Slashdot Mirror
Intel Preps Mac mini Look-Alike
boarder8925 writes "From Wired: 'A new Wintel prototype that openly apes Apple Computer's popular Mac mini is due out this week, giving Intel a showcase to prove its chips are a match for anyone when it comes to tiny PC designs. Working prototypes of the Mac mini look-alike running Microsoft Windows and based on Intel's Pentium M CPU have already been built by Taiwan PC maker AOpen at Intel's request, according to two sources in Taiwan's PC manufacturing industry who have seen them.' This isn't the non-working box Slashdot covered earlier."
Who cares if it ain't got no pictures?
The main reason for a small box is so it can be put on show, thus style and design need to be seen to make a judgement.
Intel probably sees the Mac Mini for what it is: a simple, practically disposable personal computer that'll keep a *large* percentage of the population happy for 3 years until they buy another one. You lose iLife going to XP/P-M, but there's Picasa 2, Windows Movie Maker, and various DVD burning programs out there to kluge together to get someone an "equivalent" experience. I "switched" to the iMac G5 when it was released for 2 reasons: iLife, and the fact that most of the "gaming" I do these days is less FPS and more plastic trucks with my 18-month old son. Never underestimate the extreme amount of digital pictures and MiniDV footage you'll accumulate when your first child is born.
I guess eventually people reach the point where they begin to treat their computers more as appliances and less as sandboxes to play in; upgrading video cards, hard drives, and processors whenever the latest hot game is released. When I use a computer these days, I'm either modifying content I've created (pictures, movies), browsing the web, or logging into a shell at work to catch up on my tasks. I don't need a GeForce 6800 GT and a 4 GHz hyper-pipelined processor to do that.
'A new Wintel prototype that openly apes Apple Computer's popular Mac mini is due out this week, giving Intel a showcase to prove its chips are a match for anyone when it comes to tiny PC designs.
Few dobut that Intel's chips have the same potential for minturization as Apple's chips. Yet somehow it seems that 90% of all mini PC's and PC laptops out there still look like concrete slabs when compared with the Mac mini and the PowerBooks which has caused a not inconsiderable number of consumers to begin regarding the PC's as clumsy. Apple concluded that style and ultra compactness matters to some consumers more than raw computing power and apparently they were not entirely wrong. For a Mac user it is certainly satisfying to see Intel finally acknowledging that.
As long as I can upgrade the RAM, or get a bigger hard drive later on, i'm starting to not really feel the need for an upgradeable computer. With my computer simply being for work, and not for playing games, as with many other people, these type of computers fit that market niche quite well.
I've had my current computer for 6 years. I've done the RAM upgrade and the HD upgrade. I did a video card upgrade, but that was back when I played games. The video card I bought it with would have been sufficient for most desktop apps. I think that many people don't want to spend $200 every year to upgrade their computer. They just want a computer that's reliable, and that doesn't make excessive noise, or take up excessive space.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
There have been innumerable "Mac look-alike" models introduced in the Wintel space. I wish I could recall the name of the model some company introduced circa 1991 which had almost the same form factor as the classic Mac, 9" screen and all. I'll bet it left out the built-in handle; that's the sort of detail the Mac-alikes always forget.
There have always been Mac lookalikes. Remember the eOne from eMachines.
Apart from press interest at their introduction, all of them sank in the marketplace without so much as a ripple.
Anyone who says that there is much difference overall in price or power between a Mac and a PC is grinding an axe. The fact is they're using technologies that are pretty much on a par and the price/performance is pretty much on a par.
But the Wintel Bizarro-world Mac-alike machines usually ARE overpriced and underpowered. And the form factor and "look" usually look like a cheesy knockoff; it's obvious they are not using industrial designers of the caliber that Apple uses.
Love it or hate it, the original iMac, for example, showed an amazing design integrity in carrying the "translucency" theme throughout the entire design; not only the case, but the keyboard, the mouse, _and the power cord_ were translucent. I'll bet those power cords added cost. That's the sort of detail the would-be Mac-alikes never seem to include.
It's the overall integrity of the product design that gives Apple that "wow" factor. It's also the overall integrity of the product design that makes Apple's products so comfortable and usable.
So, someone else can throw just as many components into a little box as Apple can? I never doubted it for a second. The point is, Apple doesn't just throw components into a box.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
5 months after Apple has a finished product in the shops, Intel manages to cobble together a working knock-off prototype?
This is the sort of tactic would I expect from a no-name box-shifter, not a supposed market leader in technology. The Mac Mini makes sense as a switcher's 1st Mac, as a cheap means to play with OSX, or as a design Icon (with an expensive pretty Apple LCD, wireless keyboard and mouse) in a high-tech setting, but this box has none of those factors in it's favour.
The only market for a small and pretty 'PC mini' that sacrifices upgradability for size is as a media centre, which puts this box into direct competition with those other recently announced small-box media centres the Xbox360 and PS3, where it's going face insurmountable competition on spec, price, and availability of games. If Intel really had the right stuff to be in this market would all 3 next gen boxes (and the Mac Mini for that matter) be using a different processor supplier?
Time to ditch the slogan 'intel inside' in favour of 'too little too late'?
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
I bought a mini mac because it ran os x, not because of its size. What I would like to buy is a not-so-mini-mac that gave me 2+ memory slots, a 3.5 inch hard drive and a dvd writer that wasn't 2002 technology and screws to hold it together.
I don't care if the box is cute and tiny, I want some ability to upgrade the stuff inside it.
This Intel clone is guaranteed to have on board video and be pretty non-upgradeable, except for RAM. I've had an intel 845G built in video, I'll take the Mac Mini Radeon over that piece of crap any day.
