Uncapped, 54e/month. It's on the expensive side (I could get 12/1 for the same money), but I like the company. Kick-ass customer-service, static IP-address, running personal servers is A-OK.
You Have got to be kidding me.. Overpriced broadband in the states? sorry, did I read that right? I have been paying around $70us a month for 1.5mbit adsl..
I'm in Finland, and I currently pay 54e/month (about $40) for 1MB/512KB ADSL. And this is one of the more expensive broadband-operators around here. If I wanted to, I could get full-rate ADSL2-connection (12MB/1MB) for 55e/month. And that's uncapped. And I have several operators to choose from (at least 4 by my count, propably more).
Comparable machines of that class usually have intergrated vid-card that use the system-RAM. Compared to those, the vid-card on the Mini is a real powerhouse.
Gee it's out of stock - so I guess that must be because it sucks so hard.
maybe it's out of stock because it was so crappy that they stopped making it;)?
But seriously. I can't compare the price of that particukar machine to the price of the Mini, since I can't see Mocha's price anywhere. I did find another Mocha-model (Mocha P4 7042). I customized it a bit (CDRW+DVD, 2Ghz P4, 40GB HD) and it costed $938! And that's WITHOUT any software! I could get two Mini's for the price of Mocha with Windows XP! And it would still have that crappy vid-card and god knows how noisy cooling-system.
I will at least give you a polite nod for the "crappier video" comment. Crappier implies that you feel the Mac Mini's video is crappy.
Of course, if you compare Mini's vid-card to GeForce 6800 or something, it is pretty crappy. But if you compare it to other machines of it's class, it has pretty damn good vid-card (Mocha and others have an integrated vid-card that use system-RAM)
I wasn't suggesting it was better, just that it is a better comparison seeing as it is much faster.
Debatable. It might have faster CPU, but it has slower vid-card. And how hot does that CPU run?
As for the looks issue. I keep getting this in response. Who cares? Do you look and drool at how beautiful your computer is while you use?
No, but it does matter. If I had to choose between two identically specced and priced machines, other being gorgerous and other looking crappy, I would choose the gorgerous machine every time. And since this machine would be sitting on my desk, it would be visible all the time. And therefore the looks would be somewhat important. Maybe I'm just starting to outgrow the "beige-box"-mentality when it comes to computers.
As if the Mac Mini looks like much anyway, it's a little white box with a gray apple on top and a slit in the front. So what? Aesthetically minimalist sure, beautiful - um no.
Last time I checked, it was't white, but more like silver-gray. And yes, I like minimalist look, instead of some whiz-bang box with neon and flashing lights.
It just seems to me that the majority of people think they are the greatest thing since sliced bread. Maybe for the Mac world,
Well, I think the Mini IS brilliant. I do not think that it's somekind of supercomputer or something, but I think it does have lots of computing power in a tiny case. And guess what? I don't own any Apple hardware. I have never owned any. Yet I think the Mini is absolutely fantastic. I had been looking for a tiny computer that is as silent as possible. Previosly I looked at Mini-ITX-machines. But now my plans have changed, since the Mini absolutely annihilates those machines. Price is more or less similar, but the Mini has better fit 'n finish and it has a lot better performance.
Why don't they just make the trackpad/mouse assembly user replacable so third parties can accomodate the needs of people who want a multi-button mouse on a notebook?
Better yet: why don't they offer two-button mouse as standard, but map both buttons to do the same thing? This way the default behavior would be identical to a system with a one-button mouse, but the user would have the option of mapping the second button to something else (expose, context-menu etc.).
A much faster system bus. The 2.0 GHz PowerMac G5 has a 1 GHz system bus. The 1.8 GHz iMac G5 has a 600 MHz bus. Contrast this with the eMac G4 or PowerBook G4, both of which have a 167 MHz system bus. The iBook G4 has only a 133 MHz bus!
And still, clock for clock, G4 and G5 are more or less equal (I think G4 has an advantage). I find it funny that many people simply stare at the bus-speed and fail to see the fact that even with it's uber-bus, G5 is about as fast as the G4 is (with it's puny bus).
