The iMac would definately be faster. The iMac uses 3.5" hard drives, whereas the Mini uses the slower 2.5" drives. The Core Duo on the low end iMac is 130 MHz faster than the Core Duo on the high end Mini. (Whatever you do, don't go with the Core Solo Mini, it is too slow for what you want to do). The Mini uses an integrated video card (Intel) and borrows main system memory, whereas the iMac has a much better ATI Radeon X1600 (I think) card with dedicated RAM.
The iMac also has integrated iSight, Mic, a much larger harddrive (160 GB standard on 17", 250 GB on 20", upgradeable on both). The only thing that is better on the Mini is an extra USB port compared to the iMac, however, USB hubs are cheap and small.
For my needs, the Mac Mini was good enough. If you want to do audio and video work, go with the iMac, preferably the 20".
I'd highly suggest returning the machine to Apple for repairs, there is clearly something wrong. Right this moment, I am encoding a 4 GB.MOV (MPEG-4 and AAC) to DVD Format with FFMpegX, have iTunes running on Shuffle playing my music, typing this from inside Camino, talking to friends on Adium and using X-Chat Aqua,Coreduotemp monitoring my CPU temp, and it is still running comfortably. Are you using the Core Solo or Duo? How much RAM is in it? I have the Core Duo Mini w/ 1 Gig of RAM. My Mom's 20" iMac Core Duo w/ 2 GB of RAM knocks the socks off of my old Powermac G4 1.4 GHz (upgraded with Mercury Extreme processor). Have you tried re-installing OS X? Trust me, it is not normal for your Mini to be acting like that. Yesterday, I had FFMpegX encoding another file and was using FrontRow to watch videos at the same time and it worked fine.
Last I checked, AIM has a lead of over 10 million subscribers, and is fairly entrenched in parts of the world. Unless that changed since...ummm...a week ago.
Do you always make stuff up and then state it as fact? Took me about 30 seconds for each of your points to find a link to rebut it. I could probably do the others, but they are outside my area of interest. MSN gaining share on Google?!?!? If you'd read that link, you'd know in the short term MSN is stalled while Google is still gaining, and over the last year Google has posted pretty impressive gains, while MSN has lost marketshare.
Apple now has 50% marketshare on the desktop and Microsoft will be bankrupt in a year. OpenOffice.org has knocked MS Office revenues down 90% YOY....Geee, I guess it is kind of fun making stuff up.
1) Taking the word of a CEO of a company that isn't too fond of Red Hat's actions, and has made other statements about Red Hat to the press lately similar to this, isn't exactly smart.
2) It could be taken either way. If Red Hat is growing but not investing enough in their support infrastructure to support that growth, then Red Hat IS doing good simply because they are growing. However, if they are cutting their infrastructure and not growing, then they are just being pricks.
But yeah, unless this is coming from someone else other than Larry Ellison, I'm not going to bother even reading the article.
No need to be a complete asshole. You aren't a people person, are you?
I never said that Intel CPU's wouldn't work. Since your ability to read between the lines is either severely impaired or completely lacking, I'll spell it out for you. In my experience, Intel CPUs are noisy and not as fast as their AMD counterparts...hence the reason why AFTER seeing how the Mini makes absolutely no noise, and way less than my old AMD boxes, and is one of the fastest computers I have owned, I am actually quite happy with it. Sorry for not making this more clear so that people like you could understand what I was saying. Did you need a diagram as well?
I have to say I am very impressed with the Core Duo on my Mac Mini (1.66 GHz). For a long time I would only buy AMD, but with a Mac I don't really have a choice. But after hearing how quiet this thing is, and seeing how it flies, I'm happy it has a Core Duo in it.
Why in a much uglier form? The non-educational iMac comes with a high-end Radeon PCI-e (can't remember exact model number), and from the outside, it looks identical. The Intel Graphics chip is completely suitable for me though (using my new dual-core mini that arrived yesterday). In-fact, two days ago I was using a Sawtooth 400MHz/G4 with ATI Rage Pro 128 (16MB) and it still worked for most of my needs, the mini just flies for me.
