? by shellbeach · · Score: 1

      I have never met a Mac user that would even consider Linux, not in 15 years.

      Well, now you have. I was a die-hard Mac user until 1995, so that's only 10 years ago. At which point I realised that the concept of a company trying to gain a monopoly over both OS and hardware was wrong, especially when the hardware was overpriced and proprietary. So I switched to linux on whiteboxes and haven't looked back.

      I'd have a lot more respect for current powerbooks if they came with three mouse buttons (vital for *nix) and if you could run OS-X apps within X (not the other way round), thus bypassing the toy GUI and letting me use a decent window manager. But as it stands, if someone gave me a powerbook I'd wipe the drive and install linux on it.

    110. Re:OS included? by killjoe · · Score: 1

      I just tried that. Oddly enough it would not hide finder.

      BTW I was so disapointed when I found out tiger still had the finder and that it was pretty much unchanged. It's an abomination and it needs to go. Let's just hope they made it so the mouse moves faster, I like a really fast mouse.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    111. Re:OS included? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Why can't I buy a Mac mini without MacOS for $400, instead of paying $500 for one with MacOS?

      I don't know. Why can't I buy a new Mini Cooper without the engine for $15000? Maybe I would like to pay less for their car and put a Nissan Maxima engine in it!

    112. Re:OS included? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other words, you are NOT a Mac user would consider intalling Linux.

      You are a Linux user who happens to be a former Mac user and you STILL wouldn't put Linux on a Mac unless somebody gave you one for free.

      So, you said nothing which contradicts the parent post.

    113. Re:OS included? by Vokbain · · Score: 1

      $500 is the cost of the computer.

      Mac OS X is just the free icing on the cake.

    114. Re:OS included? by Vokbain · · Score: 1

      What the funk?

      Apple makes software to sell more hardware.

      As I've said before, Mac OS X is just the free icing on the cake.

    115. Re:OS included? by simscitizen · · Score: 1

      Especially when one can buy a _fully-loaded_ Dell 700m (widescreen 12.1", smaller than the iBook) for LESS than $999. Do better research. Go to sites like fatwallet.com and check out the latest coupons (it's not just Dell; there is for example an excellent deal on 5lb. 14" widescreen Compaq V2000s for $700 right now) before you start talking about the "value" of the iBook. I was going to buy an iBook myself, until I realized they intentionally nerfed it with a VGA out (like most PC laptops) instead of the DVI connection found in the powerbooks. (I really wanted the DVI out for better output quality on my LCD.) For (basically only) DVI, apple wants me to pay an extra +500 premium for a 12" powerbook over a 12" ibook. LOL. I can buy a whole fucking desktop with an LCD for that much. Screw 'em.

    116. Re:OS included? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean Novell Net-Linux, right?

    117. Re:OS included? by mattkinabrewmindspri · · Score: 1

      Finder has been around for more than 20 years. It's not going anywhere, and thank God. I haven't seen any file manager on any OS that is anywhere near as nice.

    118. Re:OS included? by lewp · · Score: 1

      Because if you're using a Mac some of your more important hardware won't function, or won't function well if you run anything besides OS X.

      Airport Extreme card, for one.

      --
      Game... blouses.
    119. Re:OS included? by klubar · · Score: 1

      You can actually get Windows PCs from many manufacturers with the OS. Dell sell "naked" PCs on their business site for companies who bulk buy the OS or install alternative OSs. The savings aren't that great as Dell probably gets the OS for nearly nothing. That said, I've looked at the Mac Mini and it doesn't look like a great deal in a business environment after adding more memory and Office. It's a good toy/home machine but I don't think it's Apples solution to getting any additional share in the 10+ employee firm.

    120. Re:OS included? by ickoonite · · Score: 1

      I must say, I've never quite got used to virtual desktops. I know they work well for those that use them, but for normal users they would be, quite simply, too confusing. I don't count myself as a "normal user", but even so, I've managed fine for ten years or so without them, and the last three - on the Mac - have been by far the most efficient, especially now that I use Command+H. Exposé has its uses too, of course.

      That said, there are plenty of utilities for the Mac that do virtual desktopping, such as CodeTek VirtualDesktop Pro and Desktop Manager, the latter being open source too! So you can get that virtual deskopping buzz even on the Mac...

      iqu :)

    121. Re:OS included? by ickoonite · · Score: 1

      I just tried that. Oddly enough it would not hide finder.

      It won't hide the Finder if it's the last application "visible". Make another app visible and you can hide the FInder.

      And the Finder isn't that bad. It's not great, and I wish they would get rid of all the Carbon cruft so that it would perform a little better, but for most people it works alright.

      (That said, since when is "alright" good enough for Apple? And whilst I'm bashing Carbon holdouts, I can't resist a poke at QuickTime Player, which is possibly the most dire piece of software on the Mac. And iTunes, love it though so many do, pisses me off with its Carbonness too.)

      Let's just hope they made it so the mouse moves faster, I like a really fast mouse.

      Have you tried tweaking the speed in the Mouse System Preferences? It's not that slow is it?

      iqu :D

    122. Re:OS included? by bani · · Score: 1

      you really should try virtual desktops more. the increase in efficiency is amazing, it's like discovering tabbed browsing in mozilla for the first time.

      expose is cute, but pales in comparison.

    123. Re:OS included? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hee hee, that's great! Just great! "Stallmanist"! Can I use that one to describe myself? Is it trademarked yet?

    124. Re:OS included? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, your definition of "a mac user" is not someone using MacOS (up until switching to Linux), but someone who would never use anything else.

      In that case, yes, a Mac user who would never use anything else would use Linux either.

    125. Re:OS included? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Non-standard as in "available from only one manufacturer (that's Apple in this case".

      And yes, Win32 is non-standard, even if Wine is trying hard to give a second choice.

    126. Re:OS included? by mmkkbb · · Score: 1

      A Mac Mini in the US in that configuration is also over US$1000. Try buying the RAM somewhere else.

      --
      -mkb
    127. Re:OS included? by galaxy300 · · Score: 1

      Neither of the laptops you mentioned have DVI either. It's not something you commonly see on lower end laptops.

      I didn't say there weren't cheaper notebooks out there. But "cheap" and "good value" aren't the same thing. The iBook has no shared video memory, 5 hour battery life, no viruses or spyware, and runs a beautiful and solid BSD OS. The Dells feel pretty flimsy to me and I would *never* buy another Compaq machine again after some of the horror stories I've had with client machines.

    128. Re:OS included? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, but you've probably paid for an OS you don't want. The bonus here is the ability to run an OS you want on a cheap system that has exceptional hardware (for the price). I can't see a flaw with it provided you don't want to run a mac system.

    129. Re:OS included? by jaavaaguru · · Score: 1

      Erm, but it's a Dell.

    130. Re:OS included? by killjoe · · Score: 1

      "Have you tried tweaking the speed in the Mouse System Preferences? It's not that slow is it?"

      Of course. I have also tried many mice. For some odd reason the mouse on mac os x is neither as smooth or fast as windows or linux.

      It's minor thing but it's an annoyance for me.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    131. Re:OS included? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, my definition of "a mac user" is "somebody who has actually owned a mac in the last ten years." You said yourself you have not used a Mac since 1995, which is waaaaay back in the says of MacOS System 7.5.3

      You are not a mac user, and have not been for a long, long time.

    132. Re:OS included? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. Buy a G4 or G5 tower case from eBay.
      2. Buy any Mac motherboard/CPU combo from either eBay or online parts suppliers. (As opposed to buying an AMD mobo/CPU combo or an Intel mobo/CPU combo. The CPU's are no more cross-compatable between those two than the PowerPC series.)
      3. Choose between ATI & nVidia, just as you would if you were building a PC.
      4. Buy the HD, memory, monitor, etc, from whatever company you like.

      What's so hard about that?

    133. Re:OS included? by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1
      Well, the original poster was posting personal experience. Yours differs.

      However, if you feel so bad about letting your Mini "go to waste", why not install Darwin/OpenBSD/NetBSD/Debian/Ubuntu/YellowDog/Gent oo etc. which all work on PPC hardware? You don't even have to limit yourself to dual boot -- OpenFirmware can easily support you running *all* these OSes on the machine.

      My guess is that if you feel that OS X is not what you thought it would be, you probably don't have much experience in the BSD world -- you can easily disable Aqua in OS X, and run Xfree86 instead, and only run kde/gnome/xfce/whatever -- almost all the proprietary software running on top of the kernel is optional and can be removed/reconfigured -- as can the BSD layer. If you're saying that OS X doesn't contain the default software configuration that fits your needs, and you don't want to reconfigure it, go get something like Ubuntu, and install that.

      However, most people choose cheap x86 hardware if they prefer Linux over OS X. Of course, this isn't in the embedded market. I'd really like to see something Free along the lines of QNX for the PPC architecture. PPC is definitely lacking in the Free RTS area.

      If you're saying you prefer hacking a linux-style monolithic kernel to HURD or MACH, then yes; OS X really isn't for you. However, it wasn't ever advertised as a monolithic solution in the first place.

    134. Re:OS included? by d34thm0nk3y · · Score: 1

      "PC" brands just come with Windows for the most part.

      Or with no OS which was the whole frigging point. You cannot buy apple systems without an OS. You CAN buy x86 systems with NO OS, get over it.

    135. Re:OS included? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He didn't say Apple did it.

      Besides, Jobs and his NeXT cadre of engineers are the Bene Geserit type cabal which conquered Apple by submitting to it.

      You were a fan of NeXT? They still exixt. They're called "Apple" now.

    136. Re:OS included? by ciroknight · · Score: 1

      On a laptop, operating system is critical to performance. On a desktop where almost everything is outrageously overpowered anyways, it doesn't matter so much. Windows XP requires ie, will not install, with less thand256MB of ram. That's silly because my desktop machine can run Debian or Fedora core 1 just fine with just 128MB of ram, and do all of the same things that I use it for.

      Of course, that machine now has 1GB of ram, and runs a tiny swap, hopefully increasing the life of that machine a bit longer.. Really,I think Linux is the best option for the desktop if you can use it (most of us can't, so we use Windows). But Mac OS X Panther is probably the best operating system I've seen, all around. That's the point I'm trying to make, and that's how Apple sold their product to me.

      --
      "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
    137. Re:OS included? by spectre_240sx · · Score: 1

      You're still comparing two different things. A computer architecture and a computer manufacturer. Maybe you need to spend some time reading the dictionary to find out what those terms mean. Spend some time looking and you'll find out that Apple isn't the only company that makes PPC based computers.

    138. Re:OS included? by SA+Stevens · · Score: 1

      Find out when your local University holds it's surplus equipment auctions. Or if they have a 'surplus store' in the warehouse area of the campus.

    139. Re:OS included? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The software my company sells is 300 bucks per license. And there are large companies with 500+ employees that all have licenses w/multiple machines.

      so, which division in microsoft do you work for?

    140. Re:OS included? by commodoresloat · · Score: 1
      Mac OS X is not Free Software. Some of its components might be, but Mac OS X is not.

      Darwin, however, is free. And Darwin is a full featured OS. If you want a GUI, there's X11 and all your favorite window managers. As free as you want to be.

      Personally, I'll trade free software bigot points for Apple-branded lickability any day of the weak. But if you want free, it's there.

    141. Re:OS included? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hi. I'm a Mac user, and I have a Pismo that runs Linux.

      Now you can't say you've "never met a Mac user that would even consider Linux."

    142. Re:OS included? by VolcomPimp · · Score: 1

      I don't even see how they Mac Mini comes to mind when people think "cheap computer". I've yet to see any evidense that the Mac Mini is able to even compete with cheap x86 pc's in price or performance. If I had the chance to tinker with one of these boxes, I'd probably end up using OSX for the reasons stated above.

    143. Re:OS included? by Minister · · Score: 1

      I am a longtime mac user, and I do consider Linux, just not for a desktop. For a server, however, I chose Linux. A sub $500 1U rackmount from colomachines and Linux serve my (admittedly meagre) server needs very well.

      While I admin a couple of XServes for other people, and they're great, they are overkill for my needs by at least $3000. I have to say, though, I love the OSX Server admin tools.

      The Minister

    144. Re:OS included? by Hank+Scorpio · · Score: 1

      You can resize the columns. Just grab the little handle with the two little vertical lines right below the scrollbar and drag it over to the right.

    145. Re:OS included? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you spend a lot of time looking, you might find a G4 on a board for $750 from some mail-order company nobody ever heard of, so no, when Apple torpedoed CHRP they didn't quite succeed in making other PPC systems completely impossible to buy, just ludicrously impractical.

    146. Re:OS included? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The software is what their customers want. The hardware is a dongle, something tangible that seems to make the price tag more palatable.

    147. Re:OS included? by DancingBrook · · Score: 1

      A $13k Honda is better than a $130k Bentley.

      --
      Dancing
    148. Re:OS included? by duffbeer703 · · Score: 1

      Depends on your point of view. Squeezing into the back of a Civic and trying to get some work done while the chauffeur drives would really suck.

      --
      Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
  2. Unbeatable? by gellenburg · · Score: 5, Insightful
    But, if all you need is a stable kernel, a C compiler, and network support, the code is high-quality and the price is unbeatable.

    Especially when all of these things ... as well as full hardware support comes with the f*cking computer!.

    Ever hear of installing the Developer Tools on your Installation CD?

    No offense, I'm a big *BSD supporter, but this article's summary is rediculous.

    1. Re:Unbeatable? by Visaris · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Mod parent up. This article is a waste of time. I know people like to put linux and *BSD on everything, but talking about this as a price/feature advantage is just crazy. When the mini comes with OS X, which supports gcc, gdb, X windows, (almost all gnu software) as well as all the Mac software, why the hell would throwing out all that support somehow become "cost savings" ?

      --

      I am a viral sig. Please help me spread.
    2. Re:Unbeatable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's "ridiculous", not "rediculous" you retarded smacktard.

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

      It's ridiculous!

    4. Re:Unbeatable? by ciroknight · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Everyon'es got an agenda to push. It just so happens this article's trying to push the free software agenda. Sadly, I don't think they do so effectively; the Mini Mac is virtually a perfect desktop computer, it comes with a great, fully functioning and partially Windows/Linux compatible operating system, great hardware support, a decent hard drive for the home user (though lacking for the mid-upper range users we are), and Wifi (if you want it) to integrate seamlessly into your home's wireless network.

      I just don't understand the need for better software on the machine, even if it is lacking in the USB/Firewire (read: hardware) department.

      --
      "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
    5. Re:Unbeatable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If all you need is a stable kernel, a C compiler, and network support, then MacOS X is bloated. With NetBSD or Yellow Dog Linux, you're trading bloat for more RAM and free disk space that can be dedicated to number crunching. How hard is this to understand?

    6. Re:Unbeatable? by Eternally+optimistic · · Score: 1

      Suppose I develop software for linux, and I want to run it on PPC machines as well. Then the Mac Mini seems like an ok machine, I don't have to buy it in parts. And I don't get any money back if I use the OS that it comes with. Plus, it's such a pretty box.

      --
      What keeps me going is my inertia.
    7. Re:Unbeatable? by gellenburg · · Score: 1

      Then set your Mac to start up in text-mode only.

      Run Darwin's version of X11 and KDE if you want to.

      You still have access to GCC and the rest of the development environment (and hardware support) sans X-Code or any other Aqua development tool.

      Then again, you wouldn't have access to those under YDL or NetBSD either.

    8. Re:Unbeatable? by ciroknight · · Score: 1

      Can't help you in the pretty box department, because that it most definitely is. If you develop for linux, and you want to run on PPC as well, you're MUCH better off buying an old Whitebox G3 or G4 for $100, than the whole kittenkaboodle of the Mini Mac. If you have a need for speed, throw an accellerator card in it for another 50-100, depending on how drastic that need for speed it... That way you save a good 200$ on money that would have went to pay for the operating system. And if you're having problems locating a box, head to any K-12 school, they should be able to help you out.

      --
      "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
    9. Re:Unbeatable? by gellenburg · · Score: 1

      Then provide the souce code and Makefile and your Mac users can compile it themselves.

      In all seriousness, there is not //one// Linux-created piece of software (that I wanted to run) which I couldn't compile for myself under Mac OS X. With or without Fink.

    10. Re:Unbeatable? by Lussarn · · Score: 1

      Can somebody intelligent explain to me why mac users take it personally offensive if someone like Linux more than OS X.

      Another question. Why do mac users equal all *nixes? OS X may be a *nix but not my way of doing things so why must I run it? Is it that mac users don't know anything about unix and just use it as a sales-argument for us that do?

    11. Re:Unbeatable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Take it easy, rediculus beats it.

      created by ACPosterChild (719409), which somehow fits here :)

    12. Re:Unbeatable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ooops, it was rediculos.

    13. Re:Unbeatable? by Eternally+optimistic · · Score: 1

      Ah yes. Probably I could fit bigger drives in one of those too.

      --
      What keeps me going is my inertia.
    14. Re:Unbeatable? by gellenburg · · Score: 1
      Can somebody intelligent explain to me why mac users take it personally offensive if someone like Linux more than OS X.

      No offense was inferred or taken by anybody choosing to run whatever they want to run on their hardware.

      The offense was someone claiming that running YDL or NetBSD offered a cost benefit and savings.

      Another question. Why do mac users equal all *nixes? OS X may be a *nix but not my way of doing things so why must I run it? Is it that mac users don't know anything about unix and just use it as a sales-argument for us that do?

      Removes BoFH hat for a moment...

      • Mac OS X - Proprietary extensions to Darwin
      • Darwin - Apple's port of FreeBSD
      • FreeBSD - Rewrite of BSD 4.4 (UNIX)
      • BSD 4.4 - Berkeley extensions to AT&T System V Release 4 UNIX

      AT&T System V Release 4 is UNIX.

      BSD 4.4 is UNIX.

      FreeBSD is UNIX.

      Darwin is UNIX.

      Mac OS X is UNIX.

      What neither of them are is Linux, and for some that reason alone means they can't consider any other option, and I understand (but don't agree), and accept their reasoning.

    15. Re:Unbeatable? by Eternally+optimistic · · Score: 1

      Yes I'm aware of that, but I'm strictly after the PPC instruction set. And I will publish the source when it's working :)

      --
      What keeps me going is my inertia.
    16. Re:Unbeatable? by amonredotorg · · Score: 1

      I mostly agree, but I would like to correct one mistake:

      Darwin is not just a port of FreeBSD done by Apple. The Darwin site says:

      Darwin is the core of Mac OS X. The Darwin kernel is based on FreeBSD and Mach 3.0 technologies [..]

      Just making that a bit more clear.
    17. Re:Unbeatable? by Dom2 · · Score: 1
      This is not ridiculous at all. How much will Apple be charging you to upgrade to Tiger? How much will NetBSD be charging you to upgrade to 2.1?

      -Dom

    18. Re:Unbeatable? by ArbitraryConstant · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "In all seriousness, there is not //one// Linux-created piece of software (that I wanted to run) which I couldn't compile for myself under Mac OS X. With or without Fink."

      You downloaded software that had already been ported to MacOS. That's why you had to run the ./configure script, so it could figure out what the local OS looked like. The developer has already made provisions for the way code needs to work on MacOS.

      Linux and MacOS are not source compatible. Linux x86 and Linux PowerPC aren't even fully compatible (byte order issues and such). As an example, MacOS lacks the aio API, while Linux lacks the kqueue API. This is a problem because they're both APIs that allow asynchronous I/O. Portable software should take this into account, using aio on Linux and kqueue on MacOS, but because you're doing something different on MacOS, you can't test on MacOS if you need to run on Linux. And you can't test on Linux x86 if you need to run on Linux PowerPC.

      For example, imagine that your software needs to run on one of those big IBM POWER systems that runs lots of Linux partitions. You can't afford one (that's not difficult to imagine), but you still want to do testing so you don't have the customer running into bugs. A Mac mini running Linux is a pretty damn cheap way to get that done, assuming the software isn't 64-bit. If you needed it to be 64-bit a G5 running Linux system would still probably be cheaper than the IBM alternative.

      It takes a lot of effort to make the portable software that you use. Don't assume MacOS and Linux are fully compatible just because you're lucky enough to use software that was ported by someone that knew what they were doing.

      --
      I rarely criticize things I don't care about.
    19. Re:Unbeatable? by ArbitraryConstant · · Score: 1, Redundant

      Linux and MacOS are not source compatible. You can write portable software that knows how to adjust to the OS it's running on, but you can't deliver it to the customer if without testing the code paths they're going to use.

      If the customer is going to use Linux PowerPC you have to test on Linux PowerPC. The mini is a cheap way of doing this.

      --
      I rarely criticize things I don't care about.
    20. Re:Unbeatable? by karstux · · Score: 1

      "Suppose I develop software for linux, and I want to run it on PPC machines as well. Then the Mac Mini seems like an ok machine, I don't have to buy it in parts. And I don't get any money back if I use the OS that it comes with. Plus, it's such a pretty box."

      In that scenario, I'd say PearPC is your friend, and a zero-cost option to boot. Sure, the speed won't be stellar, but if you just want to ascertain that it works, it should suffice.

      --
      Don't whistle while you're pissing.
    21. Re:Unbeatable? by gellenburg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Absolutely nothing if I wait to buy a Mac Mini until Tiger comes out.

      For the five macs that I already own then that's $199 or roughly $40 per Mac.

      How much will Longhorn cost?

      Does Windows XP have a "family pack" version?

      Yes, I could run NetBSD and upgrade to it and not pay anything. If I do, then I won't be able to run iPhoto, iTunes, iMovie, Safari, Photoshop, Dreamweaver, Turbo Tax, Quicken, Quickbooks, EyeHome, EyeTV, Poser, Carrara Pro, Vue Esprit, Keynote, Pages, and a myriad of other applications that I use if not on a daily basis then at least weekly.

    22. Re:Unbeatable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, MacOS X is not UNIX. Because Darwin is not FreeBSD.

      For example, FreeBSD stores users' passwords and default shells in /etc/passwd. Darwin stores users' passwords and default shells in a binary database similar to Windows' registry. It is not UNIX, any more than Windows XP is VMS. It has UNIX ancestry. But it is not UNIX. It has many similarities to UNIX. But it is not UNIX.

      Look, I feel really sorry for you if your whole identity is bound up in your belief that your favorite OS has a bigger penis^W^W^W^Wis UNIX. But it is not UNIX. It is a fine operating system. But it is not UNIX.

    23. Re:Unbeatable? by gellenburg · · Score: 1

      My Dear Child, /etc/passwd does not make a UNIX.

      If by your logic, and such were the case, then HP/UX or AIX would not qualify as both support PAM and could just as easily use LDAP or NIS to store their user accounts.

      Darwin may not use the FreeBSD //kernel// (to which I concede), but a kernel does not make an operating system.

      Darwin---and subsequently OS X---can be configured to use /etc/passwd if desired (at the expense of a loss of inter-platform functionality) or even LDAP or even authenticate NIS or (shudder) Active Directory.

      What Apple has chosen to use is NetInfo which shares similar principles to NIS and YP albeit much more secure.

      NetInfo is nothing like the Windows Registry but is more akin to a localized LDAP directory (though not equal).

      I'm sorry if your penguined short-sightedness is keeping you from seeing the forest for the trees here. This is not an Apple fanboi speaking here, but someone who's been working with UNIX since before you probably even had an Email address.

      For the past 15+ years I have worked with, administered, loathed, and revered just about every version of UNIX that's been on the market, and I'm not just talking about the IA32 architecture here.

      Next time you have something to say, why not apt-get'ting a clue first before you speak?

    24. Re:Unbeatable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree! Keep Mac OSX otherwise linux will kill it too and the people who work in apple as programmers will lose their jobs (myself included).

      No offense. I'm a big Windows XP supporter, but this article is rediculous. MacOSX is awesome!!!!

    25. Re:Unbeatable? by prockcore · · Score: 1


      In all seriousness, there is not //one// Linux-created piece of software (that I wanted to run) which I couldn't compile for myself under Mac OS X. With or without Fink.


      That's because you weren't looking. Just recently we were looking at consolidating our audio streaming. The idea is this:

      We have a bunch of audio streams. Police Scanner, a couple of radio stations, and a phone. We need to stream these over the web. We wanted to take a bunch of USB line-input dongles and plug them into *one* computer. Then have software on that computer capture the audio input and send it to something like Quicktime Streaming Server.

      Some of the streams (like the police scanner) would run 24/7, others would be cronned to start and stop at the appropriate times.

      This is, as far as we can tell, impossible on OSX. OSX can't capture from multiple audio devices simultaneously. On linux it was trivial. You plug in a usb device and /dev/dsp1 shows up, you plug in another and /dev/dsp2 shows up. Running multiple copies of Darkice was simple.

      Because OSX doesn't have a /dev tree, any linux app that handles hardware cannot possibly be ported to OSX.

      So here we have a system, where to add another audio stream is as simple as buying another $20 usb device and plugging it in. Where if we were to use OSX, we'd have to buy another Mac!

    26. Re:Unbeatable? by aristotle-dude · · Score: 1

      Tell that to the guys at Virginia tech then smarty pants. They used OS X in text mode for the System X cluster.

      --
      Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
    27. Re:Unbeatable? by argent · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If the customer is going to use Linux PowerPC you have to test on Linux PowerPC.

      Who is using Linux PowerPC?

    28. Re:Unbeatable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      High end IBM servers and embedded systems.

    29. Re:Unbeatable? by CableModemSniper · · Score: 1

      He didn't mention a configure script, he said source code and Makefile.

      --
      Why not fork?
    30. Re:Unbeatable? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Informative
      As an example, MacOS lacks the aio API

      Wrong. That's the second time I've seen this on Slashdot. OS X includes a full implementation of the POSIX aio specification. Take a look in /usr/include/sys/aio.h. I have spent the last month developing software on OS X that makes extensive use of this facility. What OS X does lack, is the man pages to go along with these system calls (although the documentation in the header file is not bad).

