Just FYI, the warranty is only voided by your own repairs/upgrades if it is damage to the part you worked on, i.e. if you broke it. The memory is normal RAM, but mac systems seem slightly less tolerant of RAM failures, so I'd recommend getting one of the better quality brands and replacing it if you start to get kernel panics. Enjoy.
OK, you seem to be very slow or a troll. Here is a probability: We have at least slightly examined 173 planetary bodies and found life on two of them. 2/173=.012 probability of life which is not statistically significant, but is a perfectly valid probability of life on on any given, known planet. Guessing has nothing to do with it.
What's probability other than an assumption made without facts to back it up?
Buy a dictionary already. Probability is not an assumption. It is a measured ratio of a subset of events with the set of events. It is useful for mathematical prediction of events. All probabilities are based upon measured facts or they are not probabilities, but guesses.
it would be more cost effective just to buy another mini altogether.
What? Buying another mini does not get you a faster, bigger hard drive or more RAM capacity. I ask again, why is upgrading the RAM and disk in your PC a good buy, but you complain it is not for the mac mini? The RAM is probably swappable between them, although I think you need to make sure to buy a small enough hard drive (dimensions not capacity). I think you are just complaining to complain.
The same reason a lot of people don't believe there is a god. No proof.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If two people are standing beside a large stone wall on one says, "I don't believe there are any flowers on the other side of this wall." If they have no proof or reason for their statement then it is an illogical assertion. It may be correct or incorrect, but it is a statement with no backing. If that person were to say, "I don't believe there are any flowers anywhere but here" well, they could still be right, but with no proof they are seeming less reasonable, because their claim is much more extraordinary. Now if the other person standing beside the wall were to say, "On the other side of this wall is an invisible midget with powerful magical powers and a flying donkey named Igor, oh an by the way this wall is made out of gold" you might be inclined to doubt them, especially since they have just proven that they are unreliable having made an obviously and provably false statement. That is why there is a big difference between not believing in god because you have no proof and not believing in life elsewhere because you have no proof. One is a scientifically likely and certainly possible general condition, the other is a specific and very extraordinary claim. The only logical answer to either question is "I don't know." If asked whether the existence of god or life elsewhere in the universe is likely, well then the two topics are very, very different.
This summer, I plan to upgrade my pc from 256 to 768 MBram, and to a 120-160gb 7200rpm from the stock 60 gig 5400, I would love to do this kind of thing to my Mac
Err, and why can't you upgrade the RAM and hard drive in the mini?
PCs are designed to be easily upgradeable so I really don't see a point to this PC Mini.
Percentage of people who actually upgrade their PC: ~10%
Believe it or not there are a whole lot of different people out there with different uses for PCs. Very few of them want a machine they can upgrade. In any case, why couldn't you upgrade this? I mean you can't add new cards, but you can replace the ram, motherboard, hard drive, etc. Basically, what I'm saying is even if you don't have a use for a small machine, you have to be a complete idiot or wholly lacking in imagination to not see the point of this machine for others.
...but since when has there been an upgadable Mac?
What is "upgadable?" There are fewer supported hardware devices for macs, but aside from that how is a PC any more upgradable? I'm guessing you're a troll, but giving you the benefit of the doubt.
P.S. one nice thing about macs is that they all have built in spellcheckers for all text, everywhere. That way you don't look like an illiterate when you can't spell "upgradable."
The linux crowd by and large won't use it because it's not quite their flavour of 'free'.
You make it sound as if they are making a choice. How about, "the linux crowd seldom uses it because the only full implementation is licensed in such a way that they cannot ship it with Linux so it has to be an additional download?"
I know it's not their primary focus but how hard would it be to be close to 100% compat on a document format from 1997?
An open and published format from 1997, probably is pretty easy to incorporate..doc, however is a closed format intentionally written to be hard to reverse engineer, and very convoluted. It is so bad in fact that Office XP does not always open it correctly, and they have the source code.
Here's another question for you, why aren't regulatory commissions looking into MS's behavior for intentionally breaking compatibility with other vendors, while they hold a monopoly that has since become two monopolies as a result?
You can think of $100,000 as 5 teachers, which is pretty damn good. That's what Microsoft costs the school.
Well, others have already pointed out some flaws in your numbers, but let me elaborate a bit. 100K probably won't hire 5 teachers at a private school in Detroit, 100K was saved by not upgrading hardware and not buying office for half the machine (they already paid for it on the other half) and we don't know their normal upgrade cycle. Microsoft also costs them money for Windows licenses for all these machines and probably support costs. In reality, who knows how much MS costs a school, but it is certainly way too much given the alternatives and the lack of money for education.
