Couple of points - 32MB VRAM is definitely not any kind of limitation on video editing. That's a CPU/Memory horsepower issue. Video RAM simply isn't used in that manner. What games, by the way? Only an idiot would buy a Mac as a primary gaming platform.
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.
Last time I looked at Laptops, you paid a heavy premium for graphics and high-end CPUs, unless you're talking about desknotes? Those aren't "laptops" and still aren't cheap.
Yes, it's a cheap Mac. I think that was the point. Why isn't 32MB VRam not enough for what it's designed for? What do you need the speed for at this price point? I'd take OS X and all the additional software that comes with it over a 3GHz+ CPU any day of the week.
Why do you think it's designed to fit near your TV? It's size? It's not anything like the width or depth of any of my other TV-connected devices. The optional TV-out? Every Mac has one.
I think you're confusing how any Mac device would look good next to the TV. It's a computer.
Apple don't sell machines that don't work out of the box for what they're intended, I think you must be confusing them with other vendors.
It's quicker than the average laptop by any vendor. Better graphics too, looking at some of the VIA and Intel crap that comes onboard such systems. Many people find a laptop more than adequate, so why is this not quick enough? It of course has much better software than you'll find on competing platforms, and is the cheapest way to get into OS X and the iApps. Sometimes functionality is not measured in Mhz.
That's stupid though. A Mac Mini is a small desktop computer, not a TV recorder. To use it as such is entirely missing the point. I can't believe people waste what is the best desktop software on the planet on such an asinine task as recording the crap that gets shown on what stands for TV broadcasting.
Never happens though. The price of Ram is just too prohibitive to make it a worthwhile solution for any reasonable amount of memory. Certainly not on the die?
I see quite a lot of those as benefits, personally. Not only for my own systems' security, but also from preventing the Internet from being further flooded with crap by having resolveable vulnerable systems open to attack and manipulation. I'm quite happy to switch to ipv6 if I can still have NAT, or some easy similar method of making my systems "call only".
Re:I'm amazed it took him this long to work it out
on
McVoy Strikes Back
·
· Score: 1
I found multiple desktops completely pointless and counter-productive personally, but I guess that's a personal preference. I don't have four 'real' desktops either.
Either way, it's utterly insignificant in comparison to how every single application on the Mac works exactly as I expect it to, with literally hundreds of nice surprises that I never even considered might exist. The absolute consistency between applications (as opposed to comparing the GIMP to Openoffice, to Konqueror, to Noatun for example) is just the tip of the iceberg really. Every single application contains time-saving functionality that goes above and beyond what I've ever seen on an Open Source desktop.
By the way, how much or little it's "wrapped around BSD" is entirely irrelevant when the applications are so good that opening the command line is such a rare event. Not that it's wrapped around it anything like what I think you expect. Even configuration files are consistently stored in XML.
But I'm really talking about the applications though. Under the hood simply doesn't interest me because I've never had to look. It's nice to use a computer as a tool to aid other tasks instead of some kind of self-perpetuating device that only accomplishes what it sets itself out to do.
I'm amazed it took him this long to work it out
on
McVoy Strikes Back
·
· Score: 1
It occurred to me about five minutes after using OS X: "what the hell have I been doing with this other crap?!".
I would have thought that IBM etc. don't get involved because it's better to produce your own applications than reproduce the 'chasing a moving target' scenario which was the exact thing that killed OS/2.
Neither of those two, nor the new Nintendo (also IBM chips) will be using G5's, the Cell is certainly not a G5, and this article also refers to a custom chip.
Four years is a year too long if you ask me. It's certainly a longer generation lifetime than other types of consumer hardware like computers, media players, digital photography, home cinema, etc. etc.
Slashdot Mirror
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.
Linux debian 2.4.18-bf2.4 #1 Son Apr 14 09:53:28 CEST 2002 i686 GNU/Linux
Yes, it's a cheap Mac. I think that was the point. Why isn't 32MB VRam not enough for what it's designed for? What do you need the speed for at this price point? I'd take OS X and all the additional software that comes with it over a 3GHz+ CPU any day of the week.
I think you're confusing how any Mac device would look good next to the TV. It's a computer.
Apple don't sell machines that don't work out of the box for what they're intended, I think you must be confusing them with other vendors.
I don't disagree regarding using a P4, but then I run two Via C3 533Mhz systems. 19W max each, or the power bricks are lying :)
It's quicker than the average laptop by any vendor. Better graphics too, looking at some of the VIA and Intel crap that comes onboard such systems. Many people find a laptop more than adequate, so why is this not quick enough? It of course has much better software than you'll find on competing platforms, and is the cheapest way to get into OS X and the iApps. Sometimes functionality is not measured in Mhz.
That's stupid though. A Mac Mini is a small desktop computer, not a TV recorder. To use it as such is entirely missing the point. I can't believe people waste what is the best desktop software on the planet on such an asinine task as recording the crap that gets shown on what stands for TV broadcasting.
What about Mhz/Watt? Old machines are now incredibly power-inefficient as a means of getting things done.
Never happens though. The price of Ram is just too prohibitive to make it a worthwhile solution for any reasonable amount of memory. Certainly not on the die?
Is not quick enough for games :)
I thought security by obscurity was frowned upon?
D;
You should probably learn the difference between millions and billions before you decide what the world wants.
I see quite a lot of those as benefits, personally. Not only for my own systems' security, but also from preventing the Internet from being further flooded with crap by having resolveable vulnerable systems open to attack and manipulation. I'm quite happy to switch to ipv6 if I can still have NAT, or some easy similar method of making my systems "call only".
Either way, it's utterly insignificant in comparison to how every single application on the Mac works exactly as I expect it to, with literally hundreds of nice surprises that I never even considered might exist. The absolute consistency between applications (as opposed to comparing the GIMP to Openoffice, to Konqueror, to Noatun for example) is just the tip of the iceberg really. Every single application contains time-saving functionality that goes above and beyond what I've ever seen on an Open Source desktop.
By the way, how much or little it's "wrapped around BSD" is entirely irrelevant when the applications are so good that opening the command line is such a rare event. Not that it's wrapped around it anything like what I think you expect. Even configuration files are consistently stored in XML.
But I'm really talking about the applications though. Under the hood simply doesn't interest me because I've never had to look. It's nice to use a computer as a tool to aid other tasks instead of some kind of self-perpetuating device that only accomplishes what it sets itself out to do.
It occurred to me about five minutes after using OS X: "what the hell have I been doing with this other crap?!".
No-one who matters.
ARM for iPods maybe, but otherwise, absolutely no chance. Only a fool would even think this was likely.
Are we approaching a tipping point in the perception of FOSS? No. You have my guarantee on that.
I would have thought that IBM etc. don't get involved because it's better to produce your own applications than reproduce the 'chasing a moving target' scenario which was the exact thing that killed OS/2.
Who on earth green lights these doomed projects? I'll tell you: someone who's probably already thinking about his next job.
Neither of those two, nor the new Nintendo (also IBM chips) will be using G5's, the Cell is certainly not a G5, and this article also refers to a custom chip.
He knows more than you, clearly.
I wasn't discussing lifetime, so much as 'latest generational'. I can still buy Sega Game Gear software in my local computer shop, maybe yours sucks?
Four years is a year too long if you ask me. It's certainly a longer generation lifetime than other types of consumer hardware like computers, media players, digital photography, home cinema, etc. etc.