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    31. Re:Unbeatable? by Fancia · · Score: 1

      That's not necessarily true. I've been able to get several Linux programs to compile and run properly with no modifications on OS X, and they had been in no way ported to it - one or two were even written before OS X came out.

      --

      Bít, zabít, jen proto, ze su liska!
    32. Re:Unbeatable? by ArbitraryConstant · · Score: 1

      huh. That's interesting. You appear to be correct. It's annoying that they left out the documentation but it is indeed present.

      However, aio is just an example. epoll doesn't appear in MacOS either.

      --
      I rarely criticize things I don't care about.
    33. Re:Unbeatable? by ArbitraryConstant · · Score: 1
      Some programs work, some programs don't. For example:
      #include <stdio.h>

      int main (int argc, char *argv[]) {
      printf("Hello, world!\n");
      }
      That will work on just about any OS anyone has ever heard of, including Windows.

      Some programs use library routines that are not implemented everywhere, and some OSes have differences in behaviour and bugs in their library routines. You can not simply ship software written and tested on MacOS after recompiling it for Linux. Even though 99.5% of the code is the same, it's your ass if a subtle difference turns into a bug on the customer's system.

      The only way to be sure is to compile it on the target architechture and OS, and do your tests there.
      --
      I rarely criticize things I don't care about.
    34. Re:Unbeatable? by bani · · Score: 1

      until very recently, osx was missing dlopen() and family. this was incredibly annoying for a lot of ports. someone wrote dlcompat a while back, and apple ended up rolling this into OSX. it took a while though.

      theres a bunch of other BSD/Linux functionality missing which sometimes makes porting hard, though they escape my mind at the moment. maybe someones made a page somewhere covering the missing/incomplete APIs?

    35. Re:Unbeatable? by Electrum · · Score: 1

      aio is just an example. epoll doesn't appear in MacOS either.

      aio is part of POSIX. epoll is Linux specific. In my opinion, Linux should have implemented kqueue, which is already on FreeBSD, NetBSD and Mac OS X, rather than creating a new API that does less.

    36. Re:Unbeatable? by ArbitraryConstant · · Score: 1

      I do not deny that Linux is annoying, but that's beside the point. My point is that Linux and MacOS are not source compatible.

      These various APIs are just random examples I can talk about because I'm already aware of them. If I looked I'm sure I'd find many other examples of differences. That's not a value judgement on either OS, it's just something developers have to be aware of, and have had to be aware of since before MacOS or Linux existed.

      You cannot assume non-trivial Linux code will compile or run properly on MacOS.
      You cannot assume non-trivial MacOS code will compile or run properly on Linux.

      It would be irresponsible to send a program to the customer without doing your testing on the architechture and with the OS that they are going to use.

      --
      I rarely criticize things I don't care about.
    37. Re:Unbeatable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But, if all you need is a stable kernel, a C compiler, and network support...

      all's i'm sayin' is... why the hell not just use DOS?

    38. Re:Unbeatable? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      A page covering the level of POSIX compliance, additional system calls and their equivalents on other platforms for all of the major UNIX variants would be incredibly useful.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    39. Re:Unbeatable? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Not half as annoying as FreeBSD, where the documentation is there, but the system calls all return ENOSYS with the default kernel...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    40. Re:Unbeatable? by JMZorko · · Score: 1

      Well, actually, the AIO on Panther is _not_ complete -- take a look at the XNU source, in kern_aio.h, and you'll see that AIO only works if the FD in the AIO control block points to a _real_ file e.g. not a socket or pipe. ESPIPE is returned if this check fails. Other *nixes allow AIO on non-file FDs.

      However, I really love OSX, and I am hopeful that Tiger will eventually allow this.

      Regards,

      John

      --
      Falling You - beautiful
    41. Re:Unbeatable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's probably why it's undocumented at the moment. They don't want to claim they have something that's not ready.

  3. Cheap? Hardly. by mr.henry · · Score: 0, Troll
    ...the price is unbeatable.

    WTF?

    $500 for a plain, low end box is not cheap. A Dell 2.8 GHz P4 with a 19" LCD, keyboard, and mouse for $529 is cheap.

    True, Steve Jobs has not blessed it and you probably won't see it used by some trendy featherbrain on "Sex and the City," but it can crunch a lot of numbers for hundreds less than a similarly configured Mac.

  4. Sadly the support isn't complete (Airport) by CdBee · · Score: 4, Interesting

    To my knowledge and confirmed by TFA, no distro of Linux or BSD (well, apaprt from OSX) supports Airport cards (either version)

    They lay the blame at Broadcom's door for keeping the spec a secret, but lots of manufacturer's don't publish specs but still end up being supported, either through reverse-engineering or emulation + non-native-driver

    Can any informed person comment on why this is taking so long?

    --
    I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
    1. Re:Sadly the support isn't complete (Airport) by paulatz · · Score: 1

      Can any informed person comment on why this is taking so long?
      Because linux hackers got tyred of reversing drivers of junk hardware.

      Seriously: apple hardware is less common than intel compatible hardware even for linux users.

      --
      this post contain no useful information, no need to mod it down
    2. Re:Sadly the support isn't complete (Airport) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, the ordinary (802.11b) airport cards are supported quite well as they use the popular orinoco chipset. Monitor mode is even supported for all your sniffing needs.

      Airport Extreme (802.11g) cards remain unsupported for the same reason other broadcom chipset based cards are - no information was released on how to actually use these chips.

    3. Re:Sadly the support isn't complete (Airport) by Nichotin · · Score: 4, Informative

      Search for broadcom on sourceforge, and you will find a project for reverse engineering the driver.

    4. Re:Sadly the support isn't complete (Airport) by slux · · Score: 1

      Others have already commented that the original Airport does work (I'm currently typing this on a clamshell iBook with Ubuntu, connected thru airport) but as to why it's taking so long I'd venture to guess that solutions such as ndiswrapper are partly to blame. In addition to that, while there are numerous 802.11b chipset drivers available, the only fully free software driver for a 802.11g chipset is the prism54. There might be something making this somewhat more difficult with the 54Mbps chipsets. Or maybe most of the 802.11b drivers were written by people employed by the same companies that now are only willing give us binary-only drivers.

    5. Re:Sadly the support isn't complete (Airport) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm surprised that by now no-one's released a general emulation/tracing environment. Run the parent OS, run MacOS or whatever you like in the sandbox, and track the traffic as it talks to your peripheral of choice.

    6. Re:Sadly the support isn't complete (Airport) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, but from personal experience I can tell you that no major PPC distribution handles the Airport (and I mean the Orinoco cards), at least as of 2 months ago, without some major tweaking. Not sure why, but I spent 3 days trying to get my iBook with Airport classic to work in Yellow Dog, Debian, and Mandrake and no joy. Mind you, Yellow Dog at least installed easily without any video issues. Maybe if I had been patient enough to work through all the various WiFi packages out there and build some code it might have worked; but at that point I just said "hey, OS X is as much a Unix as Linux is; so why bother?" Now, if YellowDog could promise me a Mac mini that dual boots Tiger and YDL with full support for all BTO hardware (including the Bluetooth keyboard and mouse, Airport, and a SuperDrive), I'd happily buy a machine from them, as there are certain Linux tools I'd rather use. And they should be able to do that - the Mac hardware world is a far more circumscribed world than the one that e.g. Knoppix has to live with.

    7. Re:Sadly the support isn't complete (Airport) by eobanb · · Score: 1

      Too bad it hasn't been updated since 2003....

      --

      Take off every sig. For great justice.

    8. Re:Sadly the support isn't complete (Airport) by saintlupus · · Score: 1
      Hmm, that's interesting. I've been running Debian on a Pismo with no problems, including full support for the Airport card. Just make sure that the wireless-tools package is installed, so that the card settings can be changed.
      # modprobe airport
      # iwconfig eth1 essid [your SSID]
      # dhclient eth1
      That ought to do it.

      --saint

  5. Cheap? by MetalliQaZ · · Score: 0, Redundant

    "cheap computer"?

    The Mac Mini starts at $499. You can get a brand new computer from Dell for $250. Now the Mac Mini is pretty inexpensive, but its not THAT cheap.

    -d

    --
    "Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
    1. Re:Cheap? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...since when could apples dvd player software not play a movie fullscreen.

      if you are reffering to quicktime, yes, they charge for fullscreen, but they do the exact same on windows. download vlc or mplayer osx if you want, its as simple as that.

    2. Re:Cheap? by mmkkbb · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'd figure they'd at least ship with some sort of crippled version of OSX.

      With the full version, even.

      OFFTOPIC RESPONSE TO OFFTOPICNESS BEGINS

      I mean, that big aluminum G5 "mini" tower (mini? wtf?)

      mini, because a full tower is taller.

      Man was he ever pissed off when he found out he can't display a movie fullscreen on his nearly two thousand dollar monitor.

      Then he should try mplayer or VLC, or shell out for Quicktime Pro.

      --
      -mkb
    3. Re:Cheap? by NotoriousQ · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Man was he ever pissed off when he found out he can't display a movie fullscreen on his nearly two thousand dollar monitor.

      Huh? Does it not have hardware scaling? I thought G5 came with a radeon. With almost any accelerating videocard, the CPU is not involved when scaling, which means same performance windowed/fullscreen.

      Or is your friend trying to play 1080p/i movie or possibly at obscene framerates.

      In that case I demand to know where you got the video.

      --
      badness 10000
    4. Re:Cheap? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You're absolutely right. The Dell is cheap, quality-wise, whereas the Mac Mini is just inexpensive.

    5. Re:Cheap? by ctishman · · Score: 1

      Or just hit command-0 to switch Apple DVD Player to fullscreen mode.

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

      > Does it not have hardware scaling?

      The video card supports it, but Apple does not allow you to use it without paying them additional money. The version of QuickTime that comes with OS X does not support full screen video. You have to buy the pro version in order to be allowed to use it. It's a typical Steve Jobs screw-up. You do so many things right thne you intentionally screw it up on purpose with a few details.

    7. Re:Cheap? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, because years of experience with the Mac Mini prove it's very high quality. Not like those unproven Dell PCs.

    8. Re:Cheap? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is kind of silly, especially since Quicktime can do fullscreen, it's purposly crippled. That being said if this person can afford to spend 5 grand on a computer, an extra $30 isn't going to break the bank.

    9. Re:Cheap? by amonredotorg · · Score: 1

      The player may be purposely crippled, but the functions are still available. A quick search on MacUpdate gives me some free fullscreen movie players.

      No need to spend that extra $30.

    10. Re:Cheap? by green+pizza · · Score: 1

      It is like the entire computer is full of shareware

      The only piece of "shareware" I have seen that comes with Mac OS X is the Quicktime Player mentioned above. The basic / free version has several of the menu options removed. Just like the Windows version. But as others have pointed out, you can use a quick applescript to reenable these features. Everything else that ships with Mac OS X are the full, complete versions.

      There are several freeware movie players for Mac OS X that are far better than Quicktime Player. They can play just as many file formats too as Quicktime Player is just a front-end to the Quicktime libraries. There are also some other apps that come with Mac OS X that'll do the fullscreen trick for you.

      "DVD Player" is how you watch DVD movies on a Mac. It comes with the OS and it can play full screen with the click of a button or keystroke.

      iMovie is for editing home videos, it can play your quicktime movies full screen for you if you want.

      iDVD is for authoring DVD movies, it can preview your (converted to MPEG2) quicktime movies full screen for you if you want.

    11. Re:Cheap? by MetalliQaZ · · Score: 1

      Redundant? pfft. I was the 5th or 6th comment.

      -d

      --
      "Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
    12. Re:Cheap? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is the only example of a crippled program that comes with the system. It has other features that are enabled by paying $30 that only a video professional would likely be interested in. If you don't want to pay for it, get one of the free alternatives. mplayer and VLC are both free and both offer full screen video.

    13. Re:Cheap? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      rofl!

      you made my day.

    14. Re:Cheap? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what you are saying is a person with a lot of money bought a very expensive computer, and then promptly turned his brain off? Instead of doing a bit of research -- ya know, reading the documentation, using google, or hitting up a mac tips website -- he decided it would be better to just act like an idiot? I've got a 1.5ghz powerbook, and I watch movies full screen on an external monitor all the time. Nice troll, fucktard.

    15. Re:Cheap? by aristotle-dude · · Score: 1, Flamebait
      I two have questions for you and all of the other trolls that bring up Dells in every damn story about the mac mini.

      1. Do you work for Dell?
      2. Would you personally actually buy and use those cheap Dells you are whoring on ./?

      --
      Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
    16. Re:Cheap? by MetalliQaZ · · Score: 1

      1. no
      2. I don't whore anything, but if I needed a cheap new computer, then yes.

      --
      "Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
  6. Debian too by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 3, Interesting

    FTA:

    "Current releases of Yellow Dog, as well as of Debian and Gentoo (both of which run on the Mini), are stable enough for use."

    What's wrong with the Debian running on the Mini platform? Is there any reason Ubuntu couldn't run, too?

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Debian too by l3v1 · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      What's wrong with the Debian running on the Mini platform? Is there any reason Ubuntu couldn't run, too?

      What should be wrong with it ? I guess you're just one of those Ubunbu fanboys who think Ubuntu should be run everywhere. Why should the above listings start with some minor distros: if they say some big and well etablished distros can do it, then probably the derived others also can. This is a better formulation than the other way around.

      --
      I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
    2. Re:Debian too by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Why should something be wrong with it? I just asked whether anything was wrong with it, given that the article we're discussing conspicuously ignored it in the Slashdot summary, and gave disproportionate coverage to NetBSD and YDL, given the much larger distros mentioned running on the Mini. Where do you get off calling me an Ubuntu "fanboy", you clueless jerk? This is a technical discussion, and you've turned it into a misguided flamewar.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    3. Re:Debian too by eyeye · · Score: 1

      NetBSD and yellow dog linux are well established. ubuntu is just another debian descendent that has only become popular recently, why should it be mentioned none of the other dozen have.

      (nothing against ubuntu I have it installed as well as debian, and windows)

      --
      Bush and Blair ate my sig!
    4. Re:Debian too by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      I didn't ask that it be mentioned. I asked whether it worked. Does it work?

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    5. Re:Debian too by rjw57 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I already run Ubunto on my Mini.

      --
      Rich
    6. Re:Debian too by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Moderation -1
      100% Flamebait

      No, clueless jerk TrollMods, that post was a flame, in response to another flame. That's a flamewar. If you're keeping score, the first flame in the war is the flamebait. This flame is just "collateral damage".

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    7. Re:Debian too by screwthemoderators · · Score: 1

      I've seen your name on some interesting posts on /. and your absolutely correct on your definitions, you deserve better. BTW Yellow Dog is ahead of others for Apple hardware support. I wouldn't want to use any other linux on PPC for that reason.

    8. Re:Debian too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Erm, whats up ubuntu fanboy still hurting that your favourite distro wasnt mentioned?

      Look at distrowatch.com sometime, do you expect them to test and report on every pissy little variation of a mainstream distro?

    9. Re:Debian too by 51mon · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      There is no "collateral damage" moderation.

      Damn I can't mod you "off topic" now.

    10. Re:Debian too by RzUpAnmsCwrds · · Score: 1

      "Why should the above listings start with some minor distros"

      On the desktop, Ubuntu isn't exactly "minor". It's certainly not a SuSE or a RedHat, but it's bigger than a lot of distros.

      Remember, Debian isn't exactly focused on producing a stable, up-to-date desktop. Debian stable is the kind of thing you'd want to run a server on (rock solid and supported for a *long* time). It's not the kind of thing you'd want to run on a desktop.

    11. Re:Debian too by Kesh · · Score: 1

      Hit the Ubuntu website, and you'll find Install and Live CDs for PowerPC. It works on Macs.

    12. Re:Debian too by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      It's sad how many people have posted in this thread with inane insults that betray their inability to even read my post. And how few have answered the simple question of whether Ubuntu would run on a Mini, since Debian was claimed to run. You're a fool, and an Anonymous Coward fool, at that.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    13. Re:Debian too by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      If you had, you wouldn't have been posting offtopic yourself, would you?

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    14. Re:Debian too by burns210 · · Score: 1

      Well Ubuntu is arguably the fastest growing and largest of the 'minor distros' in the market... Besides which, Ubuntu already DOES run on Macs.

    15. Re:Debian too by FidelCatsro · · Score: 1

      Because it runs wonderfully ,I have done a test install on my Mini and it ran without any major hitch -ubuntu runs on my older imac g3 wonderfully too.
      It deserves mentioning because it has an excelent repository and support for the PPC/Mac platform thus i think it deserves credit..

      --
      The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
    16. Re:Debian too by ammulder · · Score: 1

      Me too -- I tried Yellow Dog and it was, well, terrible. Whereas Ubuntu worked like a charm.

      Still, I have to say, I prefer OS X.

  7. Why? by vijayiyer · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Or, if you want full hardware support along with a stable kernel, a C compiler, and network support, you just leave it alone. What's the advantage of switching to a free OS when you've already paid for the Mac OS?

    1. Re:Why? by karmatic · · Score: 1

      You like the free OS better?

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

      because you're an open-sores jackoff.

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

      because you like the other software better.

      i know this comes as a shock, but a mac/apple product is not perfect for everyone.

  8. Free software by eumaeus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Doesn't the Mac Mini come with a stable kernel, a C compiler, and network support, all implemented in "high quality code" at the right price? And, OS X comes with excellent support for Java, in contrast to the last time I experimented with Linux on PPC (about a year ago) and found that there was no up-to-date JVM or SDK. (But perhaps I missed something.)

    1. Re:Free software by bersl2 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      in contrast to the last time I experimented with Linux on PPC (about a year ago) and found that there was no up-to-date JVM or SDK. (But perhaps I missed something.)

      Whose fault is that? Is it ours for not petitioning Sun hard enough to do something which probably (correct me if I'm wrong) requires no more than a simple recompile? Is it our fault for not being able to reverse engineer everything in sight?

    2. Re:Free software by hawaiian717 · · Score: 1
      And, OS X comes with excellent support for Java, in contrast to the last time I experimented with Linux on PPC (about a year ago) and found that there was no up-to-date JVM or SDK. (But perhaps I missed something.)

      Gentoo has ibm-jdk-bin and ibm-jre-bin sitting in Portage at version 1.4.2 for both ppc and ppc64. Marked stable too. Recent enough for you?

      --
      End of Line.
    3. Re:Free software by eumaeus · · Score: 1

      That will do nicely! Now... where's that old Powerbook?

    4. Re:Free software by mretallack · · Score: 1

      This is a problem with non x86 linux distros. I have been using x86 Linux for about 5 years and only the imac mini has been able to turn my head away. I like the idea of running on a powerpc instead of an x86 for a bit. The only problem is that I would have to give up my Linux hat. I did see if it was possible to get Suns JVM for PowerPC linux but no luck. The other option was to use GCC's java VM. But when it comes right down to it there is no real resion to re-install another *nix instead of MacOS X on an imac mini other than to say you can (all be it a good reason in itself!!). Is has bash, gcc, java etc.. It is one more reason to make Sun's Java open.

    5. Re:Free software by despik · · Score: 1

      So, can you get Java working in Firefox on Linux/PPC? I still haven't managed to.

      --
      "I seem to have mastered a certain amount of control over physical reality."
    6. Re:Free software by hawaiian717 · · Score: 1

      I haven't tried, but I don't have a PPC Linux box.

      --
      End of Line.
    7. Re:Free software by MemoryDragon · · Score: 1

      There always has been, since IBM sells PowerPC Linux stuff as well, you simply cannot get it from Sun, but you have to download it from IBM. Bit I admit, there is no JDK 1.5/5.0 by now, but neither is there one for OSX.

    8. Re:Free software by geekee · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "Doesn't the Mac Mini come with a stable kernel, a C compiler, and network support, all implemented in "high quality code" at the right price?"

      What do you mean by the right price? Maybe I want the hardware only, and am willing to pay $400 for that, instead of $500 for both. But I don't have that option from Apple

      --
      Vote for Pedro
    9. Re:Free software by Bud · · Score: 1

      What do you mean by the right price? Maybe I want the hardware only, and am willing to pay $400 for that, instead of $500 for both. But I don't have that option from Apple

      What do you mean by "maybe I want the hardware only"?

      Isn't it the best kept secret of the IT industry that Apple software just absolutely rocks, and you would have to pay $500 or more to get even close to the same functionality that now comes bundled with the Mac mini? In which case the nifty hardware that you so highly covet would be, essentially, a free add-on to make the software run.

      --Bud

    10. Re:Free software by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, you're saying he should be able to get the hardware only for free?

      Not everyone are Apple zealots, and yet some none-apple-zealots recognize that Appple make nice hardware, and want to use it. No, we have no use for OS/X, it's not a Playstation. We have already picked the software, and are now looking for the best hardware to run it.

  9. I don't understand by CypherXero · · Score: 0, Redundant

    So you buy a Mac Mini, and want a free OS alternative? Why? First off, you already paid for OS X (which, BTW, is a damn good OS), so tell me again why would you need to install NetBSD or Yellow Dog Linux?

    What's the point of that?

    1. Re:I don't understand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Because I can ...

      I can survive on vitamin pills as well which are BTW damn healthy. I just need more fun and want to eat steak or nachos at times as well.

    2. Re:I don't understand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because some people don't like OSX. Got a problem with that?

    3. Re:I don't understand by gilesjuk · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ..and some people don't like the archaic x86 platform.

      PowerPC is a nice platform.

    4. Re:I don't understand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And Linux is a nice kernel.
      Sounds like a perfect match. ;)

    5. Re:I don't understand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I don't want to pay 129.00 a year for updates.

      I want to run a free OS, not an OS that I'm forced to purchase with the hardware.

    6. Re:I don't understand by m50d · · Score: 1

      Alpha in particular, or Sparc or Itanium, is a nicer platform. They don't run OSX, but if you're going to be using linux then they're better choices. Get a cheap secondhand alpha that was top of the range ten years ago from some company that's selling them off, or a sparc workstation off ebay.

      --
      I am trolling
    7. Re:I don't understand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. Itanium is not better than PPC. IMHO.

  10. Fine for us, but . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    . . . but free software will always play second fiddle to Microsoft in the consumer market. It's not about price, or quality for the average 'Joe Email' user. It's about advertising, distribution, and familiarity. The only way anyone will ever take the crown is to get a serious distribution deal with someone like Walmart, who can promote a non-Microsoft technology, and get it quickly and easily into consumers homes.

    1. Re:Fine for us, but . . . by taniwha · · Score: 1
    2. Re:Fine for us, but . . . by mrtivo · · Score: 1

      That laptop is comparable to a 533MHz computer, and it has almost no ram.

    3. Re:Fine for us, but . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At $498.00 it's a bit expensive to use as a network console for the minimac.

      Plus:
      CDROM instead of CD-RW/DVD
      30GB HD
      A C3@1GHz is crap.
      128MB RAM ? 128MB RAM ??? What year is this 1999 ?

    4. Re:Fine for us, but . . . by taniwha · · Score: 1

      that's not the point - read the comment I was replying to .... as the guy said it has little to do with speed and power ....

  11. You can get a PC for $89US at geeks.com by saskboy · · Score: 2, Informative

    It comes with the Case, MB, and Hard drive.

    Then add a monitor = $100
    Video Card = $40
    Peripherals = $40
    CPU = $40

    Now THAT'S a cheap computer. If you're looking to save money, why buy a Mac?

    --
    Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
    1. Re:You can get a PC for $89US at geeks.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've got it the wrong way round.

      If your looking to buy a Mac, the mini is cheap enough to be affordable to most of us.

    2. Re:You can get a PC for $89US at geeks.com by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      maybe because you are doing PPC development? maybe because you want a PPC computer because you like PPC processors? maybe because you have x86?

      the cheapest is not the reason here... it is because it is a Cheap ppc computer.

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    3. Re:You can get a PC for $89US at geeks.com by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't know where the $89 system is, but the closest I can find is the Geekit:

      Geekit

      And that's $199. Don't forget the RAM too, though it does have the keyboard and mouse, though only PS/2. Not a bad price, but it's not a Mac either, I already have PCs that are a lot better than that. That said, I wouldn't buy a Mac to run linux or a plain BSD, I'd buy it for OS X. In my opinion, as a desktop OS, OS X as a whole is lightyears ahead of any Linux or other BSD I've seen.

    4. Re:You can get a PC for $89US at geeks.com by Gorbag · · Score: 1

      One word for you: NSLU2. $83 at Amazon. Then you OpenSlug it, and you're off. Access via another computer ;-)

      --
      -- I speak only for myself
  12. Re:Cheap? Hardly. by mmkkbb · · Score: 1

    especially since sex and the city is cancelled.

    --
    -mkb
  13. Re:Cheap? Hardly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    YOU ARE DENSE.

  14. Re:Cheap? Hardly. by nunchux · · Score: 5, Informative

    You fail to mention that this system is listed at nearly double that price, and the link shows you how to go through rebate hell to get a deal. And the deal expires tonight.

  15. Re:Cheap? Hardly. by pomo+monster · · Score: 1

    Are you trolling, or just stupid?

  16. Re:Cheap? Hardly. by nat5an · · Score: 1

    Someone should mod parent down as flamebait. I watch full-screen movies and play full-screen games on my 20" cinema display all the time. Parent post doesn't know what he's talking about.

    --
    Head down, go to sleep to the rhythm of the war drums...
  17. Nothing new... by IBeatUpNerds · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Computers have been getting cheaper and cheaper. I'm mainly citing PCs, since Macs have always one-upped PCs in price and advertising. Sure, cute little machines are nice.