Geez, don't complain that you need an explanation if you haven't read the damn article. it explains clearly that they did not want to support two different word processors because they were running into compatibility problems, the old machines could not run office XP, and upgrading the hardware was cost prohibitive.
This is going to be a typical scene of geek masturbation, with a single common theme in mind: It worked for me, therefore it must be perfect for everyone in the world
Wow how is that precognition going? This thread is already several hundred posts long and I haven't seen anyone (aside from you) voice that assertion. This is a typical straw man argument,...weak.
Try to roll this out in a corporate environment, though, and you'd get very different results. Secretaries and businessmen are under no obligation to learn how to use the tools they use. If they can't figure out how something works the first time they just whine to tech support every time they want to do it after.
Man I'm glad I don't work where you do. Here if someone says, "I can't figure out this word processor" they are quickly asked to find a new job, elsewhere.
99% of my use of MS word is as a spell checker, I'll type a comment (like this one) on a web form then quickly copy and paste in to word and back for spellchecking goodness.
You have my deepest sympathy. You have to copy and paste text into a different application just to check the spelling? That sucks and is exactly why spellchecking as a service on OS X is leaps and bounds better. Alternately, you could install a spellchecker for every application that uses text, but then what about grammar checking, and all the other common operations you want to perform on text. Windows is really falling behind these days I'm sure glad I don't have to use it for any composition.
The photographer/videographer owns the rights to the photos.
True, but many places require permission to publish identifiable photographs of another person. Additionally, publishing nude photographs, an indecent proposal, and personal contact information for anyone other than yourself almost certainly qualifies as illegal harassment in every place I can think of. All of that aside, Yahoo is still legally bound to remove her personal information and accounts opened in her name in a timely fashion when she requests that they do so.
That would make sense if he can cough up $3 million. She is simply following the money trail. I wouldnt be surprised if this is all a setup. Remeber the finger in chilli story.
You know what, it makes no difference at all if it is. You see with the Wendy's chili lawsuit they were suing because Wendy's left a severed finger in the chili, which they almost certainly did not. In this case, she is suing not because the images were put up along with her personal info, but because Yahoo did not remove them in a timely manner when asked, as the law requires that they do. So do you really suspect she had an inside man at Yahoo who intentionally left the images up? It is possible, but highly unlikely.
Her boyfriend will probably face criminal charges, but that in no way mitigates Yahoo's failure to comply with her request about her personal information.
A picture of a naked boy/girl standing in front of an X-ray scanner is *not* pornography.
The last time I read the laws, pornography was defined as lewd or indecent material as determined by the "standards of the community" in which the material is presented. This ambiguity has lead to a great deal of trouble in the past. In any case I'm sure their are plenty of local and state laws banning "child pornography" I know in my city there is a law banning even digitally created representations of nude children without the review and approval of a local commission. I certainly don't claim to be an authority on the law and it probably does not matter for the most part since 90% of laws are only applied when the police or someone with pull wants them enforced which is unlikely in this case.
making it possible for things like Safari to benefit - decompress the image on the SPU, render using Quartz 2D on the video card and the CPU is free to handle the page layout.
I'm pretty sure all the speed issues with Safari are network related. It loads every local file I have instantly. I don't really think a faster processor is going to help. Aside form that, your point is well taken. It would be useful for any number of applications (like speeding up the generation of PDFs from InDesign please).
Although your comment was probably intended as humor, it is entirely possible this procedure, creating and viewing images of naked children, will violate child pornography laws. I wonder if those promoting this technology have thought of this? I know when they implemented this in London they only screened selected people and only people of one gender on a given day. I think they discontinued using it after they figured out the machine was not approved for use on people yet.
The browser uses standard system APIs for text input, and the OS checks your spelling using the same standard dictionaries.
I really think system services are one of the most important and overlooked features of OS X. Spellchecking is a great example because it is needed in so many different applications, but in addition you can lookup words in the dictionary, thesaurus, google, etc.; translate them to other languages; speak them aloud; grammar check text; route text, images, etc. to any number of other applications; create a library of the fonts used in a selection; calculate a checksum; route text or images to a bluetooth device; search your system for the selection, automatically summarize long documents; or any number of other things. The best part is the system is modular and services can be offered by applications or written as stand alone modules. Just dropping a port of the popular Graphviz UNIX application onto my hard drive, for example, adds the ability for me to select any series or table of numbers and automatically graph them.