So yes, G5 has better bus. Too bad that even with that superior bus, it still only about as fast as G4 is (clock for clock). Better bus alone does not make G5 better, since the end-result (performance) is similar to it's predecessor.
Oh, by the way, the fastest PC only has a 533 MHz bus; most have only 400 MHz or less (though all have more than 167 MHz). That's one reason why the Power Mac G5 overall is just as fast, if not faster, than many PCs with faster processors.
Put down the crack-pipe! Prescott has 800Mhz bus (it's moving to 1066Mhz bus), and Athlon64/Opteron has 800Mhz bus (moving to 1Ghz). In fact, the bus on the A64/Opteron is alot faster than the bus on G5 is. And why is that? What is it that takes the most bandwidth on a traditional FSB? Accessing the RAM. On the A64/Opteron the CPU has an integrated mem-controller which means that the CPU talks directly with the RAM. That saves a lot of FSB-bandwidth and reduces latency. It saves bandwidth because the FSB (which runs at 800Mhz on the A64/Opteron) is 100% free to serve other purposes. All of it's bandwidth can be used by hard-drives, PCI and AGP-devices, USB, Firewire and the like. On the G5, those devices have to share the FSB with the RAM. On the A64/Opteron, the RAM has a dedicated bus.
Pray tell: how do you use an external mouse (wireless or wired) when sitting in a bus with the computer on your lap? Or while relaxing in the couch while using the computer? In situations like those (situations where you need a computer that is mobile ie. a laptop), external mouse is a humungous pain in the ass!
What it boils down to is this: the specs aren't exactly impressive. Yes the Mac mini may have other strengths, but that doesn't change the numbers. It's not short-sighted to accurately note those numbers, either. As I pointed out above, they could reflect upon other deeper issues, like whether the user experience is good.
What is the purpose of the Mini? Basically, it's meant as a low-cost computer that can be used for basic tasks (email, web-surfing etc.). And while doing all that, it's also small, silent and stylish. We CAN build something similar in the x86-world. For example (all prices are from mini-itx.com. I used European prices since that's where I'm in):
Total-price: 579e. Note: this does NOT include the price of OS or other software.
As to Mini:
1.25Ghz Mini with 512MB RAM: 599e
Both systems would be small (Mini is a bit smaller) and silent systems. Performance is good enough for everyday tasks (the Mini does have a lot more powerful CPU and vid-card, but the Via has faster HD). XP Pro would add 143e to the price of the Via-solution, but you could always get more generic case, which would reduce the price a bit. But in the end, the two would be about as cheap (if you include the price of the software). Although the Mini is a complete package, whereas you have to assemble the Via yourself.
You could always get a Shuttle SFF or the like. But they would be considerable bigger (too big for my deks for example) and noisier. They would be more like regural computers, instead of appliances (like the Mini).
For that money I would expect a faster CPU. More video memory would be nice too.
You may not get "faster CPU" or something of the sort, but you do get a great OS, tiny case made of adonized aluminium, a practically silent computer, great software-bundle and the like. Staring at just few specs (CPU-speed etc.) is pretty short-sighted IMO.
Certainly Google has the capability if not the intent to do a lot of evil.
I have the capability to do a lot of evil. Do I frighten you? The guy who lives next to you has the capability to kill you if he wants to, does he frighten you?
Basically, you are afraid because Google has a powerful computer-system and the know-how to use it effectively. and that's "evil" because....??
P-m giving you better performance by a narrow margin? Have you looked at the P-M lately, its ipc is so high it makes me want to wet myself.
It's IPC is very high when compared to P4. And G4 has very high IPC when compared to P4. Clock for clock, G4 and P4-M are more or less equal. G4 in the Mini is either 1.25 or 1.42GHz. P4-M mini-ITX MoBo's I have seen seem to top out at about 1.6Ghz. So yes, it would beat the Mini by a narrow margin. 1.42Ghz vs. 1.6GHz with similar IPC's.
2.4GHz eh? So it doesn't matter if it's 2.4GHz Celeron, 2.4Ghz Athlon64 or 2.4GHz 8088?