    My point: two years ago I put together a 1.8ghz machine with 512 megs of RAM, decent video card, decent hard-drive, for 300 dollars. No OS included. Toss in some FreeBSD and I'm up and runnning for 300 bucks. So, again, someone please tell me how a 500 dollar computer is news these days? Just because it's a Mac? Just because Joe-sixpack can pick one up and doesn't need to know how to assemble parts? If so, why assume he would give a hoot about NetBSD or Linux?

    1. Re:Nothing new... by ciroknight · · Score: 1

      What's new is that Apple is "getting it". I agree with you, the article makes the Mini Mac out to be a great panacea for all Linux/NetBSD users, but in reality, it's just great hardware in a small box for very cheap.

      Also, I cannot stress enough that Apple's Mini Mac probably costs $300 to build as well, the operating system sells for $129, and the rest of the cost is profit margin (albeit small). Every company's gotta make money, and this happens to be a good way to do it. Besides, if you don't use the OS, you still bought it, Apple's still happy, you're free to resell it (if it has a transferable license, which I doubt), or sit and pout while tinkering away with your favorite BSD/Linux.

      Apple is a software company; buying their hardware is just the best way for them to insure their software runs exactly the way it was planned.

      --
      "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
    2. Re:Nothing new... by John+Seminal · · Score: 1
      My point: two years ago I put together a 1.8ghz machine with 512 megs of RAM, decent video card, decent hard-drive, for 300 dollars. No OS included. Toss in some FreeBSD and I'm up and runnning for 300 bucks. So, again, someone please tell me how a 500 dollar computer is news these days? Just because it's a Mac? Just because Joe-sixpack can pick one up and doesn't need to know how to assemble parts? If so, why assume he would give a hoot about NetBSD or Linux?

      It is getting to the point where companies are making PC's much cheaper than anyone can buy. Dell has deals on servers in the $200-300 range, all you need is an OS like linux.

      Apple is too expensive, they will never gain market share at their price. If they play it smart, and make their computer the flagship for ipod music, and cut the price on the computer, I can see them gaining a ton of customers. I don't own a mac, yet I *think* the mac is more of an entertainment center than anything with windows on it.

      Apple, please cut your prices!

      --

      Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."

    3. Re:Nothing new... by NardofDoom · · Score: 1

      You have obviously never used OS X.

      --
      You have two hands and one brain, so always code twice as much as you think!
  18. hardware support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Until Airport Express is supported by Yellowdog (or any other Linux for PPC), OSX is the only option.

    Then again, can someone remind me why the UNIX under OSX is not good enough? 4 years, and no problems from me.

    1. Re:hardware support by pvera · · Score: 2, Interesting

      A little over 3 years using OS X as my Unix platform. The only problems I have encountered so far:

      1. The MySQL library for CPAN does not install automagically, but the procedure was figured out long ago and is accessible to anyone that knows how to GIS.

      2. Apache2 was much harder for me to setup, but I also had trouble in freeBSD so the fault is obviously mine.

      Except for those two things, everything else is great.

      --
      Pedro
      ----
      The Insomniac Coder
    2. Re:hardware support by StarManta.Mini · · Score: 5, Funny

      Then again, can someone remind me why the UNIX under OSX is not good enough?

      Because it wasn't compiled and installed from scratch, obviously.

      Also, it's too easy to set up and use, and there's not enough hacking to get apps installed.

    3. Re:hardware support by delire · · Score: 1

      Hmm. I would say largely because it's not free, vendor dependant, comparably inflexible and the superglued interface is, from my perspective, horrible to use.

      Several varieties of Linux can be setup on a PPC machine in under half-and-hour. All you'll miss out on is the Apple Airport; that said, I like to choose who I fly with anyway..

    4. Re:hardware support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then again, can someone remind me why the UNIX under OSX is not good enough?

      If one is merely a unix fan then it is fine. If one is part of the software freedom movement then the type of OS doesn't matter as long as it is free. GNU+linux is merely the most advanced free os currently.

    5. Re:hardware support by anamexis · · Score: 1

      For others, I would like to point out the Server Logistics Complete Web Server series. It is the best I have found for getting a fully-functional and up-to-date LAMP environment on Mac OS X. It includes .pkg-based seamless installers for Apache 2, PHP 4 with loads of extensions, MySQL 4, and Tomcat 4. There are even prefpanes for Apache, MySQL, and Tomcat, detailed instructions and manuals for everything, and all free. Oh, and they all automagically work with each other out of the box. No, I don't work for Server Logistics. Anyways, check them all out here.

    6. Re:hardware support by minus_273 · · Score: 1

      actually the unix under OS X (darwin ) is free and open source. you can get the source here . The GUI is not open source but everything else is.

      --
      The war with islam is a war on the beast
      The war on terror is a war for peace
    7. Re:hardware support by minus_273 · · Score: 1

      sorry wrong link. this is it Darwin

      --
      The war with islam is a war on the beast
      The war on terror is a war for peace
    8. Re:hardware support by pvera · · Score: 1

      Great find, I wonder what are their plans to move MySQL to 4.1.x and PHP to 5.

      --
      Pedro
      ----
      The Insomniac Coder
    9. Re:hardware support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting - although ignorant. Darwin is free, xfree86 runs happily on it, and you can use whatever non-superglued WM that you'd like under it. At that point, you're basically living on a box that feels like a FreeBSD machine.

      You can also use the stock, installed OSX, and boot to console mode instead of Aqua, run X, and get all of the nifty non-free drivers (like airport express) too. Contrary to popular belief, OSX doesn't force the Aqua WM on you - given a little elbow grease, google searching, and effort, you can make it do whatever you want.

      Then again, we all know that this isn't an argument based on technical merit or flexibility - it's 99% religion, 1% fact.

    10. Re:hardware support by delire · · Score: 1

      Yes I realise this. Darwin however is platform specific - and this is quite a turn off; Linux however is everywhere and runs on just about anything. Having used Linux for a long time there is comfort in this familiarity; I can move from machine to machine and feel at home and productive.

      Also worth noting, Linux on the PPC is set for very good years ahead - with alot of investment by the architects of the PPC chip (IBM) and the fact Torvalds himself develops for the Linux kernel on an Apple machine. For better or worse we'll see PPC laptops sold with Linux pre-installed in the coming years.

      I think Darwin was a great move by Apple, however having poked around with a few Apple/OSX machines recently I can say I'm only interested in IBM's PPC architecture itself.

    11. Re:hardware support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Darwin targets both x86 and PPC. Unarguably 99% of the market.

      Darwin on the PPC is also set for a good many years, with investment by Apple.

      We will NOT see PPC laptops sold with Linux. We will see many x86 laptops sold for with Linux. Why? Cost of development. Right now if you develop a x86 laptop for the Windows market, you get a Linux laptop for only a little additional work. If you develop a PPC laptop, you don't have the windows mass market to help subsidize your costs.

    12. Re:hardware support by am+2k · · Score: 1
      Apache2 was much harder for me to setup, but I also had trouble in freeBSD so the fault is obviously mine.

      hm... I installed apache2 with mod_ssl and subversion support on my Mac running Panther without any problems whatsoever, compiled straight from the source tarballs available from the official web sites...

    13. Re:hardware support by pvera · · Score: 1

      Like I said, the fault was mine, not OSX. Had I bothered to read the distribution notes the grief factor would have gone down by at least one order of magnitude.

      --
      Pedro
      ----
      The Insomniac Coder
  19. Why not OS X? by po8 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    One possible point---you don't want to pay again, every 12 months or so. Another---you don't want to pay for apps, which can be way more expensive than the cost of the OS anyhow. A third---you want some of the things that are better than in OS X, such as modern X font rendering or Mozilla Firefox. A fourth---you want to be able to repair and upgrade your operating system; better yet, to have those fixes and changes integrated so that everyone can use them. A fifth---you're afraid of vendor lock-in, and want to make sure that your OS and apps are supported into the future. Shall I go on?

    I think if I was willing to pay 1.5--2x for Mac hardware, I'd just run OS X. But some folks just like Apple hardware. I don't think the folks who choose to run a free OS on this hardware are insane: they have many viable reasons.

    1. Re:Why not OS X? by dankelley · · Score: 1

      you want some of the things that are better than in OS X, such as ... Mozilla Firefo So Firefox is better than Safari? Is that the same firefox that doesn't display its menus until I click outside of its window, and then click again inside it? Your point about not having to pay for new versions of the OS is valid, but I can't agree on the application quality.

    2. Re:Why not OS X? by gmccloskey · · Score: 1

      (1) You're not forced to upgrade, and the apple cycle is getting longer as the OS matures - currently running at about 16 months. (2) Free OS != free apps. You can get paid-for apps in OSS and free-beer apps - including linux ports - for OSX (3) please explain how X rendering is better than the font rendering technology apple helped develop. You can get Firefox for OSX. OSX has some of the most advanced gfx and font rendering (with colour accuracy built-in for free) in any OS. Even Longhorn won't match some of it's features. http://developer.apple.com/documentation/MacOSX/Co nceptual/OSX_Technology_Overview/MacOSXTechnology/ chapter_4_section_3.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP400 01067-CH207-TPXREF156 (4) not everyone wants/needs this, but if it floats your boat go ahead. You have the opportunity at least with the Darwin core. (5) Apple has been dying for the last 20 years, you're right to be concerned. Apple and OSX are not perfect but the points you raise are not their major failings. Rant about the Finder interface, SAMBA networking, thread locking and MP performance and you'd have a point.

    3. Re:Why not OS X? by FLAGGR · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You do realize most apps that run on linux work in OSX? Right now I'm running X11 along with OSX's window server (quartz or something), so you have plenty of free apps you cheap basterd. What do you mean Firefox is better when its not in OSX? I'm failing to see a difference, I've had my mini since it came out, and my PC runs Gentoo (which means its up to date ;)) and the only difference I can see is the close/max/min buttons are on the left in osx :) Modern X font rendering? I prefer OSX's thank you very much. They both look equally nice, but in OSX I don't have to spend hours getting things working. You can repair and upgrade OSX - it's still a BSD. For example, you can still get all that scrolling boot text ala *nix by changing a setting in the BIOS to remove the bootup framebuffer. You can do anything in OSX that you can in BSD. Just some of the things aren't open source, like Aqua. If that bothers you, you can switch to only X11 and use KDE. Oh, and show me a PC that is 1.5--2x cheaper than a Mac Mini, with equivelent hardware (That rules out the Dell knock off pc's) and with the same software bundle. (I hate to tell you, but some open source apps aren't as good as their closed source counterparts. iLife just plain rocks.)

    4. Re:Why not OS X? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
      One possible point---you don't want to pay again, every 12 months or so.
      Then don't. Steve Jobs won't show up at your house and kick your dog if you don't upgrade. Also, Apple has said that OS development is going to slow down a bit - a new release every couple years.
      Another---you don't want to pay for apps
      Good thing that they'll have Fink, Portage, Darwin Ports, etc. to get access to all those great open source apps. And just in case Mom want's to use Microsoft Excel to catch up on work, she'll have access to that too.
      you want some of the things that are better than in OS X, such as modern X font rendering or Mozilla Firefox.
      Quartz renders text pretty nicely in firefox now.
      you want to be able to repair and upgrade your operating system; better yet, to have those fixes and changes integrated so that everyone can use them.
      OpenDarwin.org and developer.apple.com will get you started
      you're afraid of vendor lock-in, and want to make sure that your OS and apps are supported into the future.
      Considering that applications written for System 7 and M68k will still run on a Dual G5 with OS X 10.4, that sounds like a good reason to use OS X.
      Shall I go on?
      Certainly, right after you start. Posted anonymously because I already clicked that stupid moderate button.
    5. Re:Why not OS X? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
      One possible point---you don't want to pay again, every 12 months or so.

      Then don't. People are still running Jaguar, and many more will still be running Panther even after Tiger gets released. No need to keep up with Apple's latest and greatest if you're satisfied with what you have. I see plenty of Win2000 users around too.

      Another---you don't want to pay for apps, which can be way more expensive than the cost of the OS anyhow.

      All the prominent open source apps are also available on OS-X via fink and darwinports. You're not going to miss anything, if you don't want to.

      A third---you want some of the things that are better than in OS X, such as modern X font rendering or Mozilla Firefox.

      Name any font rendering scheme which is not available on OS-X. X-windows and KDE are also available on OS-X via fink. X-windows apps run fine on OS-X, as does Mozilla Firefox.

      A fourth---you want to be able to repair and upgrade your operating system; better yet, to have those fixes and changes integrated so that everyone can use them.

      Why can't this be done on OS-X? Opendarwin differs from Apple's Darwin in that they include add-ons and other utilities not generally distributed by Apple.

      A fifth---you're afraid of vendor lock-in, and want to make sure that your OS and apps are supported into the future.

      The only way to avoid vendor lock-in is to opt for open source software, which means programming for X-windows and UNIX-like environments. As OS-X already provide those environments, you're not vey far removed from open source solutions already---which is why Apple has been so involved in OSS with the introduction of OS-X.

      Shall I go on?

      You can start ...

    6. Re:Why not OS X? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "you don't want to pay again"

      This is valid. How do I tell my father-in-law that, yes, the OS that came with his smoke iMac _is_ a piece of shit, but he has to spend another $100+ dollars to 'improve' it to the point where his CPU can't push it anymore.

      He'd say 'if it was unfinished crap then why'd they ship it?' And you know, I couldn't give him an answer other than to say the Mac Faithful absolve Apple of any sin, any time.

      So now I'm putting together a manual on swapping drives on a gumdrop iMac and shipping it to JD along with a drive loaded with Ubuntu.

      This family is through with, perhaps not Macs, but certainly with Apple's 'shut up and buy this' philosophy.

      And as long as I'm ranting: I keep going back to OS X when I have an opportunity to work on one at a friend's place and after a few years now I still find it extraordinarily intrusive visually.

    7. Re:Why not OS X? by MemoryDragon · · Score: 1

      Not quite true, while some apps run, the ports are often very old and lack severely behind the actual linux/bsd versions. Some really important ones are not ported yet at all (pgAdmin3 comes to my mind, KDE is a very old version, runnind half stable under fink) The situation os good as soon as you can get the program up and running then it runs natively but it is far worse thank Cygwin under windows because many packages fail to run at all. There is currently no real opendarwin debian which probably would be needed to have the stuff up and running in time (fink and others lack momentum)

    8. Re:Why not OS X? by ImpTech · · Score: 1

      Linux apps under OSX all seem pretty kludgey to me, even the ones I can get through fink. In fact, several of the *NIX apps that have OSX ports feel that way. GVIM, for instance, was a small headache.

    9. Re:Why not OS X? by Mornelithe · · Score: 1

      Are you speaking about the quality of Firefox on OS X? Does that translate directly to the quality of Firefox on Linux?

      Also, many people enjoy the many extensions that extend the functionality of Firefox. Does Safari have a comparable range of free extensions?

      --

      I've come for the woman, and your head.

  20. Re:Cheap? Hardly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Have you ever tried to display anything full screen in OS X? Apparently not, judging by your comment... as far as movies, DVD Player, QuickTime Player, Windows Media Player, RealPlayer, VLC, and mplayer all have full screen options right in their menu bars. And almost every game DEFAULTS to being full screen... to run it in a window, you have to go change the settings somewhere.

    Perhaps you are referring to the difference between windows maximize window and OS X's zoom window functions. This is a matter of preference (one makes windows take up the whole screen, the other makes them fit their contents to save screen real estate). In general, which ever you are used to is the one you prefer (for example, Photoshop on Windows drives me nuts for this very reason).

  21. Free software with Mac Mini already... by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Last time I checked the Mac Mini shipped with MacOS X included, so you've got free (as in beer) software with it already. Apart from being free (as in speech), just what do NetBSD and Yellow Dog Linux have that the pre-installed software doesn't have? Can someone please enlighten me?

    Buying a Mac Mini specifically to install another less polished OS onto it (NetBSD and Yellow Dog Linux may be many things, but neither is polished to MacOS X's standards) seems like really flawed logic.

    --

    "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
    1. Re:Free software with Mac Mini already... by CdBee · · Score: 1

      There are one or two things you can't do on OSX, to be fair:

      Any sound app that relies on ALSA (and there are a few) for an example, or running the latest release of OpenOffice. Possibly the expense of buying a PPC Linux distribution can be justified by the free software you can then run on it. Although it may be easier just to wait for ports to OSX of your favourite linux apps...

      --
      I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
    2. Re:Free software with Mac Mini already... by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 1

      I'll accept the sound app thing (although who buys a Mac Mini for audio processing?) but why do you need the very latest version of OpenOffice when you've already got the installed application suite that Apple bundles with its machines?

      --

      "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
    3. Re:Free software with Mac Mini already... by argent · · Score: 1

      Apart from being free (as in speech), just what do NetBSD and Yellow Dog Linux have that the pre-installed software doesn't have?

      A more reliable file system (HFS+ is way behind Berkeley FFS... the only time in a quarter of a century that I have had a UNIX file system corrupted so badly that I couldn't even repair it from single-user mode was when the "diskadd" script on a SCO UNIX box started formatting drive 0 (that it was booted off) instead of drive 1 (the new disk). And even then I was able to save everything to tape just using the ratty remains of the file system before that final reboot.

      Which brings me to the next point. OS X does not provide standard UNIX tape support. You can't backup using dump or AMANDA or any other standard UNIX tape tools, you have to fork out money to Dantz for Retrospect. That's just messed up.

      But I sure as hell wouldn't buy a Mac mini to run Linux on to get around these problems. A small form factor PC with a tape drive installed would probably come out cheaper than a whole Mac Mini. It's what I do, I don't trust data on HFS+ and I dump over the net to an old DLT on an old cheap PC running FreeBSD.

    4. Re:Free software with Mac Mini already... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Last time I checked the Mac Mini shipped with MacOS X included, so you've got free (as in beer) software with it already.

      Uh... no. It's just that the price of OS X is included in the purchase price.

      Try going to Apple when they release Jaguar, and asking for your free upgrade. What do you mean, $120?! I thought this OS was meant to be "free as in beer!"

    5. Re:Free software with Mac Mini already... by evanfrey · · Score: 1

      well, some people, like me, think that although mac osx is pretty, its also not my choice of distro (not a fan of darwin). I prefer linux with a custom X11 desktop. Its my current desktop and would not like to change. That said, I like the mac mini packaging so off I go to get one and to install my os of choice (gentoo). I dont understand why this is so hard for some people to understand. Its just a matter of preferance. As far as it being less polished, thats only true of the driver support however, thats quickly changing (last i checked the only thing unsupported is the airport 802.11g, but a usb dongle can fix that). In conclusion the only thing thats flawed is the BS preposition that one OS is better then another. There all good in thier own way (winME excluded) for certain things, its just a matter of opinion.

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
    6. Re:Free software with Mac Mini already... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do know that you can run a custom X11 desktop under osx right?

    7. Re:Free software with Mac Mini already... by zpok · · Score: 1

      Ahem, I'm a die-hard Apple fan, but if you want to spend your time waiting for ports to OSX of your favourite linux apps, you'll be happy to know you'll spend a LOT of time.

      If FOSS is really your thing, I think you better run it on Linux, whether on mac or pc hardware.

      If you're happy with OS X (as I am, halelujah!), it does pay to do all that Fink, X11 and related stuff, I hear that does it for a lot of people, but the native ports are a big disappointment.

      They're there, but not nearly as useable as PC ports, it seems the developers are just not there in big enough numbers to really polish a port until it's perfect, or at least adequate to serve as a real down to earth solution to a real world problem or challenge.

      Some exceptions of course: Thunderbird and Firefox and I bet some other specialized apps - lots of scientific stuff, I understand.

      --
      I think, therefore I am...I think.
    8. Re:Free software with Mac Mini already... by evanfrey · · Score: 1

      Yes, however I prefer linux over bsd (at this point anyway, had you asked my years ago my answer would have been the opposite) and regardless, I really dont like darwin. I've had to administer it before and have to say I prefer linux (any distro) or freeBSD to darwin (yes, i know that darwin was at least partially based on freeBSD, but I still dont like the differences). Nothing against osx, darwin or whatever, I just like to use what I like to use. The tools that I use for my job are right for ME.

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
  22. Haven't I Heard this Before? by mojowantshappy · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "If you need all the hardware and options fully supported, these open source options won't do it for you ... yet."

    Oh really? Then when?

    --

    This page was generated by a Barrel of Circus Midgets, and that is the way I like it!!!

    1. Re:Haven't I Heard this Before? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      When Broadcom grows a heart and releases the specs to its 802.11g chipset.

    2. Re:Haven't I Heard this Before? by StarManta.Mini · · Score: 1

      Perhaps this year will be the Year of Harware Support on the Linux Mini Desktop.

    3. Re:Haven't I Heard this Before? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haven't you heard? The answer to "When?" is always "It's open source, code it yourself!!"

  23. Re:Cheap? Hardly. by McDutchie · · Score: 5, Informative
    $500 for a plain, low end box is not cheap. A Dell 2.8 GHz P4 with a 19" LCD, keyboard, and mouse for $529 [gotapex.com] is cheap.

    No DVD player in the Dell, nor FireWire, nor a modem, nor a stack of bundled software, nor 90 days of free telephone support. Nor is it small, or silent. Laptop technology, which is what the Mini uses, is more expensive.

    Just because the Dell costs less doesn't mean the Mac Mini isn't cheap, especially since the box contains more in less space.

  24. Really... by DavidNWelton · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I don't get why these articles always seem to push some one-off distribution that someone has scrounged together for their particular architecture. With Debian/Ubuntu, Gentoo or whatever, you get the same basic OS you use everywhere else, modulo a few tools that are specific to that architecture. That makes your life easier, so you can spend more time on interesting things, be it watching movies, kernel hacking or whatever...

  25. Re:Cheap? Hardly. by bonch · · Score: 1, Insightful

    This argument was addressed countless times after the mini's release. You're comparing apples and oranges.

    I can't tell my musician friend to go out and buy your Dell and expect to get a free music sequencer installed, along with the rest of the software. He won't even get a Firewire port to use his M-Audio Firewire 410 with. And he won't get OS X instead of Windows XP.

  26. Re:Cheap? Hardly. by dark13star · · Score: 1

    What are you talking about? I have a 30" Cinema Display and I can watch DVDs on it in full screen mode. I can also do full screen in Quicktime Player and MPlayer. Granted, most things look grainy in full screen, but that is just because there are so many pixels to fill and even HD video needs to be enlarged to do full screen on this size display. The capability is certainly there though.

  27. Linux or OS X? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OS X is massively superior to Linux in all departments, and it's much better suited to the hardware in this instance. I can't see why anyone would want to run Linux on the mini unless they're some kind of zealot; OS X is the only OS to use on it.

    1. Re:Linux or OS X? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      PLEASE DO NOT FEED THE TROLL.

    2. Re:Linux or OS X? by hyperstation · · Score: 1

      OS X is the only OS to use on it.

      he's not trolling, he's right! it's too bad he didn't log in to post that.

      currently, OS X *is* the only desktop os that's worth two shits on PPC, plain and simple. it's the best of both worlds, aesthetic beauty and functionality; unix power and windowed simplicity.

      if free software can come up with useable and coherent answer to aqua running on a free darwin, bsd or linux kernel, please give me a call.

    3. Re:Linux or OS X? by bbc · · Score: 1

      "I can't see why anyone would want to run Linux on the mini unless they're some kind of zealot"

      (gasp!) Surely you're not suggesting that zealots would buy Apples?!

    4. Re:Linux or OS X? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spoke like a true zealot. Fuckin' hypocrite.

  28. not the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    the point here isn't the fact that its rediculously cheap. its the package. it's true, you do buy OSX when you buy the mini, so the article itself is somewhat flawed/obsolete. but to all who bash the mac mini's price, your just plain wrong.
    the price point of 500 dollars is an excellent alternative to any of Apple's more expensive computers.

    They're all more expensive than windows-boxes, but thats the fucking point.

    you can buy a 300 dollar p.o.s. that will run WINDOWS. nasty. consumers have never before had such a low-priced option to run an OS as stable as OSX.
    youre missing the point. yes, 500 bucks is more than 300 bucks. but why pay 300 in the beginning if it's gonna come with windows.

    not to mention the included software (garageband, iMovie, appleworks) that makes the mac mini worth the price, and the amount of time/money you must throw into that 300 dollar PC to keep it as secure as the unix-based OSX comes already.

    1. Re:not the point by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 3, Informative

      how about the fact that 300 dollar computers do not come with firewire, dvd drives, cd writers, modems, and all the good software that comes with OS X,

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    2. Re:not the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      your just plain wrong

      your stupid

  29. Re:Cheap? Hardly. by m50d · · Score: 1

    I'm curious when you say dvd player. If it's got no drive you have a point, but they're pretty cheap, what $30 or something? If you dropped the processor a little I'm sure you could get one with DVD drive. If you mean the player then you can get them free all over the internet. The same for the software. Modems are hardly used anymore, although all the systems I see on sale tend to have one included, you normally get one with your isp connection. What do you want firewire for? I'll agree with you on the laptop technology, that's what you're paying for for the most part, but apple tends to have a bigger markup on this kind of thing because they're apple as well. If you don't need the silence, you're better off getting something else. Even if you do need it, you should certainly shop around.

    --
    I am trolling
  30. You forgot some stuff... by MP3Chuck · · Score: 2, Insightful

    RAM, CD-R, sound card, speakers. They're pretty essential these days. But at that point, you're approaching what it would cost to get a cheap-o Dell...

  31. Re:Cheap? Hardly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Screw the free sequencer ;P, the whole reason I bought a Mac was so I could run Logic Audio. I'm still not sure why you would install Linux on it though, I have 4 computers running Linux in my apartment all of which I got for free. Can't get any cheaper than free.