I really wish more hardcore geeks would realize just how useful having system-wide services can be. Many functions of very expensive applications would be incredibly useful when used outside of that application as well. Why should your spellchecker be limited to your word processor? Why shouldn't your SSH terminal be able to translate IRC comments from one language to another? If I pay a couple thousand dollars for a professional library of satellite maps, I damn well want to be able to pull up a map of coordinates I select in my web browser. The job of the OS is to allow applications to run and work with one another, this is some of the most amazing progress I've seen on that front in a decade and most people are completely oblivious to it. Every application has a services menu in the program name menu, if only users and programmers alike would make more use of it.
Now their bragging rights about being able to switch between IE and Firefox rendering is damaged because they didn't test enough to find out if their product breaks existing functionality like displaying XML?
OK, so here's the deal. You're a QA lead for testing netscape and you have to prioritize tasks. What priority do you place on comprehensively testing a feature that only works some of the time and is used by very few people in a competitor's product with whom you are interfacing? I've tried to use IE to view XML, and it occasionally would work and occasionally would render a blank page. Now after whatever Netscape did, it renders more pages blank? Big deal, no one who really wants to view XML uses IE anyway, since it only worked sporadically.
Not holding up the release to include the security fixes was a serious mistake in my opinion. Not finding this minor bug in a competitor's product with whom they are interfacing is a complete non-issue in my mind.
Downloading music will never stop, this cycle will always continue. It's like the 55MPH speed limit. Nobody follows is, and yet the police still try to enforce it. Some of us will pay fines, and others will get away scott free.
The speed limit is not about "right and wrong" it is about making money for police departments. It is a way to gain revenue and pretty much nothing else. If you are speeding to the point where you are actually a danger you are charged with reckless endangerment or reckless driving.
Making non-commercial copying illegal (which happened in the 70's) and filing lawsuits against people for sharing music files is rapidly becoming the same sort of fundraising, except for a commercial interest. Isn't it interesting how power in the U.S. has shifted from the government to large corporations?
Slashdot Mirror
Just FYI, the warranty is only voided by your own repairs/upgrades if it is damage to the part you worked on, i.e. if you broke it. The memory is normal RAM, but mac systems seem slightly less tolerant of RAM failures, so I'd recommend getting one of the better quality brands and replacing it if you start to get kernel panics. Enjoy.
OK, you seem to be very slow or a troll. Here is a probability: We have at least slightly examined 173 planetary bodies and found life on two of them. 2/173=.012 probability of life which is not statistically significant, but is a perfectly valid probability of life on on any given, known planet. Guessing has nothing to do with it.
What's probability other than an assumption made without facts to back it up?
Buy a dictionary already. Probability is not an assumption. It is a measured ratio of a subset of events with the set of events. It is useful for mathematical prediction of events. All probabilities are based upon measured facts or they are not probabilities, but guesses.
it would be more cost effective just to buy another mini altogether.
What? Buying another mini does not get you a faster, bigger hard drive or more RAM capacity. I ask again, why is upgrading the RAM and disk in your PC a good buy, but you complain it is not for the mac mini? The RAM is probably swappable between them, although I think you need to make sure to buy a small enough hard drive (dimensions not capacity). I think you are just complaining to complain.
The same reason a lot of people don't believe there is a god. No proof.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If two people are standing beside a large stone wall on one says, "I don't believe there are any flowers on the other side of this wall." If they have no proof or reason for their statement then it is an illogical assertion. It may be correct or incorrect, but it is a statement with no backing. If that person were to say, "I don't believe there are any flowers anywhere but here" well, they could still be right, but with no proof they are seeming less reasonable, because their claim is much more extraordinary. Now if the other person standing beside the wall were to say, "On the other side of this wall is an invisible midget with powerful magical powers and a flying donkey named Igor, oh an by the way this wall is made out of gold" you might be inclined to doubt them, especially since they have just proven that they are unreliable having made an obviously and provably false statement. That is why there is a big difference between not believing in god because you have no proof and not believing in life elsewhere because you have no proof. One is a scientifically likely and certainly possible general condition, the other is a specific and very extraordinary claim. The only logical answer to either question is "I don't know." If asked whether the existence of god or life elsewhere in the universe is likely, well then the two topics are very, very different.
but I could already build an 8086 mac mini size box already for about half the cost of a mac mini.
I don't believe you. Please provide a link.