Seriously, staring that the MHz is completely pointless. You simply can't compare different CPU-families based on their clock-speed. P4 clocks alot higher than Athlon64 does, yet Athlon 64 mops the floor with the P4. How can that be? Or do you suggest that 2.4GHz Celeron is faster than my 2.2GHz Athlon64?
A DIY shuttle-like PC would crush the mac mini in ever respect.
In some aspects perhaps. But on the other hand:
- The Shuttle would propably be noisier - It would consume more space - It doesn't look as good (matter of taste though) - You can't run OS X on it - With similar specs it would propably cost the same or more than the Mini
But if it REALLY must be mini, you can probably find a suitable mini-itx system somewhere. Just google for it.
Those would be of similar size and they would be as silent as the Mini is. OTOH:
- Their performance sucks (VIA solutions) or - They are really expensive (Pentium-M solutions)
Via solution would give you more or less similar price as the Mini (although you might have to resort to crappier case) but with sucky performance. Pentium-M would give you better performance (by a narrow margin) but it would cost alot more.
Re:Apple stole the iMac Mini idea from ePC
on
Mac mini Dissection
·
· Score: 1
I do take your point - Linux is open source top-to-bottom but I really do think Apple have made huge strides in their open source efforts and are a valuable member of the open source community.
yes they are, and I'm not disputing that. They have made some excellent contributions to GCC, KHTML and the like, and their contributions are more than welcome. And they have in general behaved very well when it comes to open source. That said, their OS is not open source as such. IBM has done alot for open source, yet they too have closed-source OS's.
OS X is built on open source, but it's not open source as a whole
Re:Apple stole the iMac Mini idea from ePC
on
Mac mini Dissection
·
· Score: 1
Because Linux is open source, whereas Darwin um is open source.
When I'm talking about OS X I'm NOT talking about Darwin. I'm talking about the Kernel, Darwin, Aqua, Quartz, Quartz Extreme, Spotlight, iMovie, iPhoto etc. etc. Darwin does not equal OS X. Or are you saying that if I run Darwin, I will have an OS that is identical to OS X, all the bells and whistles included?
Because OS X behaves in certain ways which tend to be very consistent but if you don't like them you can certainly start using native X11 apps to get back the inconsistency that you love.
I wasn't talking about how apps behave, I was talking about how the OS as a whole behaves. And that includes apps, the GUI the administration-tasks, software-installation and the like.
Because Linux runs on several different architectures and um so does Darwin.
And like I said, Darwin is not Mac OS X. Does OS X run on x86? If it does, why are there so many people insiting that Apple should port OS X to x86?
I'm talking about OS X as a whole, you are talking about Darwin, which is only a part of OS X. we are talking about two different things!
But I can see 2 reasons for a Mac owner to put Linux on their machine. First if they specifically want to learn how to use Linux, second if you dig the spirit of the GPL and want to involve yourself in it from the system level to user level.
Or maybe, just maybe, because they actually *shock and horror* like Linux more than they like OS X? Or is such a thing completely impossible?
Yes. Backups via the network are quite common, and there is nothing else on the horizon that looks to replace it.
And we all know home-users have some kind of SAN or server with RAID that they use for backups, therefore Mini needs Gigabit Ethernet. Or maybe not. Maybe most home-users do their backups by burning their important files on a CD. And the Mini is perfectly capable of doing just that.
This workstation that I'm using gets backed up regurarly. Hell, it's backed up via WAN that has a speed of *drum roll*.... 2Mb/sec (and that bandwidth is shared with about 60 other people who also back up (and surf the web, and check their email) via that WAN. Oh the horror!)! And there are zero problems with it! It backs up in the background, and it never ever disrupts me or my work. So why do I (or the Mini) need Gigabit Ethernet again? you are saying that we absolutely need 1000Mb/sec network for backups, when I do just fine with 2Mb/sec?
Even with the 40GB drive in this low-end workstation I'm on, it takes hours to backup over the network...
Of couse, you can't do anything with the computer while it backs up. You have to stop everything and just stare at the screen. I guess I have some kind of hi-end computer that allows me to do this thing called "multitasking".
Your PC doesn't have to come with certain functionality, you can just spend a few dollars and get a card if/when you need it.
But that PC wouldn't be that cheap anymore, now would it?
At what point does a speed increase become a "requirement"?