  32. Fullscreen in QTP by Monx · · Score: 5, Informative

    if you are reffering to quicktime, yes, they charge for fullscreen

    They just charge for the menu item:

    tell application "QuickTime Player"
    enter full screen display 1
    set the scale of movie 1 to screen
    play movie 1
    end tell

    1. Re:Fullscreen in QTP by ryan_fung · · Score: 1

      Just tried the script. It's almost like the real thing, but for some reason the movie is smaller than playing full screen with QuickTime Pro.

      I'd suggest using any free third party QuickTIme substitute which supports full screen playing instead.

      Take a look at http://www.versiontracker.com/

    2. Re:Fullscreen in QTP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Alternative AppleScript code:
      on open FileName
      tell application "QuickTime Player"
      activate
      open FileName
      present movie 1
      end tell
      end open
      Compile the script and drag-and-drop a movie file.
  33. cheap $500 ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    $500 is not cheap for a mac mini CPU box.

    $200 would be cheap and about the right price point for a mac mini type box.

    1. Re:cheap $500 ? by rokzy · · Score: 1, Troll

      BS, look at small form factor PCs and you'll pay $200 just on the chasis, and it still won't be as small or quiet as a Mac mini.

      the Mac mini is very cheap if any off the following have value to you:
      -footprint
      -noise
      -beautiful, fully-functional, secure, stable OS
      -style

      if you don't care about usability and judge things on "just the specs ma'am", then you can stick with your Intel box and continue to believe that uptimes should be measured in hours or that you only need 50% of your components supported anyway.

    2. Re:cheap $500 ? by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 1

      why I do like many of the apple products, I can do without
      the agenda. As you said, they are hardly cheap, including
      the mini.

    3. Re:cheap $500 ? by Chess_the_cat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You're absolutely right. I'm interested in the Mac mini and think it's a good price but that's because it's really OS X I'm interested in. A Mac mini is the cheapest way for me to be able to run it. That's what they're really selling: the OS. As cheap hardware to run Linux on it's a bad deal. I can cobble together hardware for less than $500 that'll handle Linux.

      --
      Support the First Amendment. Read at -1
    4. Re:cheap $500 ? by John+Seminal · · Score: 2, Insightful
      BS, look at small form factor PCs and you'll pay $200 just on the chasis, and it still won't be as small or quiet as a Mac mini.

      Dell is selling full PC's for the $200 range. Look at their website for buisness servers. Of course, you don't get an OS.

      Apple is also behind in speed. You can talk about pipelines. You can talk about the myth of Mhz. But when it is a 2 to 1 ratio, and the price is a 2 to 1 ratio in the wrong direction, the PC is still king.

      --

      Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."

    5. Re:cheap $500 ? by Luthair · · Score: 2, Insightful

      BS, look at small form factor PCs and you'll pay $200 just on the chasis, and it still won't be as small or quiet as a Mac mini.

      $200 tag only occurs with HTPC (fad price gouging), barebones (brand + motherboard + PSU + pieces) or you're paying for a brand; otherwise you'll get chasis for <50 easily.

      the Mac mini is very cheap if any off the following have value to you: -footprint -noise -beautiful, fully-functional, secure, stable OS -style

      The fanboy in you seems to have disregarded the parents point that a Mac Mini isn't cheap if you aren't buying an OS. Size, style (though a computer isn't a fashion accessory), noise and OS are available elsewhere.

      if you don't care about usability and judge things on "just the specs ma'am", then you can stick with your Intel box and continue to believe that uptimes should be measured in hours or that you only need 50% of your components supported anyway.

      I must have missed where Mac systems caught up to and eclipsed others in uptime... oh wait no I didn't.

    6. Re:cheap $500 ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's really OS X I'm interested in. A Mac mini is the cheapest way for me to be able to run it.

      No - PearPC is the cheapest way for you to be able to run it, because it's free and uses your existing x86 hardware.

      A Mac mini is just the cheapest way for you to be able to run it at a usable speed. :p

    7. Re:cheap $500 ? by Rosonowski · · Score: 1

      SFF PCs probably being in reference to Shuttle boxen, where you get a chassis, motherboard and PSU , but nothing else.

      --
      01101001 01100001 01101101 01101110 01101111 01110100 01100001 01101100 01100001 01110111 01111001 01100101 01110010
    8. Re:cheap $500 ? by GlassHeart · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The problem is that Apple is selling a computer system, made up of hardware and software. Comparing Apple computers to a Dell PC (which is comprised mainly of hardware) is as silly as comparing it to a Windows installation CD.

      Yes, a Dell PC might have a lower price tag, but you'll have to use Windows. Or if you don't want to, you'll have to spend the time installing Linux. You can look at the $500 Mac Mini as a $260 computer with a $130 OS, $50 iLife suite, and $60 Quicken. (You should do similar math for the sub-$500 Dell boxes, which by my quick research comes with more hardware, but with XP Home and WordPerfect only.)

      The point is, just because Apple refuses to sell its hardware and software separately doesn't mean it's fair to compare its computer systems against either basically a hardware-only price or a software-only price. If you don't want both Apple hardware and software, generally you shouldn't buy Apple at all, because the hardware-only solutions from Dell are likely to always be cheaper.

    9. Re:cheap $500 ? by Ucklak · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There is no way the Wintel boxes can compete with $500 for a full blown Mini-DV editing, DVD authoring, and sound editing.

      Do you forget that the $500 also includes iLife?

      --
      if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
    10. Re:cheap $500 ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm the point of the aritical is that you can run linux and netbsd so iLife is sort of a non point.

    11. Re:cheap $500 ? by SA+Stevens · · Score: 1

      I can cobble together hardware for less than $500 that'll handle Linux.

      I'm running Linux... well, I'm running NetBSD, but I have run Linux on it... on Dell Optiplex GX1s with Pentium 3 processors that I paid less than a dollar for (80 machines on a skid, at auction, for $40).

      These discussions about 'cheap platforms' are ludicrious, in a day and age where bloatware from Microsoft and the Linux vendors (KDE, Gnome, OpenOffice, and other bloatware messes) drives perfectly good PII and P3 systems right out of institutions.

    12. Re:cheap $500 ? by SA+Stevens · · Score: 1

      You can look at the $500 Mac Mini as a $260 computer with a $130 OS, $50 iLife suite, and $60 Quicken.

      Also add a $30 keyboard, $14 mouse, and $170 monitor, since Apple doesn't provide any of those in the $500 price they tout all over.

    13. Re:cheap $500 ? by SA+Stevens · · Score: 1

      Did you forget that the $500 doesn't even include a keyboard, mouse, or monitor?

    14. Re:cheap $500 ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      And if you don't want a "full pc", but rather something with not only the same performance but ALSO the same SIZE and NOISE-LEVEL as a mini? Apples to apples, please.

    15. Re:cheap $500 ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? When I go to Microcenter or General Nanosystems (the two cheapest places for PC parts in the Twin Cities), it costs me $50 just for the absolute cheapest tower case.

      If I want a mini-ITX form factor, I'm looking at a crapload more money.

    16. Re:cheap $500 ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You would pay $170 for the sort of monitor which gets given away with a new Dell?

      Chump.

      It's worth $40, tops.

      Hell, I have six monitors which are all at least as good lying around doing nothing at my house. I bet many people who might be considering the mini are in the same position.

    17. Re:cheap $500 ? by wootest · · Score: 1

      They also don't claim to provide it. Why not rag on Dell for failing to provide video editing software with their sub-$300 computers?

      Okay, okay; keyboard, mouse and monitor are all key points of using a computer. Good point. But who are the people that need to spend money on a keyboard, mouse and monitor? The people that don't yet have a USB keyboard and/or mouse - Mac mini takes DVI and VGA (through an adapter) which covers most monitors in at least the past 15 years - or the people that don't have a computer at all.

      If you don't have a computer at all and you're looking to get a Mac for your first one, the eMac, iBook or iMac are *probably* better alternatives, all starting out with mouse, keyboard and monitor, and allowing more memory.

      There's also the final point that the Mac mini seems to be designed for people who already do have a Mac or a PC (the instructions on the box reads like a small "switch" manual), and most of those people won't need to get anything new in these terms, save for the poor sods who only have PS/2 mice/keyboards.

    18. Re:cheap $500 ? by mrchaotica · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What part of SMALL FORM FACTOR do you not understand?

      Let alone NOT WINDOWS...

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    19. Re:cheap $500 ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (though a computer isn't a fashion accessory)

      You are absolutely, 100% wrong on this point. Apple has turned its computers into a fashion statement, from the iPod on up. You may be able to get a computer that tries to mimic Apple's style, but that's it, and no one will care. To think that people aren't (willingly) paying a premium for Apple's style is absurd.

    20. Re:cheap $500 ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jeez, that's crazy. Damn near every screwdriver shop in Seattle has $20-25 ATX minitowers. Mini-ITX is just another tax on cluelessness--it only makes sense if you rent space by the cubic foot and don't want to use a large (quiet) case fan.

    21. Re:cheap $500 ? by pinkocommie · · Score: 1

      OT: I'd love to get one if it were cheaper, build a mythtv front end out of it. Are there any cheap tiny alternatives out there? The only remotely item I found was Hoojum's nanode that has been in the about to be released stage for a couple of quarters.

    22. Re:cheap $500 ? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      $500 for a Mac Mini is not very good value. $500 for a Mac Mini, OS X, and all of the included software is good value. I don't think you are disagreeing with the post you are replying to.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    23. Re:cheap $500 ? by Bri3D · · Score: 1

      Uhm...dell is selling SERVERS for $200. A server is not SMALL, nor is it QUIET, two of the main features of a Mac Mini. Try traveling with your $200 dell server. It will be a pain. Then travel with a Mac Mini, a small LCD(15 in or so) and a keyboard and mouse. You can stuff them all in a backpack and take them carryon, if you don't want to use them on a plane. Cheap($700 total) alternative to a laptop(it's probably faster and it's sure cheaper then an iBook) for those who never use the system on the plane anyway and just need it in their hotel/friend's house/whatever.

    24. Re:cheap $500 ? by thejeffer · · Score: 1

      Apparently you haven't tried the latest cvs builds with altivec support, because they're getting gosh darn SNAPPY. Admittedly, it's still got a ways to go... my athlon64 3200 runs OSX at about the same speed as my wife's old 300Mhz iMac, a pretty significant slowdown. But it's definitely usable.

    25. Re:cheap $500 ? by evilmac1 · · Score: 1

      Actually $500 is very competitive for this form factor:

      http://www.cappuccinopc.com/customize.asp?ModelID= 1100

      If someone knows of a Wintel PC in this form factor for less, I would like to know.

    26. Re:cheap $500 ? by solios · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but can you do realtime video editing on that Dell, without a hardware board? Or a metric fuckload of RAM?

      Altivec has its advantages.

      Hardware accelleration aside, I've used video soft on Windows, tried to use it on Linux, and I've "grown up" with it on MacOS and OS X. There's no contest to speak of - OS X is currently as good as it gets for a video editing OS / hardware coupling. The fact I can run Final Cut Pro (and run it startlingly well) on five year old hardware is an added bonus. :)

    27. Re:cheap $500 ? by man2525 · · Score: 2, Funny

      I saw the PowerEdgeTM SC420.

      Let me know if there's a cheaper one. I brought it down to $428.00 by removing the second hard drive and giving it the lowest cost Celeron. I had to add in a DVD/CD-RW combo drive, though, to make it the same as a mini. The non-promotional price is $598.00. Being a PowerEdge, its probably a bit bigger, heavier, and louder (I still suffer from hearing loss when I had to sit next to a PowerEdge at work several years ago).

      Of course, if you used reeeaallllly long microphone cables, you could record music without the fan noise showing up in the background, and even leave it on at night to download the latest linux iso. Also, If you start to get out of shape, you could lift it a few times for a good workout. Faced away from you, this server makes a great indoor fan/space heater. On the plus side, there's a one-year limited warranty at that cost.

    28. Re:cheap $500 ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget WindowsXP home OEM can be gotten for as little as $55. Not $130.

    29. Re:cheap $500 ? by chrysrobyn · · Score: 1
      Dell is selling full PC's for the $200 range. Look at their website for buisness servers. Of course, you don't get an OS. Apple is also behind in speed. You can talk about pipelines. You can talk about the myth of Mhz. But when it is a 2 to 1 ratio, and the price is a 2 to 1 ratio in the wrong direction, the PC is still king.

      Do you claim that a 2x2.5GHz PowerPC 970 running OSX is half as fast as a $1500 Wintel machine? I've used both. Each is a nice machine. The OSX machine -- in my objective and qualitative user opinion, is not half as fast. You can take your rhetoric about "megahertz myth myth" and go sit down with the likes of Cyrix and AMD. When you finish, you can go pick up a computer architecture book (I recomment Hennesy and Patterson) and hopefully understand what they told you.

      Or are you comparing a $500 MiniMac to a $500 small form factor, quiet PC? Again, I have used both and find the OSX MiniMac to be faster.

      If you want to talk about Apple not having competition for the cheap, cobbled together x86 with fans turned up to high and a big case, that's fine. Apple has ceded that's not their expertise. No PowerPC user has tried to compete there. If you want to bash Apple for not having a $500 "fast as possible, to hell with design, noise and stability", that's valid. They've told you they don't want that kind of customer. I've got a very fast, noisy $500 x86 on my desk at work, and I'd much rather have a Mini. If you want a laptop and peripherals, weight and size don't matter, you can certainly find a machine cheaper than an iBook. My current work machine cost more than an iBook, runs XP and the clock rate is higher than the iBook, but OSX on the iBook is far more responsive (and faster for GUI apps and perl execution for what I do).

      The PC is king. You can't argue with 95+ market share. But you sound like an idiot when you tell me that the reason is because Apple and PowerPC are at a 4 to 1 loss in the price to performance comparison. They don't have products where volume is -- price at the cost of speed and performance or speed at the cost of noise and stability.

    30. Re:cheap $500 ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Do you claim that a 2x2.5GHz PowerPC 970 running OSX is half as fast as a $1500 Wintel machine?
      I will gladly do so, as the $1.5K Wintel box has a single processor. We recently benchmarked 2x2.2GHz XServes vs. 2x3.2GHz Xeon Dell 1425 1U compute servers running Red Hat Enterprise. Turns out they are nearly identical machines running our Java code (which generally is slow on OS X in general), and the XServes are faster boxes by more than a bit running our various C code. The XServes also have some latency problems in networking though; but the Dells appear to have thread performance problems.

      Even so, we're going with Dell because Dell undercut Apple by almost 30% -- they're desperate to get into the research cluster machine biz and basically provided a megadiscount for the size cluster we're buying. Dell's cost was enough to justify the purchase of the machine even though we have reservations about Dell's quality. Apple in turn was almost half the price of HP, which was 25% less than IBM. Geez, blades were supposed to be cheap, but they're ridiculously expensive.

    31. Re:cheap $500 ? by killjoe · · Score: 1

      I looked everywhere at Dell to find a $200 PC. I could not find one. I looked at the refurbished PCs and I could not find one for $200.00. In fact the shipping on a refurbished PC from dell was $99.00 minimum.

      Could you please provide a link to where you found a $200.00 dell.

      Thanks.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    32. Re:cheap $500 ? by GlassHeart · · Score: 1
      Also add a $30 keyboard, $14 mouse, and $170 monitor, since Apple doesn't provide any of those in the $500 price they tout all over.

      I never said otherwise, and I haven't seen Apple say otherwise, either. But, if you want to compare it to a $500 Dell, it's more like a $7 keyboard and a $3 mouse (I looked up the cheapest USB ones on pricewatch). The monitor we'd be talking about would be a "15-inch flat panel", which is probably more of $140 than $170. So, if you can't reuse any peripherals, the Mac Mini is a $410 computer, plus $240 of software. The Dell is about a $400 computer, plus about $100 of software.

      Obviously, anybody may judge for themselves that the Apple software are not worth $240 to them. That's an entirely separate question. My point is that it's unfair to assume the software to be equal in value, which many people here seem to do, when comparing Apples to Dells.

    33. Re:cheap $500 ? by JeremyALogan · · Score: 1
      "You can talk about the myth of Mhz. But when it is a 2 to 1 ratio..."
      so you want to completely disregard MHz as a usefull measurement then use it for your argument? You can't have it both ways.
    34. Re:cheap $500 ? by John+Seminal · · Score: 1
      I looked everywhere at Dell to find a $200 PC. I could not find one. I looked at the refurbished PCs and I could not find one for $200.00. In fact the shipping on a refurbished PC from dell was $99.00 minimum.

      Could you please provide a link to where you found a $200.00 dell.

      They have a new sale every 4-5 days or so. The ~$200 PC was there, but not at this second. It will be back again.

      Keep checking this page until the price gets to a sweet spot. Right now they swapped out the $200 price range for a processor upgrade (from celron 2.4ghz to P4 2.8ghz). That might not be worth the $100 in price difference. I dunno. I just know I have seen this machine in the $200 range, the SC series:

      http://www1.us.dell.com/content/products/category. aspx/servers?c=us&cs=04&l=en&s=bsd

      I went back to do a double take, and found this too, although I never looked at their home pc's, I stick with their servers. I know the quality of the servers, but not of the home desktop (2400), although it comes with Windows and has a 17" monitor for $299.

      http://www1.us.dell.com/content/products/features. aspx/low_price_dimen?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs

      The trick with Dell is to check their small buisness website often. They sneak deals in there for 3 or 4 or 5 days, then switch offers. One week you might have a deal $200-$250, the next week you might miss that $100 rebate but get a processor upgrade, the next week they might take away the processor upgrade and double the RAM and hard drive storage. It changes all the time. I've seen some crazy offers there, AND free shipping. If you get lucky, you'll get the $200 with a second bonus like a processor upgrade.

      --

      Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."

    35. Re:cheap $500 ? by John+Seminal · · Score: 1
      Do you claim that a 2x2.5GHz PowerPC 970 running OSX is half as fast as a $1500 Wintel machine? I've used both. Each is a nice machine. The OSX machine -- in my objective and qualitative user opinion, is not half as fast. You can take your rhetoric about "megahertz myth myth" and go sit down with the likes of Cyrix and AMD. When you finish, you can go pick up a computer architecture book (I recomment Hennesy and Patterson) and hopefully understand what they told you.

      Truth be told, I am by no means a true programmer or power user anymore, it is not my vocation anymore, I got burned out by it. But I do know user speed, when you click on something how long it takes to complete the task. And I might want to run a web server, to replace my dual cpu PIII one day. Tomcat + JSP + too many users logged in at the same time to a web application = one very slow machine.

      I would be interested in your opinion about something. Comparing the following two machines, can you tell me how the MAC would compare with speed? I don't do video editing, and that seems to be the niche that MAC's have.

      Here are the machines:

      http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx ?c=us&cs=04&kc=6W300&l=en&oc=pe1800sapp&s=bsd

      The first machine has two Intel 2.8ghz Xeon processors with 1meg Cache, 1 gigabyte of RAM, 80 gig hard drive. It is $1060.

      Or:

      http://microcenter.com/single_product_results.phtm l?product_id=0182141

      Apple Mac G5 with only 1 processor, 1.8 Ghz and only 512k L2 cache. It comes with 256 megs and a 80 gig hard drive. It is $1499. It is worth noting it has a 64 meg video card, the Dell has integrated video, but a card can be added. And the Apple has DVD-RW, the Dell has just a CD-Rom. There is also another Apple, a dual G5 with the same specs but it is $1999 (I take it that G5 processor is worth $500).

      Which is the better machine? Which one is quicker? Even if I wanted to do video editing (which I don't, but who knows, one day I might).

      --

      Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."

    36. Re:cheap $500 ? by Bud · · Score: 1

      Which is the better machine? Which one is quicker? Even if I wanted to do video editing (which I don't, but who knows, one day I might).

      Good question. Buy the Dell, install Linux on it and stick it on an Ethernet cable somewhere out of earshot. Then buy a Mac mini and use that for web surfing, reading mail, development, whatever. For the price of one Apple G5, you get one server where an overloaded Tomcat won't disturb your workflow, and one workstation capable of video editing.

      --Bud

    37. Re:cheap $500 ? by cellocgw · · Score: 1

      Also add a $30 keyboard, $14 mouse, and $170 monitor, since Apple doesn't provide any of those in the $500 price they tout all over.

      Go to macmall or maczones or just about any similar seller. You'll see they bundle KB and mouse for the $500 price.
      Monitor is extra only if you don't have one lying around. It costs me (or anyone in MA) $25 to $40 to dispose of a used monitor, so I'd save money by using a monitor off an old machine.

      --
      https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
    38. Re:cheap $500 ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It costs me $15 a month for trash pickup. I don't know the acutal per-monitor disposal cost, though. I've thrown away as many as 8 a week, though.

      I guess I'm glad I don't live in MA.

    39. Re:cheap $500 ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since the article talks about running GNU or BSD, the bundled software from Apple or Dell won't work, so by definition they're each worth $0.

  34. Mac Mini - Install Fink by alfredo · · Score: 1

    and get all the free software you desire.
    I have Scribus, Inkscape,, Xephem in my Fink installation.
    I have also GIMP, Links, and NeoOfficej.

    Why do I need Linux?

    FINK

    --
    photosMy Photostream
  35. Re:Cheap? Hardly. by bcrowell · · Score: 4, Informative
    You fail to mention that this system is listed at nearly double that price, and the link shows you how to go through rebate hell to get a deal. And the deal expires tonight.
    The grandparent's point is perfectly valid. Fry's sells Great Quality brand generic PCs for $180-250. I've bought several of them to run Linux on, and they've worked just fine. The price doesn't include a monitor, but that's not an issue if you already have one.

    It boggles my mind that people are still referring to a $500 computer as cheap. That hasn't been a good price since at least five years ago.

  36. Re:Cheap? Hardly. by m50d · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That page is talking nonsense. I'm not saying you're wrong, but that's not the way to show it. 32mb of 256mb ram is not a huge difference. Having two separate optical drives is BETTER, it means you can copy discs on the fly. Add in the price for the separate cd burner, it's less than the monitor and keyboard/mouse, so the dell still comes out over $100 cheaper. If you're really worried about the ram, stick a 128mb stick in the dell as well, then the dell has three times the advantage, and it's going to be what, $30-50 for that ram stick? Ignoring the fact that you can't buy a 32mb stick for a reasonable price, the extra video ram in the mini is only worth about $10 more. $334+10+53 for the cd burner means it's still $100+ cheaper. The only other advantage is in software, but you can get all of that free off the internet. The article makes a big fuss about no antivirus, but getting a free scanner is easy as that. If the OS's limitations are a big problem, who cares when you can get a full OS better than either of them for the time it takes you to download, or $5. (Mepis from cheeplinux or similar)

    --
    I am trolling
  37. Sunk cost by omnirealm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you can't, then whats the point? You've already paid for an OS

    When making decisions about your future actions, you should not take into consideration what you have already spent. That's a sunk cost, and it can only serve to bias your decision. Rather, you should be considering, from where you stand right now, what your best options are for the future. This is why companies will spend millions on building a new facility, only to abandon it one month before completion. They do this because they figure that they will wind up losing more by continuing to dump time and effort into the facility, so what's the point?

    If you get more usability, security, performance, or what have you, out of Linux than you do out of MacOS X, then it does not matter whether or not you have already paid for MacOS X. That has nothing to do with what operating system you should be using from this point forward.

    --
    An unjust law is no law at all. - St. Augustine
    1. Re:Sunk cost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "When making decisions about your future actions, you should not take into consideration what you have already spent. That's a sunk cost [wikipedia.org], and it can only serve to bias your decision."

      Yes, but very few people own a Mac Mini, so in most cases there is no sunk cost. So the question really is it worth it to buy a computer with an OS you intend to replace.

    2. Re:Sunk cost by omnirealm · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes, but very few people own a Mac Mini, so in most cases there is no sunk cost. So the question really is it worth it to buy a computer with an OS you intend to replace.

      That's a different scenario than what the poster presented (he used the phrase already paid). Now if you're wondering whether or not to buy a Macintosh machine, and if you intend on running Linux, then you should ignore the fact that the Mac comes with MacOS X, because there is nothing you can do about that. Of course, you could always complain to Apple, telling them that you are not buying their hardware because you feel that you are constrained to pay extra for an OS that you don't want, and that may get you somewhere, if enough people do it long enough. For many Linux users, having a decent piece of POWERPC hardware offsets the surcharge of MacOS X, assuming there even is one.

      It may actually cost Apple more in terms of changing their manufacturing and business processes to *exclude* MacOS X from the machines at this point, so removing MacOS X from the machines it ships may *raise* the price of the units; business economics is funny this way.

      --
      An unjust law is no law at all. - St. Augustine
    3. Re:Sunk cost by gumbi+west · · Score: 1

      Right, but MacOS X is a great OS and has more than a C compiler and support for TCP/IP. The whole zero viruses in the wild on a patched system combined with the linux's crackability make the security down step a serious disadvantage... The reason I see to do this is for buying these things used or having an old one around a few years from now when the free (as in beer) OS has more features. But that's just me.

    4. Re:Sunk cost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not sunk when I haven't bought that lunchbox yet. It's a penny earned for a penny saved if I use it to buy more x86 hardware with a free OS.

    5. Re:Sunk cost by iammaxus · · Score: 3, Funny

      That was about the longest way possible to say "because maybe you like Linux more than OS X"

    6. Re:Sunk cost by plumby · · Score: 1
      When making decisions about your future actions, you should not take into consideration what you have already spent.

      You might notice that the title of the article is "Free Software on a cheap computer". If it is purely about a computer you've aleady bought, why bother to mention that the computer is cheap?

    7. Re:Sunk cost by SA+Stevens · · Score: 1

      If it is purely about a computer you've aleady bought, why bother to mention that the computer is cheap?