This summer, I plan to upgrade my pc from 256 to 768 MBram, and to a 120-160gb 7200rpm from the stock 60 gig 5400, I would love to do this kind of thing to my Mac
Err, and why can't you upgrade the RAM and hard drive in the mini?
PCs are designed to be easily upgradeable so I really don't see a point to this PC Mini.
Percentage of people who actually upgrade their PC: ~10%
Believe it or not there are a whole lot of different people out there with different uses for PCs. Very few of them want a machine they can upgrade. In any case, why couldn't you upgrade this? I mean you can't add new cards, but you can replace the ram, motherboard, hard drive, etc. Basically, what I'm saying is even if you don't have a use for a small machine, you have to be a complete idiot or wholly lacking in imagination to not see the point of this machine for others.
What is "upgadable?" There are fewer supported hardware devices for macs, but aside from that how is a PC any more upgradable? I'm guessing you're a troll, but giving you the benefit of the doubt.
P.S. one nice thing about macs is that they all have built in spellcheckers for all text, everywhere. That way you don't look like an illiterate when you can't spell "upgradable."
The linux crowd by and large won't use it because it's not quite their flavour of 'free'.
You make it sound as if they are making a choice. How about, "the linux crowd seldom uses it because the only full implementation is licensed in such a way that they cannot ship it with Linux so it has to be an additional download?"
What proof do you have that you didn't? It doesn't matter she requested it removed, they failed to comply.
I know it's not their primary focus but how hard would it be to be close to 100% compat on a document format from 1997?
An open and published format from 1997, probably is pretty easy to incorporate. .doc, however is a closed format intentionally written to be hard to reverse engineer, and very convoluted. It is so bad in fact that Office XP does not always open it correctly, and they have the source code.
Here's another question for you, why aren't regulatory commissions looking into MS's behavior for intentionally breaking compatibility with other vendors, while they hold a monopoly that has since become two monopolies as a result?
You can think of $100,000 as 5 teachers, which is pretty damn good. That's what Microsoft costs the school.
Well, others have already pointed out some flaws in your numbers, but let me elaborate a bit. 100K probably won't hire 5 teachers at a private school in Detroit, 100K was saved by not upgrading hardware and not buying office for half the machine (they already paid for it on the other half) and we don't know their normal upgrade cycle. Microsoft also costs them money for Windows licenses for all these machines and probably support costs. In reality, who knows how much MS costs a school, but it is certainly way too much given the alternatives and the lack of money for education.
RTFA!
Geez, don't complain that you need an explanation if you haven't read the damn article. it explains clearly that they did not want to support two different word processors because they were running into compatibility problems, the old machines could not run office XP, and upgrading the hardware was cost prohibitive.
This is going to be a typical scene of geek masturbation, with a single common theme in mind: It worked for me, therefore it must be perfect for everyone in the world
Wow how is that precognition going? This thread is already several hundred posts long and I haven't seen anyone (aside from you) voice that assertion. This is a typical straw man argument, ...weak.
Try to roll this out in a corporate environment, though, and you'd get very different results. Secretaries and businessmen are under no obligation to learn how to use the tools they use. If they can't figure out how something works the first time they just whine to tech support every time they want to do it after.
Man I'm glad I don't work where you do. Here if someone says, "I can't figure out this word processor" they are quickly asked to find a new job, elsewhere.
99% of my use of MS word is as a spell checker, I'll type a comment (like this one) on a web form then quickly copy and paste in to word and back for spellchecking goodness.
You have my deepest sympathy. You have to copy and paste text into a different application just to check the spelling? That sucks and is exactly why spellchecking as a service on OS X is leaps and bounds better. Alternately, you could install a spellchecker for every application that uses text, but then what about grammar checking, and all the other common operations you want to perform on text. Windows is really falling behind these days I'm sure glad I don't have to use it for any composition.
The photographer/videographer owns the rights to the photos.
True, but many places require permission to publish identifiable photographs of another person. Additionally, publishing nude photographs, an indecent proposal, and personal contact information for anyone other than yourself almost certainly qualifies as illegal harassment in every place I can think of. All of that aside, Yahoo is still legally bound to remove her personal information and accounts opened in her name in a timely fashion when she requests that they do so.
That would make sense if he can cough up $3 million. She is simply following the money trail. I wouldnt be surprised if this is all a setup. Remeber the finger in chilli story.