Considering that most devices don't even come close to saturating Firewire 400, I fail to see how Firewire 800 is anywhere close of being an "requirement".
Even if the price was even remotely the same, the vast wastefulness of throwing away a computer that is 99% functional, just because it doesn't have a single PCI slot, is ridiculous.
Then don't throw it away! Buy an expandable Mac instead and find some other use for the Mini! Or *shock and horror* sell it to someone else!
But seriously: If expandability is a requirement for you, then obviously the Mini is not for you.
Re:Apple stole the iMac Mini idea from ePC
on
Mac mini Dissection
·
· Score: 1
I have yet to see any user-submitted pathces in OS X( Although I haven't really studied the matter). Now have I seen improvements from Darwin trickle down to other projects. And just about everyhting on my Linux-machine IS open-soure The kernel, the GUI (which is closed in the MAc), the apps (Apple-apps are closed, with few exceptions). Only thing that's closed-source (to my knowledge) is few games and the NVIDIA-drivers.
Sure you can run Darwin just fine. And it's open. But the key technologies that the user sees (and that could be used in other projects as well) are closed. If Apple is such a big supporter of Open Source, why is Quartz and Quartz Extreme closed? Why aren't they offering some of that tech to X.org, or KDE or Gnome? Or how about Spotlight?
Slashdot Mirror
So it is! I guess my math sucks....
Nebula/Helsinki/1/0.5
Uncapped, 54e/month. It's on the expensive side (I could get 12/1 for the same money), but I like the company. Kick-ass customer-service, static IP-address, running personal servers is A-OK.
I'm in Finland, and I currently pay 54e/month (about $40) for 1MB/512KB ADSL. And this is one of the more expensive broadband-operators around here. If I wanted to, I could get full-rate ADSL2-connection (12MB/1MB) for 55e/month. And that's uncapped. And I have several operators to choose from (at least 4 by my count, propably more).
Not only that, but the treatcherous heretics of FSF also approved the CDDL as a "Free-software license! How dare they?!?!?!
Comparable machines of that class usually have intergrated vid-card that use the system-RAM. Compared to those, the vid-card on the Mini is a real powerhouse.
What's wrong with Linus? How should he behave in your opinion?
maybe it's out of stock because it was so crappy that they stopped making it
But seriously. I can't compare the price of that particukar machine to the price of the Mini, since I can't see Mocha's price anywhere. I did find another Mocha-model (Mocha P4 7042). I customized it a bit (CDRW+DVD, 2Ghz P4, 40GB HD) and it costed $938! And that's WITHOUT any software! I could get two Mini's for the price of Mocha with Windows XP! And it would still have that crappy vid-card and god knows how noisy cooling-system.
Of course, if you compare Mini's vid-card to GeForce 6800 or something, it is pretty crappy. But if you compare it to other machines of it's class, it has pretty damn good vid-card (Mocha and others have an integrated vid-card that use system-RAM)
Debatable. It might have faster CPU, but it has slower vid-card. And how hot does that CPU run?
No, but it does matter. If I had to choose between two identically specced and priced machines, other being gorgerous and other looking crappy, I would choose the gorgerous machine every time. And since this machine would be sitting on my desk, it would be visible all the time. And therefore the looks would be somewhat important. Maybe I'm just starting to outgrow the "beige-box"-mentality when it comes to computers.
Last time I checked, it was't white, but more like silver-gray. And yes, I like minimalist look, instead of some whiz-bang box with neon and flashing lights.
Well, I think the Mini IS brilliant. I do not think that it's somekind of supercomputer or something, but I think it does have lots of computing power in a tiny case. And guess what? I don't own any Apple hardware. I have never owned any. Yet I think the Mini is absolutely fantastic. I had been looking for a tiny computer that is as silent as possible. Previosly I looked at Mini-ITX-machines. But now my plans have changed, since the Mini absolutely annihilates those machines. Price is more or less similar, but the Mini has better fit 'n finish and it has a lot better performance.
Better yet: why don't they offer two-button mouse as standard, but map both buttons to do the same thing? This way the default behavior would be identical to a system with a one-button mouse, but the user would have the option of mapping the second button to something else (expose, context-menu etc.).