      Because the computer that I got was REALLY cheap, and I can get many more of them for that price, to set up many more people with cheap computers. I can't buy a skid of Mac Minis for ~$100, refurbish them, install Linux on them, and sell them for $100 each and make a profit. I can with non-Apple systems. Quite easily.

    8. Re:Sunk cost by Ed+Avis · · Score: 1
      If you get more usability, security, performance, or what have you, out of Linux than you do out of MacOS X, then it does not matter whether or not you have already paid for MacOS X.
      s/what have you/freedom/
      --
      -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
  38. Re:Cheap? Hardly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Considering the footprint, a mac mini is a great deal. You can not build a PC equivalent to the mac mini with the same performance and size for less money. Even with a free OS.

  39. Re:Enough already. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Thank you for your insightful response.

    You may have noticed the title is "Free Software on a Cheap Computer", not "Free Software on a Cheap PPC Platform". This would imply that we are discussing computers, not the PPC platform specifically.

    The next time you decide to call someone a moron, at least take the time to learn a little bit about grammar. My post may contain some errors, but yours is really bad. Three sentences, all of them have mistakes. At least you could have looked up fuckhead and learned that it is one word.

  40. The Time Has Come... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    ...to stop paying the Apple Computer tax! I read somewhere that if you buy an Apple, you can leave the OS in the box uninstalled and return it to Apple for a refund of the price of the OS. Just install Linux or BSD on one of these babies and you've never had to deal with the Apple shrink wrap license. Has anyone tried this yet? Apple is maing money hand over fist with their OS monopoly on nice looking *nix. The time to put a stop to it has come! Kick out the expensive nice looking *nix in favor of the free but slighlty unsightly *nixes instead! Fight for your freedoms because Apple hates our freedumb!!!

    1. Re:The Time Has Come... by Qubit · · Score: 1

      This AC has a point -- we talk about getting a refund when we purchase bundled copies of Microsoft Windows, but shouldn't we be asking Apple for the same kind of refund?

      Sure, the Darwin core of OSX is free, but the Apple OSX operating system is as proprietary an OS as WindowsXP when it comes down to it.

      I think that people speak more favorably of Apple than of Microsoft because (1) Apple is the underdog, (2) because Woz hacked on open hardware while Gates got upset about people sharing his version of BASIC, and (3) because Apple has played nicely (generally) with FOSS.

      But bundled software is bundled software. If you purchase a Mac Mini with Panther and you are going to run Debian/NetBSD/etc... on it, I'd ask for a refund. Maybe not $120, but a certain amount.

      Has anyone asked for a refund from Apple? Has anyone gotten a refund?

      --

      coding is life /* the rest is */
    2. Re:The Time Has Come... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You complete fucker. Did it not occur to you that BSD and Linux *NEED* Mac OS X to actually boot? There is no way to install Linux or BSD on a Mac and boot directly. You need to boot into OS X and then boot from there into Linux or BSD. What a tool you are. The next time you post something, at least try to think to yourself, "do I know enough to even be commenting on this"? Lest you look like some kind of idiot.

  41. you mean apart from x86? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    What kind of drivelling crap is this? Fair enough, free software on PPC is damn good stuff, but it not as if Apple have magnanimously made OSS affordable for the common man (no gender bias intended, figure of speech). Happily for us, 'free as in speech' tends to coincide with 'free as in beer', and well-tested, ubiquitous x86 hardware is absurdly cheap.. cost is not a convincing argument for buying a mac mini, since greater functionality can be provided with F/L/OSS at lower cost on an x86 platform.

    This post doesn't really represent the article itself all that well.. if you read it (oh wait.. slashdot, remember?), the article dwells more on the stuff that can go wrong when installing Linux/BSD on your mac mini. With a platform like the mac mini, where every one is identical (clock speed excepted), 'can go wrong' should be interpreted as 'will go wrong', unless it involves the user screwing up..

    However, the absolute uniformity of the mini may allow the development of a distro specifically for it.. x86 operating systems have to be prepared to deal with all kinds of frequently questionable hardware, whereas a mac-mini-specific distro would have much smaller field to observe, and so could possibly develop a true 'just works' free OS for the platform. Hell, since they're all the same it could be possible to get a binary driver from nvidia and really go to town on the eye-candy (i know, that's the Free aspect wrecked, but would still be pretty cool..)

    Of course, given that OSS developers cannot really start work until the machine is in retail, the chances are that such a distro would only really be ready by the time that the machine itself is viewed as 'obsolete', and certainly no longer available in stores.

    1. Re:you mean apart from x86? by despik · · Score: 1

      The Mac mini uses an ATi Radeon 9200 on-board chip, so a binary driver from nVidia wouldn't be very helpful.

      --
      "I seem to have mastered a certain amount of control over physical reality."
  42. Re:Cheap? Hardly. by hawaiian717 · · Score: 1
    What do you want firewire for?

    Transfering video from MiniDV camcorder to computer for editing with iMovie (or Microsoft Movie Maker). Faster transfer of music to iPod.

    --
    End of Line.
  43. Dell vs Apple? COME ONE! by jvd · · Score: 1

    I see a lot of Slashdotters arguing wether the Mac Mini is cheap or not.

    I should just say a few things, RISC processors (specially PowerPC ones) aren't "cheap", so IMO, for 500 bucks you're getting a great processor, well-engineered box, among other things. Come one, you wouldn't really compare Dell vs Apple, would you?.

    --
    Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
    1. Re:Dell vs Apple? COME ONE! by ArbitraryConstant · · Score: 1

      Being RISC doesn't automagically make a processor faster. G4s have a slower bus than Athlons had in 1999.

      --
      I rarely criticize things I don't care about.
    2. Re:Dell vs Apple? COME ONE! by WillerZ · · Score: 1

      The PowerPC chips Apple buys are cheaperer in bulk than the equivalent Athlon64/Opteron or P4/Xeon chips. It's the POWER series which are expensive, if you can even convince IBM to sell you one outside a pSeries/iSeries box. The 970FX (G5) is about as sophisticated as a POWER3+, which is now several generations out of date.

      --
      I guess today is a passable day to die.
    3. Re:Dell vs Apple? COME ONE! by Milton+Waddams · · Score: 1

      I know I sound like a broken record here but I'll go on anyway. Maybe 'cause I've had a few beers and I'm usually more forgiving when I've had a few beers...

      Anyway, when one buys a Mac, one doesn't buy just the hardware, one doesn't buy just the OS, one doesn't just buy the great Apps.

      When you buy a Mac mini, you buy a computer which is great for anything you need to do bar CPU intensive scientific/graphic stuff. You also buy a computer that looks great and is TINY. With this computer, you also get a great OS that is stable, secure but is also extremely usable and is also miles ahead of all other Desktop OSes (I'm talking about Panther here BTW) and it also has all the free software ported to it that Linux has. Also, you get iTunes (which kicks all other MP3 players' asses) and all the other iLife apps. You also get iWorks.

      How can a sane person honestly compare a Mac mini with a cheapo x86 computer??!?!

    4. Re:Dell vs Apple? COME ONE! by ArbitraryConstant · · Score: 1

      The PowerPC 970 is POWER4 based.

      --
      I rarely criticize things I don't care about.
    5. Re:Dell vs Apple? COME ONE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "How can a sane person honestly compare a Mac mini with a cheapo x86 computer??!?!"

      In this case it was the CPU being compared, not the computer as a whole.

    6. Re:Dell vs Apple? COME ONE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, is there actually something other than the hardware, the OS, and the apps in the box, or are they charging for the marketing drivel too?

    7. Re:Dell vs Apple? COME ONE! by jvd · · Score: 1

      "Being RISC doesn't automagically make a processor faster. G4s have a slower bus than Athlons had in 1999."

      And having more bus doesn't automatically make a processor faster either. The Motorola G4 (and PowerPC in general), gives me more performance per CPU cycle, than _any_ x86 CPU. Oh, and above all, their quality and efficiency is something you will never find on any x86 processor... well perhaps, on the VIA CPU's. :)

      --
      Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
    8. Re:Dell vs Apple? COME ONE! by ArbitraryConstant · · Score: 1

      "And having more bus doesn't automatically make a processor faster either."

      That's true, Pentium 4's didn't improve much with the step to 1066 mhz. However, a fast bus is necessary for a fast processor. Unless the code you're running is optimized to fit in cache, which is essentially impossible on a desktop machine. Things like codecs get highly tuned, so they stay fast, but most software is highly resistant to tuning for cache size, and almost never worth the effort.

      "The Motorola G4 (and PowerPC in general), gives me more performance per CPU cycle, than _any_ x86 CPU."

      That's not true with the current chips. At the higher clock speeds G4s are now being sold at, the slow bus speed is crippling.

      "Oh, and above all, their quality and efficiency is something you will never find on any x86 processor..."

      They compare pretty unfavorably to Pentium M chips, which get better performance and have lower power usage. Note the Centrino (Pentium M + Intel chipset) laptops that have an 8 hour battery life, as compared to the best PowerBook's 5.

      As for the quality... Intel chips and chipsets have a very good reputation for quality, and in my experience it is well deserved.

      iBooks and minis are okay because people don't buy them for performance. The G5 computers are okay because they are obviously much faster. It's the PowerBooks that are hurting. One only has to look at the features that Apple is adding to the PowerBooks to see that they are aware of this.

      --
      I rarely criticize things I don't care about.
    9. Re:Dell vs Apple? COME ONE! by bani · · Score: 1

      sorry, but openoffice smacks iwork down hard. but oh, a native openoffice port sadly isnt available for osx. :-/

      the osx openoffice running under java is unusably slow. the x11 port doesnt integrate with aqua or finder (and is slow as well, though faster than the java port).

      most people never use many of the ilife apps. garageband? idvd (when the base mac mini has a cd-r??)? imovie hd? come on...

      more people would benefit from a useful working out of the box office suite than the pile of eye candy known as ilife :-/

      a sane person compares the mac mini with a cheapo x86 computer because there's far more x86 software available.

      and er, you can get a far more powerful x86 pc _with LCD monitor, keyboard, mouse_ for cheaper than a mac mini _without_ keyboard, monitor or mouse.

      the mac mini is no way no how gonna play halflife2 or doom3 or any of the recent games -- a 32mb ati 9200 simply isn't up to the task. nor is the underpowered 1.2/1.4ghz g4.

      i _have_ a mac mini, btw. which i use for remote compiling of osx ports, nothing more.

    10. Re:Dell vs Apple? COME ONE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      G4 gives me more performance per CPU cycle, than _any_ x86 CPU

      Great, it spinlocks faster than anything else. If only there were some way to get data in and out of it at full speed, you'd really have something!

  44. Sue me, Apple!!! by screwthemoderators · · Score: 1

    After the lawsuits (yes, plural) about product leaks I don't think you'll be getting many "informed" persons commenting. I imagine Apple also wants to maintain a lock on Airport Express and Air Tunes products, as they're tying them to the successful iPod.

  45. Re:Cheap? Hardly. by LokiSnake · · Score: 1

    The "higher" price makes sense when you add in the cuteness/coolness factor, and especially the bundled software. How much would it cost to get something comparable to iPhoto, iMovie, iDVD, and GarageBand? I'd say it'll cost something maybe upwards to $100. Maybe someone will do the search for it. Another beautiful thing about the whole iLife suite is the integration. You just do something in one app, then finish it up or use it in the other. For example, finish editing a movie in iMovie, then make a DVD with nice looking menus in iDVD, then burn onto DVD and distribute. And how can you ignore the coolness/cuteness factor!!!??!! Disclaimer: I use an iBook G4, and am loving it.

  46. Parent has simple QT solution, pls mod up. by cfalcon · · Score: 5, Funny

    One of the reasons I go to slashdot is the sheer power of people fixing annoying problems with 1-10 lines of text.

  47. Redundant by isecore · · Score: 2, Funny

    This post will likely be modded redundant, but I just need to shoot my mouth off for a bit.

    I don't see why anyone buying a Mini would want to do this. It's completely insane to "fix" something that works fine by replacing it with stuff that almost works.

    It's like buying a new car, running really smoothly, a great piece of equipment - and the first thing you do is replace the engine with one that works less well, and after that replacing the seats with banana crates.

    --
    I enjoy large posteriors and I cannot prevaricate.
    1. Re:Redundant by TeknoHog · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I don't see why anyone buying a Mini would want to do this. It's completely insane to "fix" something that works fine by replacing it with stuff that almost works.

      I guess you could say the same about machines that come preinstalled with Windows. Everyone should use the preinstalled OS, it obviously has to be the best one for the machine, it's the one god intended.

      Except that computers have different uses, and for some of them Linux is better. I'm not saying it's always better. I think the preinstalled OS usually has better hardware integration (drivers), but not necessarily, and other aspects of the OS may outweigh the driver issues.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    2. Re:Redundant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I ask this with complete sincerity... What is Linux on a PPC better for than is Mac OS X? People replace their preinstalled Windows with Linux because Windows is not Unix like and it just sucks in general. However, OS X is Unix like, it runs the large majority of Linux software with just a recompile, supports the hardware better, etc, etc... I'm typing this on a Mac (running OS X) with a PC that dual boots Windows and Linux right beside me.

    3. Re:Redundant by bwy · · Score: 1

      That is okay- it couldn't be commented on enough, trust me. This is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard of. Damn, I'm all for hacking up stuff, but come on. If you want to spray paint your car by hand, go ahead, but do it to a car you paid $200 for, not $20,000.

    4. Re:Redundant by argent · · Score: 1

      Except that computers have different uses, and for some of them Linux is better.

      I can't think of anything you'd use a Mac Mini for for which Linux is better. If it had a SCSI interface so I could put a standard tape drive on, yeh, I could see that... but as it is? It's UNIX versus UNIX, you go with whatever has the better hardware support... and that's OS X.

    5. Re:Redundant by TeknoHog · · Score: 1
      It's UNIX versus UNIX, you go with whatever has the better hardware support... and that's OS X.

      I don't think it's as simple as that. I'm a Linux guy, but I've played with NetBSD enough to know they are wildly different. Although I'd say the differences are more "distro" issues than kernel issues. I happen to prefer the Linux way, with its more anarchist bleeding-edge ways, but I appreciate the minimalist cleanliness of NetBSD a lot.

      This question is like asking why there are different Linux distros since they are all Linux vs Linux. They are very different and suited to different applications and different kinds of user, even though they have the same kernel, directory structure and POSIX standard conformance.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    6. Re:Redundant by argent · · Score: 1

      I'm a Linux guy, but I've played with NetBSD enough to know they are wildly different.

      Oy.

      You haven't even scratched the surface. The variety in UNIX implementations from normal BSD-type things, to independant implementations like Linux and QNX and OS/9000, to the System V versus BSD rift... what you're seeing is minor.

      But even there, they're largely interchangable. They provide similar fucnctionality. I didn't ask "how is OS X different from Linux", I asked "what does Linux do that OS X can't". That is, "what is missing", not "what might require a little relearning". The answer is, "it has better mag tape support". That's pretty much it.

    7. Re:Redundant by TeknoHog · · Score: 1
      Well, I admit I don't know all that much about different unices :)

      Actually there was another point I forgot to mention in the previous comment. It's the willingness to use Free software, something that can make one choose Linux even when OSX provides similar functionality.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    8. Re:Redundant by argent · · Score: 1

      It's the willingness to use Free software, something that can make one choose Linux even when OSX provides similar functionality.

      Why? OS X has an open source kernel and there's nothing stopping you from using XDarwin and X11 apps instead of Quartz and Aqua and Cocoa ... except that they tend to suck by comparison.

      THAT reason seems to be cutting off your nose to spite your face.

  48. But can it act as an "embedded" computer? by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 4, Informative

    The whole premise of the article is: An embedded view of the Mac Mini

    So for $499 you get an entire solution as an embedded computer; developer tools, OS, and hardware.

    For your $98+$40+$40 (case, mb, hard drive, video card, and CPU), where are your developer tools, OS, ram, and SIZE?

    Can you place your $178 (+ram, OS, development tools), inside a car? A backpack? A handheld?

    The point of the embedded development system is that you can use your tools and hardware from your development environment and transfer it into production. IE, an embedded PowerPC.

    Where is the LOW POWER embedded Pentium 4 or embedded Athlon? Your proposed solution would be to develop on a $200 Intel PC for a $80 PowerPC solution.

    The Mac mini proposed solution would be to develop on a $499 PowerPC for the same $80 PowerPC solution.

    Your idea works great... if you're developing for the XBox. For all the other PowerPC devices (like say the TiVo, or maybe the GameCube, or the future PS3, Revolution, or XBox2), it seems kind of backward.

    1. Re:But can it act as an "embedded" computer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      where are your developer tools, OS

      BitTorrent.

    2. Re:But can it act as an "embedded" computer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      x86 can be used as an "embedded" platform. Most x86 boards just happen to be "embedded" in PC cases. FreeBSD/i386 or Linux. Unless you feel like paying more for a new toy to break.

    3. Re:But can it act as an "embedded" computer? by argent · · Score: 1

      So for $499 you get an entire solution as an embedded computer; developer tools, OS, and hardware.

      For $249 I get a PC to do the development on.

      For another $250 I get a flash-booted Soekris box the size of a paperback book to use as the embedded system itself. And I don't have to reboot to test it.

      The second system costs me another $250. Your second system costs you another $250.

      Your proposed solution would be to develop on a $200 Intel PC for a $80 PowerPC solution.

      So?

      If the code you write cares if it's running on a Power PC, a 486, a Pentium, or an ARM... you need to get some practice writing portable software. I've written code that's run on everything from the Cosmac 1802 to the DEC Alpha. The first few ports (mostly PDP-11 to VAX) were rough, but after a while you get the hang of it. I've developed software on the PDP-11 that's run without just a recompile on the 1802, 8080, and 6502. I've got software in production now that was written on the 8086 and ported to the 286, 386, Sparc, Alpha, and now Itanium. Again, almost all that was just a recompile... the biggest problem was the Alpha. You're not going to be going from 16 bit to 64 bit here, just from 32 to 32. No problem, mate, or it shouldn't be.

    4. Re:But can it act as an "embedded" computer? by don.g · · Score: 1

      "Embedded" systems typically are small, low power, and run inside of devices you don't think of as computers. Such as washing machines, microwave ovens, cellphones, car assembly robots, PLCs, and so forth.

      Calling a Mac Mini or a $89 desktop PC an embedded machine is just silly. And embedded x86 machines don't use Athlons or Pentium 4s; they use 386es and (more recently) 486es.

      Also, you don't need to be able to run your embedded system's software natively on your PC. That's what cross-compilers and emulators are for.

      --
      Pretend that something especially witty is here. Thanks.
    5. Re:But can it act as an "embedded" computer? by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 1

      I got the impression from Part I of the same article series that:

      A Mac mini is cheaper than most (all?) PPC reference boards
      The development environment on a Mac mini is cheaper (free) than the toolkits for the PPC reference boards (?)
      The Mac mini as a reference board is ALSO very powerful, with all the major ports (USB, modem, ethernet, Firewire, DVI, sound) for the price.

      That, and you can do stuff with a 1.25GHz PPC you can't do with an 80MHz 486, like voice recognition.

  49. Footprint?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who the fuck cares about footprint! Do you live in a shoebox?

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

      Get enough computers and you'll understand.

  50. Re:Cheap? Hardly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And for the vast majority of us that live nowhere near a Fry's?

  51. What about Mini-ITX platform? by Tamerlan · · Score: 1

    What's the point in buying Apple Mini with preinstalled Mac OS X, when I may buy some of VIA-based boxes and install Linux on familiar x86 platform. Yes, I know PowerPC advocates have the point, but I prefer to deal with just one hardware platform, that's easier.

    1. Re:What about Mini-ITX platform? by kannibal_klown · · Score: 2, Insightful
      What's the point in buying Apple Mini with preinstalled Mac OS X, when I may buy some of VIA-based boxes and install Linux on familiar x86 platform. Yes, I know PowerPC advocates have the point, but I prefer to deal with just one hardware platform, that's easier.


      The point is now Apple has bypassed 2 major choke points with the mac: price and size. A lot of people have wanted to try out a Mac of their own, but they were either too expensive to bother or they didn't want the iMac with it's built-in monitor taking up even more room on their desk. Now with the Mini they can get a Mac for $500 USD (base configuration) and it's small enough to put anywhere on (or under) your desk.

      Now, for the non-geeks: not everyone is tech savvy enough to know
      a) about mini-itx or Via low-voltage CPUs
      b) how to build a machine
      c) install and use Linux

      Mac's "just work." Someone with no PC experience can just plug the thing in and get it working. The same can't be said about Linux.

      Now, as for buying a Mini just to turn it into a Linux box... that's another debate all together.
    2. Re:What about Mini-ITX platform? by argent · · Score: 1

      Now, for the non-geeks

      Dude, the article was about people buying Mac Minis to run Linux on. There's no non-geeks in sight. That's not "another debate altogether", it's exactly the debate right here right now.

    3. Re:What about Mini-ITX platform? by LongShip · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'm currently agonizing over the decision to build a Mini-ITX or buy a ready made MiniMac. I'm probably going to do the Mini-ITX. However,...

      Unfortunately Mini-ITX is not cost effective. One has to specifically want either an extremely small, or extremely quiet computer and be willing to pay the admission price. The MiniMac offers both at a very good price (comparitively).

      In order to compete with MiniMac, a Mini-ITX box would have an MII-12000 MoBo ($200+ US) plus a small box like one of the Casetronic Travla's (~$150), low profile memory (~$80), a slim optical drive (~$80+), and a notebook hard drive (the only cost effective peripheral ~$70). Total cost, ~%570. The Mini-ITX would have user service-ability, Compact Flash + PC-Card, and better connectivity. But the G4-based MiniMac would blow the doors off the C3 Nehemiah-based Mini-ITX box.

      Until Mini-ITX components come down in price, the MiniMac might be the more cost effective solution.
      But only in the very small, very quiet computer market. As others in this forum have already pointed out, one can build a faster X86 box for less money. If one doesn't care about small and quiet, that's the way to go.

    4. Re:What about Mini-ITX platform? by Nasarius · · Score: 1
      I'm probably going to do the Mini-ITX.

      Why? As you say, the Mac Mini is a bargain, compared to the mini-ITX offerings. I'm guessing you either need to run Windows or have a specific TV-IN card that's not compatible with a Mac?

      I was planning on buying a mini-ITX box and using it as a Linux server, but now there's no reason to when I can get a Mac Mini and run Linux or BSD.

      --
      LOAD "SIG",8,1
    5. Re:What about Mini-ITX platform? by MemoryDragon · · Score: 1

      How about the mini is about 5x as fast as a via you can get for the same price. Dont get me wrong, I have been looking into the via stuff for years now, and every time I was close to buying one, once I dug deeper I stayed away from it. One time it was the lousy performance, the other time, that there were reported problems with exploding elcos (which most cheap pc boards have), then there was the fact that installing linux on one of those things is hard as hell, due to a driver mess which has been sort of resolved only recently, and then apple came, with a know processor 4-5 times as fast as a similar clocked via, a solid vendor behind it (via screwed me over with their KT113a) and well known components. So the question afterwards was very clear for me, Apple got the money, Via did not!

    6. Re:What about Mini-ITX platform? by MemoryDragon · · Score: 0

      one of the problems still with mini ITX is, that the processors still are not fast enough for mpeg2 and mpeg4 in the processor, via has to rely on a coproc. That works for mpeg2 and mpeg4, but what happens if you go, divx, xvid, ogg theora, wmv9 and other formats. The mini definitely shines here, the processor is fast enough for every currently available video format and is in the same league as via from a power consumption standpoint, but with a much better driver coverage in linux.

    7. Re:What about Mini-ITX platform? by jbridges · · Score: 1

      If you are willing to go slightly larger you can avoid the whole yucky slow VIA C3 platform, and go with an Athlon.

      There are the shuttle cube type systems which have dropped drasticly in price.
      Or if you want really cheap you can still find FlexATX motherboards like this:

      PCCHIPS "M851G V1.5" VIA KM400 Chipset Motherboard for AMD Socket A CPU - $44
      AMD 1.8Ghz Duron - $50
      512mb PC3200 - $40
      Samsung 80gb 7200RPM Harddrive - $59
      Slimline InWin case - $55
      LG 16X DVD-ROM - $28

      Total $276

      That's all from one vendor, and no savings on shipping (NewEgg does not combine shipping cost).

    8. Re:What about Mini-ITX platform? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like you want a hush pc.

    9. Re:What about Mini-ITX platform? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Save $150 and don't buy the Casetronic Travla's case. Hunt around the house for something else to put it in, be inventive, go for something cool(http://www.mini-itx.com/projects/coolcube/),
      cuddy(http://www.mini-itx.com/projects/moocowmoo/ ) ,
      or hell any old trash will do(http://www.mini-itx.com/projects/windowsxpbox/) .

      Note to the weak of stomach - what they did with the Pet ITX project will make you cry, the 800MHz teddybear will make you cheer (evil ball of fur deserved everything he got).

  52. Re:Cheap? Hardly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    True, Steve Jobs has not blessed it and you probably won't see it used by some trendy featherbrain on "Sex and the City," but it can crunch a lot of numbers for hundreds less than a similarly configured Mac.
    People do use Mac's for other reasons than being trendy ya know. You could install Mac OS X on a dead badger and I would still be happy as long as it runs Logic Audio and all my other favorite software.
  53. Something new by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 1

    The article's point is that the $499 Mac mini becomes a powerful "embedded" development platform.

    Can you take your $300 PC and turn it into an embedded device, OR develop for an embedded system with it?

    The Mac mini's advantage is that many embedded devices use PowerPC.

    Read the article for more information. Cheap is only ONE part of the equation. Accessible is the other part.