Oh, and being an intel clone, this thing better be $249 out the door, including a DVD reader / CD burner and a copy of Windows XP. Think it'll happen? Probably not. They didn't even take advantage of the Mac Mini's one missing feature - S-Video out. I think that's a power port, not the elusive TV connection.
A Dual G5 Powermac can don
- addition
-subtraction
-multiplication
-divisio
So it shouldn't cost much more than a typical calculator that I can buy at walmart? Oh, what? It can do lots of other stuff too? You mean it's a whole computer in there? That's why it costs more?
Right, so you want to ignore all the normal computer functionality available in a macmini, replace all that with TiVo functionality, and then buy it for the price of a TiVo? Maybe you're missing the point here. There are a number of companies that sell DVR's, perhaps you should go buy one of those.
One time I threw a brick at a duck.
I don't see why the Mac Mini is so revolutionary other than for the fact that Apple made it and it's $500. The size isn't the selling point. Small-form-factor PCs have been around for years. I remember seeing ads for the Cappucino PC at least 2 or 3 years ago on Slashdot/Thinkgeek. The form factor isn't the selling point, it's the fact that you can get an OSX system for $500.
rooooar
If you think Joe Average will _ever_ say "hey, I want this computer because it runs Linux", methinks you got it all wrong. And it's this kind of getting it wrong that's why Linux is still a nerd-only OS. Not saying that Linux is bad or anything, but I'm saying that assuming everyone will see it as a goal, rather than a means, is the awfully wrong assumption and the awfully wrong way to market anything.
Frankly, other than die-hard nerds, noone gives a damn about the OS. The point that all the "Linux rules, Windows blows" or "MacOS rules, everything else blows" flamewars are missing is just that: that the OS itself is really the least important part.
In the real world what matters is what can you _do_ with a tool, and the computer or OS are just such tools to an end. What matters is what concrete goals can you achieve with it, not what a cool Apple logo it has on the box. What Joe Average asks is stuff like "Can I edit my digital photos with it and burn them on a CD"? What Joe is seeking just a solution to some clear problems, never "but I really wanted to try Linux, although I have no clue wth will run on it, or what can I do with it".
That solution means: apps. And the OS exists only to load those apps. Most people would run any OS just as gladly without an OS, if they could just pop the CD in and have the application start up.
Don't believe me? Look at the some 100 million game consoles sold, and how noone said "nah, if it doesn't show a Windows boot-up screen I'm not buying a PS2". What they _did_ however ask is: "what games are available on it, then?" I.e., they asked about the _apps_.
That's it. The apps are the alpha, omega, and the whole alphabet in between.
So all this OS brand zealotry is really like saying you buy only a certain brand of car for the dashboard, and not to actually drive it. Or better yet, saying that you're buying a microwave oven instead of a fridge because you like the interface more. It's... missing the point, to put it very diplomatically.
_Noone_ other than geeks will want to buy a computer for Linux or any other OS. In the real world they'll buy it for what they can do with that box.
Tell them "yeah, you can get this machine and you'll have a cheap, secure and very easy to use computer, that can edit your digital photos, surf the web, encode and decode movies and music, etc" and you'll have the people's attention. That's what Apple did. _That_ is the message that people want to hear.
But tell them "give me your money to try a new OS that exists just to fight MS's evil empire", and you've lost them. _Noone_ sane blows their paycheck just to fight in some idealistic nerd rebellion.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
I'm not going to bother to respond to your comments about iLife as you've clearly never even used it. I hope all those megahertz help you do what you need to do.
Still, you can't even be bothered to reach for the shift key, so you probably couldn't enjoy the subtleties of functionality that iLife offers.
I took my kids to the Memorial day parade. As usual, there were a lot of people riding in "classic" cars, which when I was a kid meant model Ts and old 50s era Chevy sedans. Now the cars we rode in to the parade are in the parade: late 60's Chevy Impalas, Plymouth Furies, and the like.
Several things struck me about these cars. First, the overwheliming impression is that they were huge. I bet that Impala weighs more than a Lincoln Navigator, and takes up more road space. Granted, we're only seeing the cars that were somebody's pride and joy; the Novas of this world are all in junk yards. But no doubt, these cars were the dominant automotive species of my childhood.
Second, despite quite a bit of creativity in the application of chrome and paint, to modern eyes these cars are strikingly uniform in their primitiveness. They project ponderous massiveness, not refinement. A modern economy car such as a Honda Civic boasts elegance beyond any but the most luxurious of the 60s cars. SUVs like the Ford Explorer that by modern standards are clumsy and bulky have a lightness and agility that only a sports car of 60s era could match.
My point here is that we're at the end of the muscle car era of computer workstations. We can choose between the equivalent of a massive Plymouth Fury or a "small" alternative like the Chevy Nova. A few odd people are driving the equivalent of the original Beetle, which was too cramped and underpowered for most peoples' tastes. In thirty years or so, we'll look at the computers we use today, and we'll scoff at how inconveniently bulky and primitive they are.
And we'll expect these small, powerful, elegant computers to be far cheaper in real terms.
What Apple has done with the Mini is introduce the equivalent of the Datsun (now Nissan). It was a car that combined economy with refinement, fun and quality. The Japanese invasion of the US car market raised the bar such that there is no comparing a car from 1975 and 1985. Detroit was slow to respond because this kind of innovation wasn't in their business genes, and they paid. Intel is trying to keep its customers from making the same mistake.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
So, where are thes zombie hordes of Mini Macs that the phishers/spammers/etc are controlling? Oh, right, they don't exist. Its a Windows-only "feature".
But since you brought it up, where are the hordes of Linux zombies?
If you're going to troll, at leas[tt] do it right ... sheesh!