Out of stock, crappier video, crappier looks. And propably more expensive when fitted with similar features.
Nanode is taller and it's slower as far as the CPU and vid-card is concerned.
*sigh*
And still, clock for clock, G4 and G5 are more or less equal (I think G4 has an advantage). I find it funny that many people simply stare at the bus-speed and fail to see the fact that even with it's uber-bus, G5 is about as fast as the G4 is (with it's puny bus).
So yes, G5 has better bus. Too bad that even with that superior bus, it still only about as fast as G4 is (clock for clock). Better bus alone does not make G5 better, since the end-result (performance) is similar to it's predecessor.
Put down the crack-pipe! Prescott has 800Mhz bus (it's moving to 1066Mhz bus), and Athlon64/Opteron has 800Mhz bus (moving to 1Ghz). In fact, the bus on the A64/Opteron is alot faster than the bus on G5 is. And why is that? What is it that takes the most bandwidth on a traditional FSB? Accessing the RAM. On the A64/Opteron the CPU has an integrated mem-controller which means that the CPU talks directly with the RAM. That saves a lot of FSB-bandwidth and reduces latency. It saves bandwidth because the FSB (which runs at 800Mhz on the A64/Opteron) is 100% free to serve other purposes. All of it's bandwidth can be used by hard-drives, PCI and AGP-devices, USB, Firewire and the like. On the G5, those devices have to share the FSB with the RAM. On the A64/Opteron, the RAM has a dedicated bus.
Seriously: Get on the clue-train today!
Pray tell: how do you use an external mouse (wireless or wired) when sitting in a bus with the computer on your lap? Or while relaxing in the couch while using the computer? In situations like those (situations where you need a computer that is mobile ie. a laptop), external mouse is a humungous pain in the ass!
What is the purpose of the Mini? Basically, it's meant as a low-cost computer that can be used for basic tasks (email, web-surfing etc.). And while doing all that, it's also small, silent and stylish. We CAN build something similar in the x86-world. For example (all prices are from mini-itx.com. I used European prices since that's where I'm in):
VIA EPIA MII 12000 LVDS 1.2Ghz: 187e
Hoojum Cubit 3 case: 172e
512MB DDR-RAM: 85e
Slotload CDRW/DVD: 85e
40GB hard-drive: 50e
Total-price: 579e. Note: this does NOT include the price of OS or other software.
As to Mini:
1.25Ghz Mini with 512MB RAM: 599e
Both systems would be small (Mini is a bit smaller) and silent systems. Performance is good enough for everyday tasks (the Mini does have a lot more powerful CPU and vid-card, but the Via has faster HD). XP Pro would add 143e to the price of the Via-solution, but you could always get more generic case, which would reduce the price a bit. But in the end, the two would be about as cheap (if you include the price of the software). Although the Mini is a complete package, whereas you have to assemble the Via yourself.
You could always get a Shuttle SFF or the like. But they would be considerable bigger (too big for my deks for example) and noisier. They would be more like regural computers, instead of appliances (like the Mini).
Of course, the Mini is not for everyone.
You may not get "faster CPU" or something of the sort, but you do get a great OS, tiny case made of adonized aluminium, a practically silent computer, great software-bundle and the like. Staring at just few specs (CPU-speed etc.) is pretty short-sighted IMO.
Humungous trade-deficit, plummetting dollar, humungous budget-deficit... If that's "excellent", I'm afraid to know what would "terrible" be like...
I have the capability to do a lot of evil. Do I frighten you? The guy who lives next to you has the capability to kill you if he wants to, does he frighten you?
Basically, you are afraid because Google has a powerful computer-system and the know-how to use it effectively. and that's "evil" because....??
It's IPC is very high when compared to P4. And G4 has very high IPC when compared to P4. Clock for clock, G4 and P4-M are more or less equal. G4 in the Mini is either 1.25 or 1.42GHz. P4-M mini-ITX MoBo's I have seen seem to top out at about 1.6Ghz. So yes, it would beat the Mini by a narrow margin. 1.42Ghz vs. 1.6GHz with similar IPC's.