    1. Re:Something new by IBeatUpNerds · · Score: 1
      Can you take your $300 PC and turn it into an embedded device, OR develop for an embedded system with it?

      Yup. It's excellent you mention it. This is my profession. I have toolchains and development environments for the following systems:
      • X-Scale - Linux
      • MIPS-little endian - Linux
      • PowerPC MPC680 - Linux
      • MIPS-big endian - VxWorks
      • MIPS-little endian - VxWorks
      Real embedded development is very seldom done with similar host and target hardware. Not the best argument, dude. Get a PowerPC ref. board, install the toolchain on x86, build on the x86, run on the target. This is the typical procedure. Some of the guys where I work put my list to shame :).

      Also, for those who will care, the VxWorks toolchains I only use to build individual modules since Tornado isn't currently available for Linux.
    2. Re:Something new by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 1

      I was under the impression that the Mac mini costs less than most (all?) PowerPC ref boards. This impression from reading Part I of the same article series.

      Plus you get:
      USB
      Ethernet
      DVI
      Firewire
      Modem
      Sound

  54. Re:Cheap? Hardly. by McDutchie · · Score: 2, Informative

    I meant the CD/RW drive in the Dell cannot handle DVD's. In the Apple there is a CD/RW+DVD combo. Sorry for being unclear.

    What neck of the woods do you live in? As far as I know, the majority of Internet access still occurs through dial-up, so I don't agree with your assertion that modems are hardly used anymore. Nor have I heard of any ISP that includes a modem with a dial-up account.

    In any case, you seem to be arguing that the Dell costs less, with which I was not disagreeing. What I disagreed with is that the Mac mini is not cheap. In fact I think it's very cheap for what you get. That it may not be what some (or maybe even most) people want doesn't change that.

  55. $250 w/o Kewl Tax by itomato · · Score: 1

    "look at small form Tfactor PCs and you'll pay $200 just on the chasis, and it still won't be as small or quiet as a Mac mini."

    That's because it's a "chassis". It's a wide open flexible machine - with a hefty internal power supply.

    To use an Automotive analogy, it's like a GM truck chassis (a smallish, more sylin' one) vs. a single-purpose, unibody-type setup. What we have is a small GM/Isuzu box truck vs. a Lotus Elise - they even cost about the same.

    Make one Nano-ATX motherboard with simple DC power jack, purpose build one case around it, include laptop hard drive (that you have happen to have piles of), spend a year tweaking a GNU OS solution for it, and you'd have yourself a $250 machine if people were sure to buy 100,000 of them.

    NeXT did the Cube, people went "Ooooh.."

    Apple re-did the Cube, people went "Ooooh.."

    ASUS and Shuttle did the Cube, people went "Ooooh.."

    Apple did the Mini, people went "Ooooh.."

    Somebody will take it another step, Dell, or someone with bigtime laptop presence. Perhaps even one of the .tw laptop contractors..

  56. More Grapes to IBM's Linux Vine by delire · · Score: 3, Interesting

    .. IBM has a vested interest in encouraging interest among Linux developers for their PPC architecture.

    If there's anything to the rumours, we'll be seeing Linux PPC desktops/laptops sometime soon. Wonder if they'll use their Thinkpad offshore, or the Taiwanese company already making the Mac Mini's, FoxConn http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20050114A7040.html

    On topic I'd be interested to know if Apple has any exclusionary rights over the market for PPC desktop machines. I'd sure buy a PPC laptop if it came without the sugared fruit..

    1. Re:More Grapes to IBM's Linux Vine by argent · · Score: 1

      I'd sure buy a PPC laptop if it came without the sugared fruit..

      Why? What does a Power PC get you?

    2. Re:More Grapes to IBM's Linux Vine by delire · · Score: 1


      Why? What does a Power PC get you?

      .. better performance in digital signal processing applications..

    3. Re:More Grapes to IBM's Linux Vine by argent · · Score: 1

      Really? In a G4? Or are you assuming a Cell processor in your hypothetical laptop?

    4. Re:More Grapes to IBM's Linux Vine by wild_berry · · Score: 1

      What does a PowerPC get you?
      Apparently it's less of a less of a frankensteinian hacked-on-extensions monster than x86-32.

      Think of the poor programmers: the ISA is more elegant and this elegance is an asset. The stuck-on extra registers and addressing modes of IA32 indicate that the system should be retired; I doubt if this will happen. Does anyone know if AMD64 in pure 64-bit mode is tidier than x86-32?

    5. Re:More Grapes to IBM's Linux Vine by argent · · Score: 1

      Think of the poor programmers: the ISA is more elegant and this elegance is an asset.

      Unless you're programming in assembly code (something I gave up doing before most /. readers were born) who cares? The only thing that matters in an ISA is how it effects how much computrons you get per limiting-factor (money, watts, whatever you've got least of).

      That's why Itanic tanked. It sucks. Not enough bang for the buck. And right now, the Power PC sucks too. The G5 is a typical long-stupid-pipeline power sucker, and the G4 is limited by the 166 MHz system bus. Until the Freescale dual-core designs with heir new bus interface come out, anyone who wants an Power PC laptop without OS X being the reason is just fooling themselves.

    6. Re:More Grapes to IBM's Linux Vine by rmart · · Score: 0

      Pegasos PPC
      Amiga One

      to name a few...

    7. Re:More Grapes to IBM's Linux Vine by macshit · · Score: 1

      Unless you're programming in assembly code (something I gave up doing before most /. readers were born) who cares?

      It's not just the human programmer that's affected -- more importantly, a compiler is much more likely to produce reasonable code for a typical risc architecture.

      Often it comes down to a lack of bottlenecks: on an x86 machine, the paucity of registers, the use of a single set of condition flags, etc., all make it hard for the compiler to emit the best code. On something like the IBM risc archs, there are enough registers to give the compiler some breathing room, the multiple condition bits allow it more freedom in scheduling, and so on.

      The only thing that matters in an ISA is how it effects how much computrons you get per limiting-factor

      Sure, but the ability of the compiler to actually make use of the hardware is a prime factor in this calculation.

      --
      We live, as we dream -- alone....
    8. Re:More Grapes to IBM's Linux Vine by michaeldot · · Score: 1

      The parent was talking about digital signal processing uses, and some of the AltiVec DSP routines are extremely fast, faster than equivalent SIMD instructions on x86.

      Little known fact: G4 AltiVec is actually faster than G5 AltiVec, as the current G5 is based on an earlier implementation than current G4s.

      For specialized DSP uses, a 1.4 GHz G4 would be a better choice than a 2.0 GHz G5, as it would equal its performance and use less power while doing it.

    9. Re:More Grapes to IBM's Linux Vine by argent · · Score: 1

      a compiler is much more likely to produce reasonable code for a typical risc architecture.

      So? The only reason that matters is performance. That's all. How much bang you get for your buck. The ability of the compiler to use it is all part of how the ISA effects how much computrons you get per limiting-factor. And the Power PC is just not all that good any more.

    10. Re:More Grapes to IBM's Linux Vine by argent · · Score: 1

      For specialized DSP uses, a 1.4 GHz G4 would be a better choice than a 2.0 GHz G5

      That's nice, but how does it compare to a 3 GHz P4 or 2.6 GHz Opteron?

  57. OS X by dfj225 · · Score: 2, Informative

    I have to agree with many of the other posters here about the selling point for most Mac hardware is OS X. Don't get me wrong, I like linux and its great for a lot of purposes, but on my laptop, I just want everything to function properly without having to think of it. If I can get a system that does that using a Unix core, then I'm interested right there. My iBook is a nice piece of hardware, but it isn't really anything special. What is special is OS X. I can't really say that any other operating system can match it when you evaluate it as a whole. If it wasn't for OS X, I'd probably have a Windows laptop and just left Linux to run my server.

    --
    SIGFAULT
  58. Re:Cheap? Hardly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So what? I bought 3 *GOOD* firewire cards (TI chipset, brand name and all) for a whole 5$ each. Or you could just make a PC with a board that probably cost a whole 5$ more and have it... You can very eaily build a better/faster system than the mini for as much, and you get to pick the parts you want. I got mine because my DSLR has firewire, but other than me, I know of 1 person with a MiniDV cam, that's it. ~99% of people have no use for firewire or don't even know what it is. Most stuff is USB2 lately (webcams, digital cameras, CF raders, external HD enclosures...).

  59. Congratulations, another pointless article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Erm, OS X HAS a stable kernel, a c compiler and network support...

    It comes preinstalled on that machine you bought, ya know, included in the price. And XCode is free too.

    Nothing to see here, move along...

  60. What about other minis? by AndroidCat · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Like DEC, HP, Data General?

    --
    One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  61. Re:Cheap? Hardly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.outpost.com/

  62. Re:Cheap? Hardly. by dink353 · · Score: 2, Informative

    First off, this web site is always listing PC's from Dell with those kinds of prices. Sure, the rebates and deals will end tonight, but another one always follows. Rebate hell? I think not. Rebates are childlishly simple. I have done quite a few, and rebates that will get back about $400? Sign me UP! It is a shame BestBuy customers can't quite grasp the concept... http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/02/061723 4&tid=187&tid=98&tid=126

  63. Apple Tax by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 1
    MS now has competition.

    --
    You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
  64. Re:Cheap? Hardly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    And for the vast majority of us that live nowhere near a Fry's?

    Since I found your post on this forum, I gather that you have access to the Internet.

    Here's the latest development: some computer retailers will accept an order that you actually send in through the Internet. Then they ship it right to your house! Here's the kicker: it's often even cheaper than Fry's.

    Check it out. I think that this is gonna be the next big thing.

  65. Re:Cheap? Hardly. by ky11x · · Score: 1, Insightful
    True, Steve Jobs has not blessed it and you probably won't see it used by some trendy featherbrain on "Sex and the City," but it can crunch a lot of numbers for hundreds less than a similarly configured Mac.

    That "featherbrain" you are making fun of is actually quite smart. Have you actually watched the show? Geeks would actually enjoy the show if they gave it a chance. Carrie is a hacker, but not of machines, but people. The whole show is about her attempt to get in there and figure out how the system we call "relationships" between men and women worked and how to nudge it, move it, and get it to do what we want. There are many parallels between Carrie's methods and conclusions as applied to relationships and those of the early phone hackers (as applied to the phone system) and today's computer hackers.

    I was skeptical when I first tried out an episode in my wife's collection. I got hooked once I realized that Carrie, far from a featherbrain, has the dedicated hacker ethos and smarts.

  66. SemiOT: Connecting a mac mini to a linux PC by John+Allsup · · Score: 1

    Just got a mac mini, got a PC running linux with built in ethernet. What's the simplest way to get the two talking? Is a crossover cable enough? Anybody know anything about this?

    --
    John_Chalisque
    1. Re:SemiOT: Connecting a mac mini to a linux PC by argent · · Score: 1

      Crossover cable and matching IP addresses, then wake up the daemons.

      I'd recommend getting a cheap 10/100 switch and a couple of straight cables instead, just so you can add more stuff later. If you have cable/DSL, I just got a wireless-G access point + 4-port switch + firewall router for $30 at Frys... it's the easiest way to go (just don't forget to lock fown the WiFi or you'll be open to wardrivers).

    2. Re:SemiOT: Connecting a mac mini to a linux PC by stanthegoomba · · Score: 1

      The easiest way would probably be to hook up the PC to your network and run SSH and FTP servers on the linux PC. You can then access it from the mac through Finder and ssh in Terminal.app

    3. Re:SemiOT: Connecting a mac mini to a linux PC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep you should be able to use a crossover just fine. Just go into your sharing control panel and turn on internet sharing & ftp(or whatever service you prefer). Connect the Linux box via the cable; making sure you have DHCP enabled. Simply FTP in. There are a lot of other options depending on what your wanting to share or do but this is probably the quickest as I'm sure most people have a crossover cable laying around.

    4. Re:SemiOT: Connecting a mac mini to a linux PC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I don't think a crossover cable is needed at all. Just any ethernet cable (crossover or regular). My old iBook automatically adjusts to the connection. I'm sure the Mac Mini does too.

    5. Re:SemiOT: Connecting a mac mini to a linux PC by Porter+Doran · · Score: 4, Informative

      You may not need crossover -- straight ethernet will do, as the Mac's NIC will "cross" the connection if it senses it needs to.

  67. Good for benchmarking OS X vs. Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    on same hardware. I want to compare some lock-free algorithms on OS X and on Linux. So far I've compared OS X on PPC vs. Linux on Intel. There's a significant difference but I can't determine how much of that is due to hardware and how much is due to the dispatcher/scheduler. In theory I can do the same for x86 Solaris vs. x86 Linux assuming my hardware is all on the Solaris compatibility list.

  68. Sound support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Sound does work on the mini, although the support is not officially in the kernel yet.
    There is a patch,
    see http://www.pvv.org/~perchrh/macmini/
    I'm using it to play my oggs now :)

  69. Only 4K FEET - Not even ONE MILE Down!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's so signifigant about this? A story reporting we didn't even make it a single mile below the seafloor.

  70. Re:Cheap? Hardly. by duffbeer703 · · Score: 1

    Few people want to go out and cobble together parts to build a computer. Its a pain in the ass, quite frankly.

    Ever wonder why all of those PC companies run out of garages and selling computers out of computer shopper went out of business?

    Its because people would rather spend $500 or $2000 on something that looks like it belongs together... that's why people blow extra money on Sony or HP or Apple computers.

    The Mac Mini has a low footprint and is a perfect PC for the living or family. Families can be computer users without shoving the machine in the closet or basement or losing half of the living room to a hairball of wires and noisy equipment.

    --
    Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
  71. Use Debian - be architecture neutral by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Debian runs fine on the Mac Mini. Then you can move across all software and scripts from whatever other Debian platforms you've got ... and they just work.

  72. Re:Cheap? Hardly. by argent · · Score: 1

    Half-right...

    If you're looking for a Mac, the price is great.

    If you're looking for a Linux box, you can walk into Frys and match it spec-for-spec for half the price.

    But I wouldn't call a Dell anything "cheap". I mean, no matter what else you get, at the end of the day you've got a Dell. Never buy a computer from a company that rhymes with "Hell".

  73. Java 1.5 by ArbitraryConstant · · Score: 1

    I'm waiting for Java 1.5 on MacOS. The persistent lack of up to date Java on MacOS has long prevented me from even considering using a Mac as a workstation.

    Also, MacOS and Linux are not source compatible. They're compatible enough that porting software isn't that hard, but you can't test on MacOS if you need to deliver to Linux.

    --
    I rarely criticize things I don't care about.
  74. Re:Cheap? Hardly. by argent · · Score: 1

    No DVD player in the Dell, nor FireWire, nor a modem, nor a stack of bundled software, [...]

    The software is the key. No matter how much you spend on a Dell or HP you'll never get OS X. Let alone the stuff that runs on it...

    But the article was about people buying the Mac Mini to run Linux or BSD on. And that's just looneytunes. Once you set the software aside you can get way better for less.

    Laptop technology, which is what the Mini uses, is more expensive.

    If I was going to run free UNIX on it... I can buy a refurb Thinkpad T23 with matching specs to the Mini for about the same price. Best laptop keyboard in the world. Decent screen. Faster processor, even after you adjust for the megahertz myth. More versions of Linux and BSD available for it. For a little more I can get 1400x1050 resolution... that's better than the 17" powerbook... in a 14" screen.

    But it won't run OS X. And that's the bottom line.

  75. Read the article in context! by treerex · · Score: 4, Insightful

    People need to remember that the first article in the series was talking about using the Mini as an embedded development platform. Mac OS X is hardly an embedded OS, so being able to replace it with a more customizable system (i.e., Linux, NetBSD) is a plus, especially if you can make use of the hardware provided in the sexy little package.

    Putting a crippled Linux/BSD on a Mini when you have OS X installed is silly: except for the sheer studliness of it go out and buy a cheap x86 box to get your Linux fix.

    1. Re:Read the article in context! by argent · · Score: 1

      People need to remember that the first article in the series was talking about using the Mini as an embedded development platform.

      I'd rather use a Soekris box. Cheaper, smaller, boots faster...

    2. Re:Read the article in context! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd rather use a cardboard box. Cheaper, lighter and a I can boot it further.

  76. Dell Vs Apple? COME ONE! COME ALL! by SPY_jmr1 · · Score: 1

    It's the show that never ends, come inside, come inside...

  77. Re:Cheap? Hardly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And for that matter, if you just wanted any old box, you could buy an old one very cheaply.

    Or you could buy a very cheap barebones kit if you want something new - the EPIA-based "ASUS Terminator C3" has the board, a case and floppy and optical drives for slightly over $100. Add hard drives and memory and it's ready to roll for maybe $250 total(or more, depending on how cheapskatish you're feeling)

  78. Imagine a Beowolf cluster of these by qaz20 · · Score: 1

    What if Apple made the mini with a no video card option, and there was an OS that would cluster these automatically?
    Does ClusterKnoppix do this yet?
    You could buy another one whenever you ran out of disk space and add processing power also.
    Just a thought.

    q a z

    1. Re:Imagine a Beowolf cluster of these by z-kungfu · · Score: 1

      Uhhhh.... the software is called xGrid..
      http://www.apple.com/acg/xgrid/

  79. Re:Cheap? Hardly. by jabuzz · · Score: 1

    I the United Kingdom more than half of all internet access is via a broadband connection of some description (either ADSL, cable or better). New broadband connections are running at rates of tens of thousands a day. I have no idea where you live but from a U.K. perspective at least a dial up modem is rapidly becoming an obsolete device.

  80. Re:Cheap? Hardly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    nor a stack of bundled software, nor 90 days of free telephone support.

    If you're going to install Linux on it anyway - which is what this entire fucking article is about, in case you didn't even bother to read the summary - then the stack of bundled software is a waste of your money, because you're paying extra to get it and you're never going to use it. And I'm willing to bet a billion dollars that those 90 days of free telephone support will be conditional on you using the preinstalled OS.

    Will you Apple zealots kindly learn about appropriate behaviour in a discussion? Here's a clue: your defence of the Mac Mini is completely irrelevant, because you are defending it in its intended use: the context of the discussion is not its intended use, and nobody has criticised its excellence in its intended use. Your post is therefore offtopic.

  81. Re:Cheap? Hardly. by Mattwolf7 · · Score: 1

    for your laptop?

  82. Can you boot it from an external disk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    using OpenFirmware? I'm not interested in changing the orginal Mac configuration or in trying to install one of the Linux boot loaders given the inaccessible documentation for Linux bootloaders which basically makes it impossible to debug Linux boot problems.

  83. Cheap? Let's do a comparison by simscitizen · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Sure, the Mini is nice if you just like looking at your computer because it just looks so darn cool. But let's compare the cost of an Apple and a Dell and see whether the Mini is "affordable"--something which I did just a couple days ago because I needed a new comp to go with my DVI monitor. Latest Dell deal: (There are a TON, but here is just one configuration.) http://forums.slickdeals.net/t90922.html 3.0 GHz P4 with HT (800 FSB) 512 MB Dual Channel DDR2 RAM 80GB 7200RPM Hard Drive 128 MB Radeon x300 PCI-x video 17" e173fp LCD 16X DL DVD+/-RW Keyboard and mouse Ethernet/modem $584 Compare to: Apple Mac Mini 1.42 GHz (with a freaking 167 MHz FSB! Woohoo!) 256MB DDR RAM 80GB 4200RPM Hard Drive Radeon 9200 32MB Video No Monitor No Keyboard/Mouse DVD/CDRW drive Ethernet/modem $599 So what is the better deal? For $15 MORE you get a MUCH worse processor, much less memory, a much worse hard drive, a much worse video card, no monitor, no keyboard, no mouse, and a worse optical drive. And Mac people say the mini is affordable? Please. There's no doubt the mini is stylish. And I love using the Macs here at my uni. But as long as they cost this much, I'm not biting. We have budgets, you know.

    1. Re:Cheap? Let's do a comparison by argent · · Score: 1

      But how much does it cost to get OS X for the Dell? Don't forget to add $40 for Norton Antivirus and time lost doing software updates. Yes, there's software update for the Mac too. Three so far this year... but I just booted my PC for the first time since Christmas and I had over 30 "critical updates" waiting for me.

    2. Re:Cheap? Let's do a comparison by tfoss · · Score: 1
      1. That price is using huge discounts with $400 off $1000 coupons and such, so you aren't really comparing similar things. For a better comparison, dell.com has this: 2.4GHz celeron D, 40GB HD, 256MB ram, 48x cdrom, 15" flat-screen, no firewire for $498. Mini doesn't look so bad in this case.

      2. Here's a comparison of sizes using famous people: your dell, the mini.

      -Ted

      --
      -=-=- Quantum physics - the dreams stuff are made of.
    3. Re:Cheap? Let's do a comparison by simscitizen · · Score: 1

      And what's wrong with this coupon? Dell has a comparable deal up ALL the time...check Fatwallet or slickdeals and run a search if you don't believe me. And note that this is a coupon, not a rebate, so there's no waiting involved.

    4. Re:Cheap? Let's do a comparison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      free software: adobe acrobat reader.

      whohoow, let's unpack this baby and start working shall we

  84. Re:Cheap? Hardly. by Enahs · · Score: 1

    I'm glad someone pointed out this option.

    That's essentially the sort of system I'm using right now, though I took the route of using an older board and a cheap VIA C3 processor. It chugs along faithfully, though a bit slow when the numbers need to be crunched, but most of the time this Kubuntu-based system runs more than acceptably fast for my taste.

    If you're not going to run OS X, it's a waste of money to buy a Mac, even if it's a cheap Mini. If you absolutely must have a Mini, go ahead and run OS X. All sorts of Free Software has native and native-ish ports; NeoOffice, AbiWord, and Gimp.app come to mind immediately. More software is being ported all the time as well. Given time and resources, RangerRick and Co. may manage to get a "native" KDE running. How cool is that?

    So yeah, if you have to have OS X, get your Mac; otherwise, save your money and buy a lowend PC that'll be nearly as fast for less than half the cost.

    --
    Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
  85. Re:Cheap? Hardly. by knewman_1971 · · Score: 1

    While I do sort of agree with you, I have to say: Holy shit! I never expected to read that in a "Let's port another UNIX type to something else for no good reason" article.

    --
    where is the "I feel for ya, but that's some funny ass shit" moderation?
  86. As opposed to... by ShatteredDream · · Score: 4, Insightful

    MacOS X which has 64-bit support. Besides what does it matter since the Mac Mini uses a 32bit processor...

    1. Re:As opposed to... by SA+Stevens · · Score: 1, Funny

      NetBSD has 64-bit support.

      Are you going to say 'Oh Wow! A 64-bit OS!' when I run it on my Macintosh SE/30?

    2. Re:As opposed to... by WatertonMan · · Score: 2, Informative

      OSX has some 64bit extensions, but it isn't a 64 bit OS by any means. Even Tiger, which allows command line programs to be fully 64 bit won't allow applications utilizing graphics to be 64 bit. (Although I think X11 programs can be)

    3. Re:As opposed to... by Queer+Boy · · Score: 1
      Even Tiger, which allows command line programs to be fully 64 bit won't allow applications utilizing graphics to be 64 bit.

      That's only until Quartz is rewritten to be 64 bits and you can be sure that will be before 10.5. The main thing graphics and video apps need that 64-bit and Tiger support is crazy amounts of RAM as well as VM. I think the last I read the OS now supports 4 Terrabytes of real RAM as well as 16 Exabytes addressable space.

      --
      Not since Marie-Antoinette played milkmaid has looking simple and honest been so fake and complicated.
  87. Re:Cheap? Hardly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But, if all you need is a stable kernel, a C compiler, and network support, the code is high-quality and the price is unbeatable."

    "The price is unbeatable" refers to the price of NetBSD/Linux.

  88. Cheap? Let's do a comparison - fixed w/line breaks by simscitizen · · Score: 1

    Sure, the Mini is nice if you just like looking at your computer because it just looks so darn cool. But let's compare the cost of an Apple and a Dell and see whether the Mini is "affordable"--something which I did just a couple days ago because I needed a new comp to go with my DVI monitor.

    Latest Dell deal: (There are a TON, but here is just one configuration.)
    http://forums.slickdeals.net/t90922.html

    • 3.0 GHz P4 with HT (800 FSB)
      512 MB Dual Channel DDR2 RAM
    • 80GB 7200RPM Hard Drive
      128 MB Radeon x300 PCI-x video
    • 17" e173fp LCD
    • 16X DL DVD+/-RW
    • Keyboard and mouse
    • Ethernet/modem
    • $584
    • Compare to:
    • Apple Mac Mini
    • 1.42 GHz G4 (with a freaking 167 MHz FSB! Woohoo!)
    • 256MB DDR RAM
    • 80GB 4200RPM Hard Drive
    • Radeon 9200 32MB Video
    • No Monitor
    • No Keyboard/Mouse
    • DVD/CDRW drive
    • Ethernet/modem
    • $599 - because of Apple, you can't get it cheaper

    So what is the better deal? For $15 MORE you get a MUCH worse processor, much less memory, a much worse hard drive, a much worse video card, no monitor, no keyboard, no mouse, and a worse optical drive. And Mac people say the mini is affordable? Please. There's no doubt the mini is stylish. And I love using the Macs here at my uni. But as long as they cost this much, I'm not biting. We have budgets, you know.

    Don't tell me about the shitty 40gb $499 version too. Dell has a deal that eats that for lunch too (3 ghz with HT, 17" 1704fp for $499, etc.). Don't bother.

  89. EPIA by Phantasmo · · Score: 1

    GNU/Linux on an EPIA box. You can even do it fanless. Heck, use an ATA CF reader and you can have a solid-state desktop that uses way less power than a Mac Mini. For the average computer user (who needs/wants web browsing, e-mail (usually through a web interface anyway), and solitaire) it's more than enough, and maybe a bit cheaper.