You know what, it makes no difference at all if it is. You see with the Wendy's chili lawsuit they were suing because Wendy's left a severed finger in the chili, which they almost certainly did not. In this case, she is suing not because the images were put up along with her personal info, but because Yahoo did not remove them in a timely manner when asked, as the law requires that they do. So do you really suspect she had an inside man at Yahoo who intentionally left the images up? It is possible, but highly unlikely.
Her boyfriend will probably face criminal charges, but that in no way mitigates Yahoo's failure to comply with her request about her personal information.
A picture of a naked boy/girl standing in front of an X-ray scanner is *not* pornography.
The last time I read the laws, pornography was defined as lewd or indecent material as determined by the "standards of the community" in which the material is presented. This ambiguity has lead to a great deal of trouble in the past. In any case I'm sure their are plenty of local and state laws banning "child pornography" I know in my city there is a law banning even digitally created representations of nude children without the review and approval of a local commission. I certainly don't claim to be an authority on the law and it probably does not matter for the most part since 90% of laws are only applied when the police or someone with pull wants them enforced which is unlikely in this case.
making it possible for things like Safari to benefit - decompress the image on the SPU, render using Quartz 2D on the video card and the CPU is free to handle the page layout.
I'm pretty sure all the speed issues with Safari are network related. It loads every local file I have instantly. I don't really think a faster processor is going to help. Aside form that, your point is well taken. It would be useful for any number of applications (like speeding up the generation of PDFs from InDesign please).
Pedophiles everywhere must be excited about this.
Although your comment was probably intended as humor, it is entirely possible this procedure, creating and viewing images of naked children, will violate child pornography laws. I wonder if those promoting this technology have thought of this? I know when they implemented this in London they only screened selected people and only people of one gender on a given day. I think they discontinued using it after they figured out the machine was not approved for use on people yet.
The browser uses standard system APIs for text input, and the OS checks your spelling using the same standard dictionaries.
I really think system services are one of the most important and overlooked features of OS X. Spellchecking is a great example because it is needed in so many different applications, but in addition you can lookup words in the dictionary, thesaurus, google, etc.; translate them to other languages; speak them aloud; grammar check text; route text, images, etc. to any number of other applications; create a library of the fonts used in a selection; calculate a checksum; route text or images to a bluetooth device; search your system for the selection, automatically summarize long documents; or any number of other things. The best part is the system is modular and services can be offered by applications or written as stand alone modules. Just dropping a port of the popular Graphviz UNIX application onto my hard drive, for example, adds the ability for me to select any series or table of numbers and automatically graph them.
I really wish more hardcore geeks would realize just how useful having system-wide services can be. Many functions of very expensive applications would be incredibly useful when used outside of that application as well. Why should your spellchecker be limited to your word processor? Why shouldn't your SSH terminal be able to translate IRC comments from one language to another? If I pay a couple thousand dollars for a professional library of satellite maps, I damn well want to be able to pull up a map of coordinates I select in my web browser. The job of the OS is to allow applications to run and work with one another, this is some of the most amazing progress I've seen on that front in a decade and most people are completely oblivious to it. Every application has a services menu in the program name menu, if only users and programmers alike would make more use of it.
Now their bragging rights about being able to switch between IE and Firefox rendering is damaged because they didn't test enough to find out if their product breaks existing functionality like displaying XML?
OK, so here's the deal. You're a QA lead for testing netscape and you have to prioritize tasks. What priority do you place on comprehensively testing a feature that only works some of the time and is used by very few people in a competitor's product with whom you are interfacing? I've tried to use IE to view XML, and it occasionally would work and occasionally would render a blank page. Now after whatever Netscape did, it renders more pages blank? Big deal, no one who really wants to view XML uses IE anyway, since it only worked sporadically.
Not holding up the release to include the security fixes was a serious mistake in my opinion. Not finding this minor bug in a competitor's product with whom they are interfacing is a complete non-issue in my mind.
Downloading music will never stop, this cycle will always continue. It's like the 55MPH speed limit. Nobody follows is, and yet the police still try to enforce it. Some of us will pay fines, and others will get away scott free.
The speed limit is not about "right and wrong" it is about making money for police departments. It is a way to gain revenue and pretty much nothing else. If you are speeding to the point where you are actually a danger you are charged with reckless endangerment or reckless driving.
Making non-commercial copying illegal (which happened in the 70's) and filing lawsuits against people for sharing music files is rapidly becoming the same sort of fundraising, except for a commercial interest. Isn't it interesting how power in the U.S. has shifted from the government to large corporations?