2.4GHz eh? So it doesn't matter if it's 2.4GHz Celeron, 2.4Ghz Athlon64 or 2.4GHz 8088?
Seriously, staring that the MHz is completely pointless. You simply can't compare different CPU-families based on their clock-speed. P4 clocks alot higher than Athlon64 does, yet Athlon 64 mops the floor with the P4. How can that be? Or do you suggest that 2.4GHz Celeron is faster than my 2.2GHz Athlon64?
In some aspects perhaps. But on the other hand:
- The Shuttle would propably be noisier
- It would consume more space
- It doesn't look as good (matter of taste though)
- You can't run OS X on it
- With similar specs it would propably cost the same or more than the Mini
Those would be of similar size and they would be as silent as the Mini is. OTOH:
- Their performance sucks (VIA solutions) or
- They are really expensive (Pentium-M solutions)
Via solution would give you more or less similar price as the Mini (although you might have to resort to crappier case) but with sucky performance. Pentium-M would give you better performance (by a narrow margin) but it would cost alot more.
You are wrong
yes they are, and I'm not disputing that. They have made some excellent contributions to GCC, KHTML and the like, and their contributions are more than welcome. And they have in general behaved very well when it comes to open source. That said, their OS is not open source as such. IBM has done alot for open source, yet they too have closed-source OS's.
OS X is built on open source, but it's not open source as a whole
When I'm talking about OS X I'm NOT talking about Darwin. I'm talking about the Kernel, Darwin, Aqua, Quartz, Quartz Extreme, Spotlight, iMovie, iPhoto etc. etc. Darwin does not equal OS X. Or are you saying that if I run Darwin, I will have an OS that is identical to OS X, all the bells and whistles included?
I wasn't talking about how apps behave, I was talking about how the OS as a whole behaves. And that includes apps, the GUI the administration-tasks, software-installation and the like.
And like I said, Darwin is not Mac OS X. Does OS X run on x86? If it does, why are there so many people insiting that Apple should port OS X to x86?
I'm talking about OS X as a whole, you are talking about Darwin, which is only a part of OS X. we are talking about two different things!
Or maybe, just maybe, because they actually *shock and horror* like Linux more than they like OS X? Or is such a thing completely impossible?
And we all know home-users have some kind of SAN or server with RAID that they use for backups, therefore Mini needs Gigabit Ethernet. Or maybe not. Maybe most home-users do their backups by burning their important files on a CD. And the Mini is perfectly capable of doing just that.
This workstation that I'm using gets backed up regurarly. Hell, it's backed up via WAN that has a speed of *drum roll*.... 2Mb/sec (and that bandwidth is shared with about 60 other people who also back up (and surf the web, and check their email) via that WAN. Oh the horror!)! And there are zero problems with it! It backs up in the background, and it never ever disrupts me or my work. So why do I (or the Mini) need Gigabit Ethernet again? you are saying that we absolutely need 1000Mb/sec network for backups, when I do just fine with 2Mb/sec?
Of couse, you can't do anything with the computer while it backs up. You have to stop everything and just stare at the screen. I guess I have some kind of hi-end computer that allows me to do this thing called "multitasking".
But that PC wouldn't be that cheap anymore, now would it?
Considering that most devices don't even come close to saturating Firewire 400, I fail to see how Firewire 800 is anywhere close of being an "requirement".
Then don't throw it away! Buy an expandable Mac instead and find some other use for the Mini! Or *shock and horror* sell it to someone else!
But seriously: If expandability is a requirement for you, then obviously the Mini is not for you.
I have yet to see any user-submitted pathces in OS X( Although I haven't really studied the matter). Now have I seen improvements from Darwin trickle down to other projects. And just about everyhting on my Linux-machine IS open-soure The kernel, the GUI (which is closed in the MAc), the apps (Apple-apps are closed, with few exceptions). Only thing that's closed-source (to my knowledge) is few games and the NVIDIA-drivers.
Sure you can run Darwin just fine. And it's open. But the key technologies that the user sees (and that could be used in other projects as well) are closed. If Apple is such a big supporter of Open Source, why is Quartz and Quartz Extreme closed? Why aren't they offering some of that tech to X.org, or KDE or Gnome? Or how about Spotlight?