    --

    The US Army: promoting democracy through unquestioned obedience
  90. Re:Enough already. by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 0, Troll

    fuck you fucking fuck head

    --



    I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
  91. Wow, full of shit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Dell Dimension 4700 Series: Intel® Pentium® 4 Processor 530 w/HT Technology (3GHz, 800FSB)Operating System: Microsoft® Windows® XP Professional Limited Warranty, Services and Support Options: No Extended Service, Support or Ltd Warranty Memory: 256MB DDR2 SDRAM at 400MHz (1x256M) Hard Drive: 80GB Serial ATA Hard Drive (7200RPM) CD or DVD Drive: Single Drive: 48x CD-RW / DVD-ROM Combo Drive Enhanced Software for CD or DVD Burner: RecordNow! Deluxe - Burn, Copy and Label CDs Floppy Drive and Additional Storage Devices: No Floppy Drive Included Monitor: No Monitor Video Cards: Integrated Intel® Graphics Media Accelerator 900 Sound Card: Integrated 5.1 Channel Audio Video Editing: IEEE 1394 Adapter Speakers: No Speaker Option Keyboard: Dell Quietkey® Keyboard Mouse: Dell 2-button scroll mouse Network Interface: Integrated Intel® PRO 10/100 Ethernet Office Productivity Software (Pre-Installed): No Productivity Suite - Corel WordPerfect® word processor only Security Software: No Security Subscription Miscellaneous: Award Winning Service and Support Digital Music: Dell Jukebox PLUS - Rip and burn your CDs faster, print CD labels, and more Digital Photography: Paint Shop Pro® Studio Enhance and restore photos and more Operating System Enhancements: Combo: Microsoft® Plus! for Windows XP and Digital Media Edition Financial Software: No QuickBooks package selected- Includes limited use trial Adobe Software: Adobe® Acrobat® Reader 6.0 Internet Access Services: 6 Months of America Online Membership Included Modem: 56K PCI Data Fax Modem

    $926 directly from the Dell site, not some made up reference to a forum price listing.



    256MB DDR333 SDRAM - 1 DIMM 80GB Ultra ATA drive Combo Drive Wired Keyboard & Mouse Set - U.S. English 56K v.92 Modem Mac OS X - U.S. English 1.42GHz PowerPC G4

    $657.00



    This is a much closer comparison. As for the processor being better, that's strictly your uneducated opinion and I doubt that you've ever touched a mini to see just how responsive it is even with a "slower" proc, slower RAM and a slower FSB.

    The key always comes down to the software and the Dell deal still doesn't include everything that the Mac gives you.

  92. just wait a little by cahiha · · Score: 1

    What distinguishes the Mac Mini is not its hardware (there is plenty of equivalent x86 hardware around), but its marketing and pricing as a mass market desktop machine. Hats off to Jobs--he knows his marketing. But PC manufacturers were already standardizing on smaller and smaller form factors before the Mac Mini even appeared. The PC world is going to come out with similar machines, and at a lower price point. Until then, you are better off with a Shuttle or something similar--less expensive and you can use standard parts to add memory, disk space, and other features.

    1. Re:just wait a little by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there is plenty of equivalent x86 hardware around

      Ok, where? I'm especially looking for the risc and big endian versions. With full support for the PowerPC instruction set of course.

      You did say equivalent...

    2. Re:just wait a little by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's around? Mini-ITX, PC-104, and lots of SBCs, plus lots of cases for those. There have also been numerous mini-like form factors for "thin client" and "no legacy" machines, from Sun, IBM, and other vendors, based on x86, PPC, and SPARC. PC vendors are currently standardizing on new, tiny form factors, so you are going to see a lot more of those for both consumers and businesses.

      As I was saying, what Apple "invented" wasn't the form factor, but simply marketing small form factor devices to consumers. Cute as they are, I still think they are mostly a fad.

  93. Re:Cheap? Hardly. by Jens_UK · · Score: 1
    I think what it implies is that your long-term OS X user didn't bother installing VLC. Granted stock QT doesn't play full size, but VLC has done both the standard torrented tv show .avis as well as the .mpgs from my ReplayTV (through DV Archive) in full screen on my PowerBook.

    Here is VLC for OS X.

    To display in full screen, either Apple-F or Menu Bar | Video | Full Screen.

  94. Crossover cables suck by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 2, Informative
    Got your attention? OK. What I mean is that you really want to avoid crossover cables if you can. That's because except in the very limited (and relatively rare) case where you'll only ever be connecting exactly two computers, you're usually better off investing in a cheap switch and connecting through that.

    In the almost inevitable situation where you'll want to add a third computer - say, a friend drops by with a laptop - you can just plug it in to the switch and start using it. If you've used crossover cables, though, you'll find yourself in a mad dash to the store for the same switch plus the straight cables to replace your now-useless crossover.

    I understand that Macs can automatically sense which sort of cable you're using. If that's true, then at least start off with a straight cable so that you can still use it when you eventually upgrade to a switched network.

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    1. Re:Crossover cables suck by jcr · · Score: 2, Informative

      I understand that Macs can automatically sense which sort of cable you're using.

      All Macs built in the last three years or so have auto-sensing ethernet ports. Some models had them earlier than that.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    2. Re:Crossover cables suck by John+Allsup · · Score: 1

      Thanks. I've not done PC to PC networking without hubs in years, let alone PC to mac. Just wanted to avoid the learning by spending approach.

      --
      John_Chalisque
  95. Re:Cheap? Hardly. by anagama · · Score: 1

    It has been said ad nauseum, but comparing to a fullsize dell is NOT a good comparison. It's like saying "BMWs suck because they can't haul 1000 lbs of concrete like my F350 diesel dualie can, and the truck costs less". It all depends on what you want out of a system.

    For example, I built a Nehemia 1gz Mini-itx system about 1.5 or 2 years ago. It costs me more than $500 in a decent case (Antec Sonato). 40gb drive, 512mb, and guess what - it is isn't silent. There is a fan on the CPU, a fan in the powersupply, and the harddrive is audible. To go to a fanless powersupply setup, I would have to cough up another $100 at least. A laptop harddrive is roughly twice the cost of a 3.5" harddrive (for a 40, let's say that's worth $35). Then there is the adapter, another 15 or 20 bucks. As for getting the fan off the CPU, it's possible with a heat-sink modification, but I doubt that would be less than $30. To get the quiet operation you'd get with a mini, I'd have spend around $700. I'd put linux on it, so I won't even talk about an OS cost.

    The DIY solution is quite evidently more expensive when you wish to arrive at roughly the same place you are at with a mini. If all you want to do is haul rocks, and you don't care what the thing looks looks like or how it sounds, the mini is not for you. But then, neither is a mini-itx system (which is neither silent nor powerful but costs more).

    --
    What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
  96. desktop debian by wolftone · · Score: 1

    Debian works quite nicely on a desktop. If a major upgrade every three or four years is all you need, (which seems to be about what users brought up in the Windows world would expect, anyway) Debian stable is fine.

    For the last year or so, Debian testing has been generally stable enough for desktop use; and since Ubuntu came out, I've still found that in general, Debian testing is more stable than Ubuntu. In a couple weeks, I'll try installing Hoary, but my expectations are low.

    The biggest difference between KDE and Gnome on Debian versus Ubuntu is the branding. Debian doesn't seem to spend much time making their desktop environments look very different from the defaults set in place by the people who make them (unlike Red Hat and their derivatives, for instance), and the biggest change going to Ubuntu was that there are themes installed which are not standard Gnome themes.

    The computer I'm on right now is running Debian Sarge with Ubuntu's XOrg (with its requisite dependencies).

  97. Getting Refund for OS X by Donny+Smith · · Score: 1

    > Is it possible to get a mini without the apple OS?

    And, of course, is it possible to get a refund for the Apple OS?

    >If you can't, then whats the point? You've already paid for an OS....

    The same goes for PCs with Windows XP...

    Regarding the article which I can't force myself to read, I'd say it's pretty obvious it's a marketing piece for IBM's microprocessor unit.
    Why buy a Mini at all, but especially considering the fact that you can get a "native" Linux (x86) system and use any Linux OS with it.

  98. You should sign up for an ADC account by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Might get what you're looking for.

    1. Re:You should sign up for an ADC account by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't see Java 1.5 on my ADC account.

  99. OT: iMac G5? by zsau · · Score: 1

    Anyone know of a distro of Linux that works on the iMac G5? I understand there's a kernel that works but I'll be damned if I can work out how to install it, until I can already get it to run.

    --
    Look out!
    1. Re:OT: iMac G5? by UncleRage · · Score: 1

      You mean other than compiling said kernel and inserting it your boot location?

      If you're waiting for an "off the shelf", vanilla 64bit PPC kernel... I've no idea. But I'd be shocked if Terra doesn't have something in the near future.

      It's been awhile since I've played w/ Linux on a Mac (Gentoo on an old Lombard a year or so back), and I know that Ben's not releasing anything anymore... but I'd try the usual places (ppckernel.org).

      Quick edit -- I'd also check the gentoo forums and see what's been cooked up over there. http://forums.gentoo.org - > Gentoo on PPC

      Good luck.

      --
      #SickNotWeak
    2. Re:OT: iMac G5? by zsau · · Score: 1

      Well, you can even get the kernel precompiled, but I don't have Linux on my Mac yet, so I have no idea how I'm meant to boot off the kernel (I know there's a bootloader, but it doesn't seem to compile under OS X). If I had the same sort of predicament on Linux/x86 I'd probably be able to work something out, but I have no idea how Macs work. I should be able to work something out with a vague set of helpful instructions but I don't know where to start from.

      (The Gentoo forums have stuff, but nothing's released that works yet. It's mostly posts like mine---is there anything happening?---unless something's changed.)

      --
      Look out!
  100. Re:Cheap? Hardly. by prockcore · · Score: 1

    As far as I know, the majority of Internet access still occurs through dial-up

    Not true. More than 50% of Americans get online via broadband from home now.

  101. I _WANT_ Mac OS by paulius_g · · Score: 1

    No offense, I would buy Mac hardware only because of the OS inside it.

    Mac OS is sleek, nice, productive and very stable.

    My Mac-wanabee Gnome desktop doesn't come close!

  102. Re:Cheap? Hardly. by prockcore · · Score: 1

    I can't tell my musician friend to go out and buy your Dell and expect to get a free music sequencer installed, along with the rest of the software.

    Your musician friend is going to hate GarageBand. It's limited to 8 tracks and can't even keyframe effects.

    Your musician friend would be much happier with Acid5 (which is a mere $70).. and if your musician friend is into MIDI (as you claim he is) he'd be much happier with Reason.

    Purchasing an OS because it comes with a crappy freeware app that doesn't do 1/10th of what a $70 piece of software does is rediculous.

    It's like saying that because your friend is an artist, he should purchase Windows because it comes with MSPaint and OSX doesn't come with anything.

  103. Free = beer or Free in RMS-speak? Software or OS? by aristotle-dude · · Score: 3, Interesting
    What is the point exactly for installing a BSD or Linux when OS X includes a BSD subsystem?

    Want free software? What's wrong with the following:
    Gentoo for OS X: http://www.metadistribution.org/macos/
    Darwin Ports: http://darwinports.opendarwin.org/
    Fink: http://fink.sourceforge.net/
    Freshmeat: http://osx.freshmeat.net/
    Sourceforge: http://sourceforge.net/softwaremap/trove_list.php? form_cat=309

    I need clarification. Are we discussing Open Source Software or Open Source GUIs?

    Mac OS X has an open source kernel, a closed source GUI, OSX specific frameworks and some apple specific drivers. I don't see what the problem is. They have to have something extra to entice people to buy their OS. Fortunately, they support open standards and document their APIs very well. I consider "open standards to be far more important that open source software. as the former help to prevent vendor lock in while the latter does not necessarily do that. What good is it to have open source software if it does not support interoperability?

    Running Linux or FreeBSD on a mini will gain you nothing for software availability and you will lose WiFi support so I really don't see what is the point to not run OSX.

    --
    Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
  104. Re:Cheap? Hardly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "contains more in less space"

    True, but the problem is that it's sold full up! C'mon, the expansion capabilities of the Dell are greater, the support is better and if you want to run Linux on it, it's just cheaper. It just bloody is - you can't argue with that.

    Incidentally this software bundle thing; how come MS got stung for bundled apps, yet Apple get away with it? Surely they have the monopoly on Apple kit, or am I missing something here?

  105. Re:Free = beer or Free in RMS-speak? Software or O by argent · · Score: 1

    Running Linux or FreeBSD on a mini will gain you nothing for software availability and you will lose WiFi support so I really don't see what is the point to not run OSX.

    <AOL>Preach it, brother... OS X is BSD!</>

  106. Oh pluuueeeessssseee by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Who wants to run Linux or BSD Unix on a Mac Mini? People buy a Mac Mini to be a cheap low-end Mac. They actually want to run OSX.

    If they wanted to run Linux or BSD Unix, they could buy one of those el cheapo $300USD or lower PC Clone systems. In fact, this is something that Linspire counts on, selling their el cheapo Linspire based systems at Wal-Mart, etc.

    The day you find people running Linux or BSD Unix on a Mac Mini, will be the day that Apple sells the Mac Mini sans the OS. The Chicago Cubs have a better chance of winning the World's Series, than people have of Apple selling Mac Minis without an OS.

    --
    Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
    1. Re:Oh pluuueeeessssseee by TeknoHog · · Score: 1
      People buy a Mac Mini to be a cheap low-end Mac. They actually want to run OSX.

      Who are you to tell what other people want?

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    2. Re:Oh pluuueeeessssseee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who are you to think you know what he thinks he knows about what other people want or think they want ?

    3. Re:Oh pluuueeeessssseee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, an el-cheapo $300 PC, that makes enough racket to be heard on the next room.

      Some of us are space-constrained, and the computer lab is in the bedroom, so a quiet machine is a plus.

    4. Re:Oh pluuueeeessssseee by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 1

      There are PC models that run quiet as well. No need to buy a Mac Mini and pay more. Ever heard of the Nano-ITX form factor with brushless fans for power supplies? Not all el-cheapo PCs run enough racket to be heard in the next room, or take up a lot of space. Apple is not the only company to make a small computer.

      --
      Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
    5. Re:Oh pluuueeeessssseee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Macs are still as over-priced as ever. While Mac groupies may be excited that you can get one for only 2 months rent, the rest of us have been buying $273 Dell specials (compare to $499 for a mac-mini) and even cheaper $199 machines from Fry's and Walmart for a couple of years now. And those $200 to $300 computers are faster and better than mac-minis.

      Use the money you save to spend $20 on putting in different fans if the noise bugs you.

  107. Re:Cheap? Hardly. by ezavada · · Score: 1

    Incidentally this software bundle thing; how come MS got stung for bundled apps, yet Apple get away with it? Surely they have the monopoly on Apple kit, or am I missing something here?

    Yes, you are missing bunch.

    1. At least in the US, there is nothing illegal about being a monopoly, what is illegal is using that monopoly position in one market to give yourself an advantage in another market by artificially tying products together.

    2. Microsoft was accused (and as I understand it convicted) of tying the browser to Windows. There were also other issues, such as illegally trying to divide up a market with a competitor (Windows Media vs. Quicktime, they offered Apple free reign of the Mac market with Quicktime if Apple would stop trying to compete in the Windows market with Quicktime). But AFAIK they were never in trouble for bundling anything other than Windows Media and IE.

    3. Apple is not a monopoly in any market. Not PCs (3-5% market share). Not music downloads (70%). Not portable music players (60%). Nor are they artifically tying the areas where they have a strong market present (digital music) with places where they are weak (PC market).

    4. Even if Apple had 90+% of the PC market for OS's (replacing the MS monopoly there), bundling the Safari web browser would still not be an issue necessarily, because a) they also bundle MS Internet Explorer, and b) they don't do anything to discourage people from using competing products (Firefox, etc..)

  108. Re:Cheap? Hardly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OK, maybe a gotcha on the DVD player, but you can pick one up cheap anyway. And who here would use any of the other stuff?

  109. OpenPPC Project by tgeller · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Anyone remember The OpenPPC Project? This was something Ralph Giles and I started a few years ago, to follow up on a PPC-based reference board designed by IBM. Unfortunately a parts problem prevented it from ever being produced commercially, despite creation of a commercial company (Pop Computers) to manage the process.

    Anyway... while the Apple Mini/OSX solution isn't the same thing philosophically, I'm fairly content that it solves most of the problems for which that project was created: It's Unix, it's cheap, it's PPC.

    What it *isn't* is open-source in any real way. As someone who's now more influenced by practical than ideological concerns these days, I'm content.

    --
    Tom Geller
    1. Re:OpenPPC Project by argent · · Score: 1

      What it *isn't* is open-source in any real way.

      Um, are you sure about that? It's not like people aren't making use of that source code, either...

    2. Re:OpenPPC Project by zpok · · Score: 1

      Of course he's sure. There's a real difference between a BSD license, a GPL license and Apple's license. And Apple's mix of open and proprietary is charming and does the trick for a lot of practical people, but it's still not open in any real way as poster put it. Open enough for me, but for a lot of people these distinctions matter.

      --
      I think, therefore I am...I think.
    3. Re:OpenPPC Project by tgeller · · Score: 1

      Sure, intelligent people can have differing opinions on what it means to be "open". And to be honest, I don't feel qualified to judge Apple's license. So maybe I spoke too soon... but in any case I'll let others have that argument. :)

      --
      Tom Geller
    4. Re:OpenPPC Project by argent · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, but calling the most open license that any commercial UNIX system has ever used, when commercial UNIX is where the whole "Open Systems" concept developed, "not open in any real way"? It's open in lots of real ways, it uses open systems, open source, open protocols, it's donated a whole bunch of code back to the open source community. It's not the kind of Microsoft-esque "shared code" game that would justify that kind of put-down.

    5. Re:OpenPPC Project by argent · · Score: 1

      Sure, intelligent people can have differing opinions on what it means to be "open".

      Fair enough, and I'm sure OS X isn't open enough for RMS... what bothered me was that you seemed to be taking it a bit further than that and saying that it wasn't reasonable to use "open" to refer to OS X at all. Glad to see that bit was just hyperbole.

    6. Re:OpenPPC Project by zpok · · Score: 1

      OK, you're right. I don't mean to belittle Apple's approach, and I don't think the original poster did. But to many, if it's not GPL or public, it's not open "in any real way", meaning you can't use or share your code the way you're used to.

      --
      I think, therefore I am...I think.
    7. Re:OpenPPC Project by argent · · Score: 1

      But to many, if it's not GPL or public, it's not open "in any real way", meaning you can't use or share your code the way you're used to.

      Those people are just confused. There's absolutely nothing in Apple's approach that will keep you from "using or sharing your code the way you're used to", for any code you'd be able to use at all under LinuxPPC... and that would be true even if they hadn't open-sourced Darwin. That's the whole point of open systems. That's what enabled Linux itself to take off... compatibility with other open systems.

      Hell, RMS developed GNU Emacs and GCC on systems like that. Anyone who says a bog-standard UNIX environment like OS X (and, yes, OS X is not even vaguely weird when you put it in the context of other UNIX systems) isn't "open in any real way" is either confused or just tossing around a soundbite they think sounds good. The latter is an easy trap to fall into, I've done it myself, and I haven't always had the class to recognise it as well as the OP did.

  110. Re:Enough already. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Profanity is the common crutch of the conversational cripple." - David Keuck

  111. Insightful? wtf? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, we all know what a sunk cost is. His point was, OS X is basically equal (or superior) to Linux, except for the cost. If the cost isn't a factor--as you pointed out with your brilliant 'sunk cost' post--why in the world would you switch to linux? Most linux apps run on OSX, so the whole vertical applications crap doesn't apply.

  112. No crossover needed, Mac auto senses by GrahamCox · · Score: 1

    Just plug them together with any ethernet cable. Unless you really know you way around the IP settings on the PC, changing the Mac's IP (or just using Rendezvous) is the easier route to connectivity in my experience.

  113. Wow, an idiot! by simscitizen · · Score: 1

    No one pays full price at Dell. There are 40% off coupons (or equivalent--this deal used a $400 of $999 coupon) EVERY WEEK. So you're full of shit for not RTFA. You must be one of those people who accepts the quote from the hotel desk as the "real rate" and actually pays full price.

  114. And if you need software... by simscitizen · · Score: 1

    Install Ubuntu for a whopping $0.

  115. Re:Cheap? Hardly. by amliebsch · · Score: 1

    Of course the BMW doesn't suck. But you also wouldn't (if you're being reasonable) ever say it's cheap.

    --
    If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
  116. Re:OS included? Two Os's can be included by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Two OS's can be included.
    There doesn't have to be a Linux/OS X war here you know.

    Buy your Mac Mini from YellowDogLinux.org and get 2 OS's pre-installed. Then you doulbe you choice of software options.

    I keep my personal info on the OS X side. But, it's interesting and smart to get some real Linux experience about what the typical directory structure looks like. And the software they run as standard.

  117. Because you can cary it with one hand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    $500 for a power-efficient, compact, embedded system.

  118. Re:Cheap? Hardly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    None of that matters, his point was that the Mac mini ships with the equivalent of Cakewalk Home Studio for free.

    I never needed more than 8 tracks recording anything my band did.

  119. Yeah, but TFA uses linux low cost as its' argument by IdahoEv · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That's a sunk cost, and it can only serve to bias your decision. Rather, you should be considering, from where you stand right now, what your best options are for the future.

    If you get more usability, security, performance, or what have you, out of Linux than you do out of MacOS X, then it does not matter whether or not you have already paid for MacOS X.

    This is true, but the article title implied that the reason for installing Linux was that it was free. If that means free as in beer, then it's a specious argument, precisely because the cost of OS X has already been paid: you cannot save money by installing Linux.

    Indeed, if your time has monetary value, as everyone does, then taking the time to install Linux in fact adds cost.

    --
    I stole this sig from someone cleverer than me.
  120. The point by Craig+Ringer · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure it makes sense as a "cheap computer" approach. I'd argue that it's hardly pointless, though:

    (a) Some folks like mac hardware but can't stand MacOS/X . I'm not one of them, but I prefer using a more "true" UNIX with a single, consistent API and with well-integrated X11.

    (b) Other folks are developing PowerPC applications for UNIX. Linux, being much more "unix-y" than MacOS/X, will be a much better fit for that sort of role.

    Yes, I know Apple says OS/X is UNIX. Well ... it has a UNIX/BSD subsystem, but it sure ain't UNIX. I found that one out first hand as I helped port Scribus to it (still in progress). Mach-O, Aqua, Carbon, Cocoa, weird font formats, weird FS layout, etc. Not bad, but not UNIX.

    1. Re:The point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I tried to clone a hard drive to a larger one using tar, thinking it's unix. Turns out, the included tar can't access all the file attributes correctly, and cp or dragging the files won't work either. I had to use "Carbon Copy Cloner", which worked fine, but I was under the impression OS X was UNIX, which like you said, simply isn't.

  121. Who am I? by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 1
    Why I am the King of the Internet, I appointed myself in 1995, after nobody else wanted the job. That is who I am to tell what other people want.

    The short version of my BIO will explain in more detail. I believe you owe me some money from that Internet tax I placed on porn in 1995. Better recognize, and pay up, or you may find yourself Banned from the Internet. The green haired girl works for me, and I can have her ban you in an instant for posting to me that way.

    --
    Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
  122. So many of you miss the point... by cbreaker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So what, MacOS is a decent OS. Who cares? It only runs on Macs anyways. The great thing about Linux and other open systems is that they aren't platform dependant.

    You know, some people actually LIKE Linux systems, and they prefer to use them on whatever the hardware of the day is, be it a G5 or an Opteron or an Itanium. At the end of the day, you're still using your trusted and open OS, which you'll more then likely be able to run on the next system out the door by whatever company.

    Don't you get it? Vendor lock-in sucks, I don't care if it IS the proverbial underdog that's doing it.

    --
    - It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
    1. Re:So many of you miss the point... by argent · · Score: 1

      So what, MacOS is a decent OS. Who cares? It only runs on Macs anyways. The great thing about Linux and other open systems is that they aren't platform dependant.

      Dude, Mac OS X is an open system. It's UNIX, just like Linux is UNIX. You can run any open source app on Mac OS X just as easily as you can on any other randomly chosen open system.

      At the end of the day I'm still using my trusted and open OS, that runs all the same scripts and commands and applications as FreeBSD and Linux because it's the same damn system under the hood as all the other UNIX ports. It's more open than just about any commercial UNIX (open systems all) because it's got an open source core.

      Sure, you can't run Cocoa apps on other systems. But there's a long and growing list of Linux software that requires outrageous effort to get it to build on any other open system. I'm still working on getting some supposedly open and portable Linux software running under the latest FreeBSD.

      Lock-in sucks, even if it's caused by people writing "all the world's a Linux system" software.

    2. Re:So many of you miss the point... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, Mac OS X is an open system.

      Ok, where is the souce code so I can compile this on my PC?

    3. Re:So many of you miss the point... by argent · · Score: 1

      Ok, where is the souce code so I can compile this on my PC?

      Well, first, you're confusing "open systems" with "open source", but since you insist... try here or here.

  123. X11 by Craig+Ringer · · Score: 1

    I can agree with you on some points, but as a long-time UNIX _and_ Linux user and more recent MacOS/X user, not all.

    2: X11 doesn't come pre-installed, it has to be custom-installed by the user though it is shipped with the OS. A most unfortunate decision in my book.

    5: Doing this largely denies you access to the system admin tools etc. It also means you still have the non-trivial overhead of Aqua, the Finder, etc.

    More importantly, it doesn't change the fact that you're running on an OS with several fundamentally different ideas of what an "application" is ("native" Aqua, X11, console, Java, etc).

    It also has a different binary format (Mach-O), a strange linker (-framework anybody? Why didn't they at least make it -framework,name,name like the rest?!?), and other differences that make it hard to treat it as a generic *nix.

    Oh yeah, and Apple X11 seems really slow compared to the versions I use on other platforms, which doesn't help. OTOH, perhaps that's because I use it on an eMac.

    6: Would be more true if (a) you could launch X11 apps from the file manager and dock as easily as .pkg-based Aqua ones, without using AppleScript hacks, and (b) X11 apps could get their own dock entries etc. As I work on porting to MacOS/X, I'm increasingly learning that neither of these would be excessively hard for Apple to do. I just don't think they want to.

    Now, for most users, who cares. They're happy with OS/X. If you're looking for, say, a PPC UNIX devel machine, though, this sort of thing makes sense. I still think it's utter BS for the proposed use - cheap desktops.

  124. You don't know shit about shit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where's that offer? Not on the Dell site, jackass. More made up shit from the penguin raping brigade. You get what you pay for with Dell. I've dealt with them in the office and they put together crappy hardware with decent specs from shitty manufacturers that break down regularly with POS cases that fall apart if you breathe on them. So get over yourself.

    Linux doesn't come remotely close to OS X you cheap ass penguin raping idiot. And you can't do the video and audio work that you can do with the packaged user-friendly software from Apple that works off the bat unlike spending the years of time getting the right POS drivers for the half ass shit software and crappy hardware you're buying from Dell you get from your other penguin fucking morons.

    If you were a real Linux hack then you wouldn't waste your time with Dell anyhow. So who are you trying to kid? Ah, that's the point, you're nothing but another shit out the mouth idiot kid anyhow...

    1. Re:You don't know shit about shit. by simscitizen · · Score: 1

      Oops, can't bother typing in a coupon code into the configurator, can't you? I'll teach you--you double click on the code to "copy", then drop it into the box at checkout to "paste", and voila, you get an instant discount. You would have to be an idiot to pay full price at Dell when there is a 30-50% off coupon running at ALL times. Contrast this to Apple in which there are NEVER any discounts because of their strict reseller price controls. And look, this fucking article is about RUNNING LINUX ON A MAC. Did you read the blurb at the top? Well, you can run "penguin-raping" Linux on a PC MUCH cheaper. Now what have you said in all this drivel that contradicts what I said? Nothing.

  125. iBook is not reliable! by bani · · Score: 2, Informative

    The iBook is legendarily unreliable. My friend's iBook (nicknamed "iBork") has had to be sent back to apple for repairs no less than 3 times...

    apple faced class action lawsuits over the iBook fiascos.

    I'd seriously reconsider recommending an iBook to anyone. Just because it didn't happen to you doesn't mean it won't to the person you recommend it to. And statistically speaking, the ibook is very prone to failure compared to other laptops.

    A powerbook is probably ok though.

    1. Re:iBook is not reliable! by swillden · · Score: 1

      Interesting. I'll keep my fingers crossed, I guess.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    2. Re:iBook is not reliable! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Don't worry about the comments on iBook reliability. All of those stories relate to the known defective later iBook G3 line. Not one relates to iBook G4s, which are the ones sold by Apple for the last 18 months. They are known as rock solid little performers.

  126. Re:Cheap? Hardly. by anagama · · Score: 1

    True - flawed analogy on my part -- but this is slashdot and that's par. I suppose better would be something like comparing a Jetta/Civic to a Pickup.

    --
    What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
  127. Re:Cheap? Let's do a comparison - fixed w/line bre by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    So what is the better deal? For $15 MORE you get a MUCH worse processor, much less memory, a much worse hard drive, a much worse video card, no monitor, no keyboard, no mouse, and a worse optical drive.


    Why I'm responding to this stupidity at this hour is beyond me, but I'll bite. I'm an IT professional (along with 80 percent of slashdot it would seem) with about fifteen years experience on different systems, ranging from uniprocessor desktops up to heavy iron.

    Here's the deal: the Dell you've quoted is not a gaming machine.. nor is the Mac mini. Main selling point for the Dell: monitor's included.. and maybe the hard drive.

    Selling point for the mini? The goddamned thing is going to work. If you want to type term papers, send some email, IM, do some low-end development, knock yourself out and have a good time. Very few problems with spyware and viruses on OS X, and the added benefit of generally decent workmanship. Ever had to deal with Dell machines en masse? I have. They are pure shit. The laptops are even worse. My personal favorite is a design "issue" (read as FLAW) where you shut the machine and place it in your book bag. Over the course of two weeks its pussy-assed little screen will develop a nice scratch across the LCD from the edge of the keyboard due to lack of rigidity in the case. Anyway, I've had scads of issues with Dell hardware and the best thing about it is that we've got a Dell certified guy on site, so they just ship us stuff, no questions. Oh yeah, and that gimme LCD monitor in your configuration blows goats as well.

    The summary: If you really want a PC, go ahead and get a Dell. If you want to get work done, get the Mac.
  128. agree 100% by bani · · Score: 1

    I bought a mac mini because it was the cheapest mac I could buy for osx development.

    It certainly won't be replacing my P4 shuttle SB52G2 or desktop opteron. I hardly use the mini at all, just ssh in for remote compiles really. Well, really slow compiles :-/

    If it were possible to cross compile for osx (like I can with win32 and mingw), I probably wouldn't have a mac mini at all...

  129. Re:Cheap? Hardly. by mdarksbane · · Score: 1

    And I'll trust a sub-$500 system no farther than I can kick.

    *I* can build something for myself for that much, and have it be a nice-rock solid system. This means I do not expect some random company, no matter what their vendor discount, to be able to do so and make a profit on it.

    The only component in those budget systems that isn't crap is the processor, and that's because there are only really two processor vendors. Cheap mobo, awful ram, maxtor "I lose data after six months" hd, etc, etc.

    The return rates on low-end PC's for part failure at Best Buy are atrocious.

  130. RE: Dell vs. Mac Mini by King_TJ · · Score: 1

    Actually, I find it rather amusing that other than Dell (who moves more volume of product than ANY other computer vendor, period), there don't seem to really be any other PCs out there people are even TRYING to compare to the Mac Mini as "better buys for the price".

    I grant you that Dell runs some pretty incredible deals on their hardware these days. (That 24" LCD panel for under $1200 is unbeatable, for example!) But with Dell, one also has to be very cautious about the "specials". My mother-in-law ordered one of their "bargain-priced entry level Dimension systems" last Xmas, only to have the bill arrive for hundreds more than the advertised sale price. To this day, she's still fighting Dell, trying to get a credit. She's faxed them copies of their ad, right out of a catalog, two different times now - but Dell keeps "losing" them, and making claims that "We've done so many different offers, we're not even sure which one you're referring to. " On another recent occasion, I saw some special deals on Dell notebooks that sounded too good to be true. Turned out, they basically were. Dell had a little disclaimer in their ad that they reserved the right to "withdraw the specials" at any time - and they did, within 2 or 3 hours of announcing them.

    At least with Apple, the stated price is clear and consistent, and there won't be any fighting (or entering lengthy coupon codes) to get it.

    But as others have stated, a Mac Mini is primarily of interest because it's an affordable OS X machine. If you don't subscribe to the belief that running OS X could be beneficial over running Windows XP - then yeah, there's little doubt you can build something "higher-spec" and with more hardware bundled for the money. Frankly though, I'm tired of all the B.S. with Windows operating systems. I have an AMD Athlon 64 tower that's almost only used for gaming now - and I'm moving practically everything else to my Macs. When I was thinking of buying a spare computer for use in my basement, the Mac Mini was a no-brainer purchase. It just works, virus and spyware free, and is fast enough for the tasks I'd ask of it.

  131. Re:iBook is not reliable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    apple's extremely poor handling of the situation (deleting forum threads about ibook failures) should be warning enough to anyone.

  132. Ditto by Craig+Ringer · · Score: 2, Informative

    Ditto. In both senses - that is, been there done that, and "use the program `ditto' to do it".

    `ditto' is the program the Mac developers wrote instead of tweaking all the UNIX utilities to work with their dual-forked filesystem. Never, ever, ever use `cp' on MacOS/X - only `ditto'.

    Guess what isn't mentioned in the `cp' man page?

  133. Still struggle to beat dells price by grahamsz · · Score: 1

    I just picked up a 2Ghz Pentium M laptop, 60Gb disk, dvd/cdrw, 1 GB RAM, wifi, bluetooth, SXGA screen for a little over $1200.

    I like apples gear, and if you look at list prices it's quite competitive with dell. But i had a coupon that took $800 off my laptop's list price, so it changes things a bit.

    1. Re:Still struggle to beat dells price by swillden · · Score: 1

      I just picked up a 2Ghz Pentium M laptop, 60Gb disk, dvd/cdrw, 1 GB RAM, wifi, bluetooth, SXGA screen for a little over $1200.

      That's not much cheaper than an iBook at list price. The 12" model has a list of $999 and only falls short of what you mentioned in the disk (30GB) and the RAM (256MB). I think a 1.2GHz G4 is pretty comparable performance-wise to a 2GHz Pentium M. Even Apple only wants $75 to upgrade to a 60GB disk, and you can buy a 1GB non-Apple DIMM to upgrade the memory to 1280MB for about $150 (Apply wants a ridiculous $500 for that stick). So for $1224 you can get a comparable iBook, with a bit more RAM. Oh, forgot the Bluetooth. That's another $50 from Apple, so $1274.

      ....Maybe. there are a lot of specs you didn't mention, like video card, expansion ports, etc., and then there are general issues of quality and support. I think the Dell comes with a better warranty.

      If you go to the larger iBook, or one of the Powerbooks, then the price goes up, but so does the feature set. Faster processor, DVD writer, etc.

      I don't think you'll see Apple beating Dell on price, but the Apple "premium" isn't as large as people seem to think it is.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    2. Re:Still struggle to beat dells price by grahamsz · · Score: 1

      Sure, but i got the ram preinstalled.

      I've got a radeon 9000 in this, the SXGA screen is a fairly big upgrade 1400x1050.

      Still i agree that apple have become a lot more reasonable.

    3. Re:Still struggle to beat dells price by swillden · · Score: 1

      Sure, but i got the ram preinstalled.

      True. For whatever reason, Apple has insanely high RAM prices.

      I've got a radeon 9000 in this

      iBook has a Radeon 9200.

      SXGA screen is a fairly big upgrade 1400x1050

      Yes, that is significant. BTW, SXGA is 1280x1024. Your screen is SXGA+.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    4. Re:Still struggle to beat dells price by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Laptops are so expensive that even the Apple premium looks moderate in comparison. Their desktops are 50-100% higher than every screwdriver shop in town.

  134. isn't darwin/X free? by oringo · · Score: 1

    But don't all the new macs already run darwin/opendarwin? And I suppose you could easily put x windows on those os?

  135. Re:Free = beer or Free in RMS-speak? Software or O by that+_evil+_gleek · · Score: 1

    Don't forget NetBSD pkgsrc.
    On Mac OSX since OSX October 2001

    http://www.netbsd.org/Documentation/software/pac ka ges.html#platforms

  136. Contempt without investigation has a name: ignora by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 2, Informative

    Contempt without investigation has a name: ignorance. Grandma's and graphic designers use Macs. Real nerds use Linux.

    Pot. Kettle. Black. You just proved your ignorance.

    "Ben Gutierrez writes "Paul Graham has posted a new essay on the Return of the Mac which begins with: 'All the best hackers I know are gradually switching to Macs.' Tim O'Reilly said some similar things in Watching Alpha Geeks. From the article: "My friend Robert said his whole research group at MIT recently bought themselves Powerbooks. These guys are not the graphic designers and grandmas who were buying Macs at Apple's low point in the mid 1990s. They're about as hardcore OS hackers as you can get.""

    http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/29/ 1818256&tid=156&tid=3&tid=218

  137. Macs can boot from cd-rom too by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 1

    You can boot from cd-rom, read up on IEEE 1275 Open Firmware.

  138. OEM Licenses of Windows XP are not transferrable by Vandil+X · · Score: 1
    Don't forget WindowsXP home OEM can be gotten for as little as $55. Not $130.
    OEM Licenses of Windows XP are not transferrable to other machines.

    Read the EULA.
    --
    Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, START
  139. Mac Mini for "appliance" use not "end user" use by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 1

    Some applications don't need a GUI or all the other software that comes with a Mac. Look at the Navy's XServers running a sonar application. I might want to buy a mini and use it as a silent OpenBSD firewall. Sure Mac OS X could do this but for security reasons such a box is best run with only what it needs. In short think of "appliance" type application.

  140. Linus Torvalds... by PeterBrett · · Score: 1

    ...uses a dual-CPU G5 exclusively nowadays.

    Among a large number of other people.

    1. Re:Linus Torvalds... by argent · · Score: 1

      Linus is a great guy, but he does get carried away with his enthusiasms. Sometimes that's good... there wouldn't BE such a thing as Linux if he didn't... but the fact that he does something or says something doesn't make it an open-and-shut case. His circumstances are, well, unusual.

      I suspect Jordan Hubbard is using a dual G5 as well, these days. But I doubt it's running Linux.

  141. Re:OS included? Two Os's can be included by loraksus · · Score: 2, Informative

    If you want to, you can always hit the terminal, or even boot up to a console on the mac. Not sure why you'd want to, but the ability is there.

    --
    1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcfv gbhnjmk,l.;/
  142. What kind of company is Apple? by Saint+Fnordius · · Score: 1

    To me, Apple is best described as a company that makes the cool stuff that Steve Jobs wants to own. It seems to be a policy that works.

    Yes, Apple does make the lion's share of its money selling gizmos, and yes, they also make some of the best professional software tools around, but it's the orientation to what the Big Guy wants that drives a lot of the products being made.

    I think that was the thing that set Steve apart from the managers in between his two reigns. With the possible exception of Sculley, most of the others tried to second-guess what customers would buy; Steve brought back the thinking to what he would want if he were the customer.

  143. Re:Cheap? Hardly. by akuma(x86) · · Score: 1

    >> No DVD player in the Dell, nor FireWire, nor a modem, nor a stack of bundled software, nor 90 days of free telephone support. Nor is it small, or silent. Laptop technology, which is what the Mini uses, is more expensive.

    Subtract out the 19" LCD (approx $300) and you have a $229 system. Now add back in the DVD, firewire, modem and blah blah blah and it is still much cheaper.

    It isn't small form factor, but nothing is really stopping a company like Dell from offering such a system. If it turns out that this form factor is what people want and the Mac Mini is a hit, then I'm sure Dell will have a cheaper offering. Apple just doesn't have the manufacturing infrastructure to compete with Dell on price. Hell, even giants like IBM and HP can't compete with Dell on price.

  144. Re:OS included? Two Os's can be included by jaavaaguru · · Score: 2, Funny

    Not sure why you'd want to

    Are you new here?

  145. Isnt this post a bit of a troll? by Flaming+Death · · Score: 1

    .. why not start another PC vs Mac flame war.. yeah.. havent had one for a week now..

    One thing to note, is how defensive Mac people have to be to explain that you shouldnt need to run Linux on a Mac, because you already 'have the best OS out there'. Pretty much the usual 'Apple is best' mentality, and yet these are the same people that complain about companies forcing people to use Windows on their machines.. go figure..

    1. Re:Isnt this post a bit of a troll? by argent · · Score: 1

      Pretty much the usual 'Apple is best' mentality

      You think? Ask these same people about OS 9, you'll get a different response.

    2. Re:Isnt this post a bit of a troll? by aristotle-dude · · Score: 1
      Really? Guess what? Most of the mac users posting here on /. are recent switchers who did not consider getting a mac until OS X came out.

      I think you will find that most of us suggest keeping OS X because it offers the largest selection of software for the mac platform and it offers the best hardware support.

      The only possible reason for using linux or FreeBSD on a mac mini might be for a cheap PPC development platform for PPC related server software.

      Only an ideological fool would run linux on a "new" mac as a desktop system.

      The sane thing to do would be to dual boot between OS X and another OS like linux if need be.

      --
      Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
    3. Re:Isnt this post a bit of a troll? by nagora · · Score: 1
      Only an ideological fool would run linux on a "new" mac as a desktop system.

      I would. I don't like OS/X, and there's nothing which is available exclusively for the Mac that I want. But I love the PowerPC chip, it's beautiful and I want to write assembly language porgrams for it (and call it George). And I want a silent desktop machine that takes up very little space.

      I have no reason to bother booting into OS/X even once. I have friends with Macs and I work with people with Macs occasionally and all I hear from them is how much they'd like to switch to x86 machines if they could spare the time to learn how to use Windows. But they're not programmers, they're designers and artists trying to get their work done on expensive machines that they feel, rightly or wrongly, are outstripped by similar priced Windows boxes which will run all the same software that they use every day.

      The sane thing to do would be to dual boot between OS X and another OS like linux if need be.

      That would be a waste of HD space; just delete the OSX stuff and keep the installation CD in case you want to sell it some day.

      TWW

      --
      "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
  146. On-button mouse vs. Mac Mini (Re:OS included?) by pdc · · Score: 1

    > Ok. I'm not a beginner. Can I please have a non-beginner apple mouse?

    Yes, you can; multi-button mouses and scroll wheels are supported by Mac OS X, so you can have any mouse you like, so long as it's USB.

    The Mac Mini (which I think is where this discussion started) is sold without a mouse, so you will be buying one or reusing an old mouse in any event.

    You could turn this question around and ask whether other operating systems should have an option to work with a one-button mouse for the sake of people who can't use a multi-button mouse for whatever reason. (People with a persistent tremor will find a conventional mouse difficult to control, for example.) I remember having all sorts of trouble using a PC 2-button mouse to control applications designed for Sun's 3-button devices. Nowadays we would view a program that REQUIRES a middle button as badly designed.

    It's true there are some usability features old-timers miss from Mac OS 9 -- but don't forget how many complaints there were when GNOME took on board some of these selfsame features (such as 'spacial' file-browsing windows). The Finder may make some people cross but it works well enough for my purposes.

    1. Re:On-button mouse vs. Mac Mini (Re:OS included?) by bani · · Score: 1

      It doesn't really have anything to do with "some usability features missing from mac os 9". The OSX finder is a terrible interface. There's a reason it won the worst osx application of all time award on arstechnica.

      I could also point out it's near impossible to use an IBM model M (clicky keyboard) with OSX. There is no windows key, and OSX is retarded and won't let you remap the apple command key at all. Any other OS in the entire universe will let you remap keys, but noooo that's too good for apple. :-/

      And the freaking retarded default apple mouse acceleration. What the hell is up with that?

      OSX is so close, yet so far... apple could fix these problems, but refuses to -- they are blinded by apple dogma (and also appear to have violated most of their own well defined apple ui design rules set down in the 1980s, way to go apple!)

      apple simply doesnt give you any method to change the gui. you're stuck with their design decisions (for better or worse, mostly worse with panther). it's like henry ford's "you can have any color you want as long as it's black".

      computing with osx is like you're stuck permanently with training wheels on, and you can't take them off. very annoying.

      while every other ui is tweakable to adapt to the user, apple's approach is for the user to adapt to the ui :-/

      come on apple, you can do better. just take the dogmatic blinders off...

  147. Re:Cheap? Hardly. by m50d · · Score: 1
    I'm in a little village of about 700 residents in the UK. Our exchange got ADSL just under a year ago; I was one of the last people I know to leave dialup. Dialup modems, at least cheap pci winmodems, are practically free here, because a couple of years ago every new PC included one, now there are plenty of people with a dialup modem they don't use. And a cheap USB adsl modem is almost always bundled. On a worldwide scale you may be right about the majority of internet access being dialup, but that's certainly not the case where I live.

    Anyway, as far as I can see you can get a pretty much equivalent dell for about $100 less. You're mostly paying for the stylish design, the possibly better build quality, and the fact it's an apple. That's not to say it isn't worth it for what it is, but to me that makes it not cheap. The difference between, for example, a cheap car and an expensive car is not that you get less value for money on the expensive car, it's that a lot of what you pay for on the expensive car is the style, the quality, and the brand.

    --
    I am trolling
  148. Re:Cheap? Hardly. by m50d · · Score: 1

    Very true, but we're comparing to a dell which was also already built, and looks like it belongs together. It's not gleaming chrome lines, just like your fridge probably isn't as stylish as the mac mini, but it looks fine. It's very much useable for a family. Since the mini doesn't include keyboard, mouse or monitor, unless you spend a lot on them too you'll still have the same number of wires, and the most visible part of the system will not look any better than with the dell. The smaller case is an advantage but no big one, people have been hiding bits of their entertainment systems for years. I can fit a standard case very easily under the shelf running around my living room, and it has special "cable holes". It was designed before computers, presumably for hifi equipment or televisions, but it works fine. Computer plugs in under there, phone line connection is there too, all that comes out is the two cables to the monitor - no uglier than those to a television, and just as invisible most of the time - and one each for the mouse and keyboard, if that's a problem you can buy a separate wireless set and still be cheaper. Yes this means getting your own parts, but THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THE MINI DOES, BECAUSE IT DOESN'T INCLUDE BASIC INPUT/OUTPUT PERIPHERALS. Noise may be an issue, but I can't really imagine it would be a big problem. The tower by my feet is a standard cheap case (not dell, but similar) with an extra fan in on the video card, and I don't hear the hum unless I listen to it, but it's there, comforting. I can hear the fridge in my kitchen whirring just as easily as the computer.

    --
    I am trolling
  149. Re:Enough already. by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

    yeah... and stick up the butt is the ass crutch of the closet homosexual.

    seriously dude... I am obnoxious... you think that maybe I posted it to get your goad?

    --



    I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
  150. Re:Enough already. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, I figured you were at the limits of your vocabulary. You don't seem very bright.

  151. Pfft, there are heavier and noiser Macs :D by caveat · · Score: 1

    My WindTunnel G4 developed a nasty overheating problem last week, so I had to tweak AppleFan.kext to keep the blowers running flat-out (even AFTER I blew out the 3lbs of dust from the fan grilles..I should probably get it looked at). Don't piss and moan about noise to me, it sounds like I have a frickin' leaf blower under the desk. A 45 pound one...but at least the spiffy case design makes it easy to lug around.

    --

    Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley
  152. Re:Enough already. by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

    When you can tell me if the direct sum of the rings Z2 Z2 is isomorphic the the ring Z4 or the ring of symmetries of a non-square rectangle and why, then I might be willing to listen to your sewage.

    --



    I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
  153. Re:Enough already. by Shaklee39 · · Score: 1

    Being a math major is worthless, so why would he care?

  154. It's the updates. by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

    It is fine for Apple to give you a Mac Mini at cost. They will make there money on iTunes and when you update the OS. Not to mention when you update to a new better Mac. It is just to get you hooked.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  155. Re:Enough already. by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

    "Lack of math skills is a sign of a mental cripple." -- Me

    --



    I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
  156. Re:Enough already. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you want me to do your homework for you, at least post it so it is readable.

  157. Re:Enough already. by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

    ha ha ha... the fact that you can not answer that question shows how stupid you are.

    don't act like you are mentally superior on the web... you will get burned.

    --



    I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
  158. Re:Yeah, but TFA uses linux low cost as its' argum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I stole this sig from someone cleverer than me.

    So if that sig propogates, then eventually the least clever person in the world will have it. And since it will no doubt skip some levels of cleverness along the way, how many iterations before it reaches bottom?

  159. Re:Enough already. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The fact that I seem mentally superior to you isn't an act. It is just that everything is relative.

  160. Re:Yeah, but TFA uses linux low cost as its' argum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You must not be new around here.

  161. Re:Enough already. by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

    then answer the question I posed earlier.

    --



    I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
  162. Re:Enough already. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    We seem to be at an impasse. You seem to be unable to phrase your question in a coherent manner. The smartest man in the world might as well be brain dead if he can't communicate what he knows.

    You come across as a mildly retarded 13 year old with Tourette's syndrome. Learn to communicate. When you get into the real world, good communication skills will be infinitely more valuable to you than knowing a few equations.

    A parrot can be taught to recite the answer to a question and why. This is not a measure of intelligence. Your question would prove nothing. The fact that you don't understand this shows that you are a fool. Instead of replying with a stupid comment, you might want to think about these things. I've grown weary of this and will now go find someone else to troll.

    Have a nice day.

  163. Its probably been said a few times already ... by NewStarRising · · Score: 1

    OK, IMHO OS X is superior to any form of linux.
    IMHO, OS X will perform all the tasks I want, and is already installed.

    Therefore, any article expressing a way of NOT using OS X on a mini-mac is a waste of everybody's time and effort. Why would a tech-site like Slashdot be publishing ways of altering your computer to be more to your own liking, when I say that OS X is already as good as computer systems will ever be?

    Your opinion is irrelevant.
    I have spoken.

    --
    b3 4phr41d 0f my 4bov3-4v3r4g3 c0mpu73r kn0wI3dg3!
    MadDwarf
  164. Re:Enough already. by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

    the question was phrase coherently. you do not understand the question because you are an not familiar with what a direct sum is, what Z4 is, what Z2 is, what the symmetries of a non-square rectangle are nor what a ring is.

    you come across as a high school student who knows how to act like they are smart but really are quite stupid.

    --



    I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
  165. Re:Cheap? Hardly. by russint · · Score: 1

    What neck of the woods do you live in? As far as I know, the majority of Internet access still occurs through dial-up, so I don't agree with your assertion that modems are hardly used anymore. Nor have I heard of any ISP that includes a modem with a dial-up account.

    I haven't used dialup since 1998, and I got a modem from my ISP when I did. I would hate to pay for a bundled modem.

    I still want a mac mini though..

    --
    ^^