Naw, Canada isn't trying to pass laws against net neutrality, there have never been any laws against it here in the first place. I have 2 broadband providers in my area. Shaw interferes with their customers' VOIP traffic, unless you are using Shaw's VOIP service. Telus recently blocked access for ALL of their customers to the union website while their employees were on strike.
No, more along the lines of my computer is not my life, and I just want to use it to do things. It's a tradeoff, either use a Mac with the chip, or use something else without the chip. Frankly, I don't care enough to waste money and time switching to something else that I won't enjoy as much, and that chip isn't enough for me to not buy my new mini, as I enjoy using Macs. Sorry if that is too difficult for you to understand, but I can't think of any way to state it more simply so you are capable of understanding. It isn't a matter of logic or illogic, it is a matter of me simply not caring whether there is a TCP chip in my computer or not. If I was arguing that TCP was GOOD for privacy, then it could be viewed as an error in logic, but caring or not caring is a matter of priorities, not logic. It isn't illogical to not give a shit about something.
The issue may be important enough to you that you don't want to use or buy a Mac. Great, buy something else. Be my guest. But I don't want someone "making me" answer for my choice in computer, as the original poster implied, as that would annoy me, which is all I was trying to point out to the original poster. Sorry if that flew over your head.
I just took issue with his "make them" statement, as it generally annoys me when people try to force their views on me, and I'm sure most other people feel that way. If I don't care and don't want to hear about it, don't talk to me about it. Make Steve Jobs, Make Bill Gates and make whomever runs Intel deal with it, but don't bug me about something I couldn't give two shits about. That's all I was saying to him.
"And the best thing of all - how many distros let you surf the web while you're installing them?"
SimplyMEPIS, Knoppix, Kanotix, to name a few. And they've done it for far longer than Ubuntu has done it....in-fact, I did a Knoppix install while browsing Slashdot before Ubuntu began to exist.
So? I used DOS from 1990-1993, switched to Windows 3.1, have used Windows 95, 98, 2000 and XP since, and have now switched to a Mac. Should Microsoft be shitting bricks right now? I think not. How does two people have nothing better to do with their time but to write about why they switched products make this any different? Of course they have valid reasons for doing so, as did I. Of course this is going to happen, Apple has been making computers since the 80's (or earlier?), and there are many people who have used them since the 80's. Anyone who thinks SOME people aren't going to switch eventually (or thinks some longtime Windows or Linux people aren't going to switch) is delusional. My mom has driven Toyota's all of her life, and just recently bought a GM. Does this mean Toyota is going down?
Have you ever thought that they simply don't care (like myself), and that by making them, you're not making them face the facts, but merely annoying them?
The way I look at it, I bought PPC Apple computers, I paid Apple for the hardware and software, and I liked the computers. Now Apple has switched to even faster Intel processors, so they have added the Trusted Computing chip in order to lock OS X into their systems, it's a tradeoff. I get the "big brother chip", but I get much faster computers. I read Slashdot, am fully aware of what Apple is doing, and tomorrow my new Intel Mini arrives from FedEx, because I simply don't care.
I doubt it. I had my whole family and some friends using Firefox, and I suggested Linux, and they said "Does Firefox run on that?"
The masses don't go and browse through the Mozilla website and learn about the development methology of Open source software. They hit the front page, see a download link for what looks like an ordinary application, they quickly check for the price, are happy when it is freeware (in their mind at least), and they use it. I've even had someone ask me once if Firefox came bundled with Spyware.
So yeah, I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that the masses learn that there are alternatives to Windows by downloading Firefox, but my experiences are far from it. They couldn't tell the difference between it, Opera, Maxthon or (for some people) Internet Explorer if their life depended on it. They simply don't care enough to want to find out.
Less than 1% of the Google employees that came from Microsoft would start a hostile takeover of a company who's founders and CEO own well over 50% of the voting power??? I sincerely hope you were kidding, and a bunch of people clicked insightful by accident instead of funny.
OK, fine, take that part of my comment off (haven't gone to bed yet actually, but you were pretty close). My point still stands that the original poster was way off base about Google fixing the IE problem, that was done by groups like Mozilla and Opera (primarily Mozilla, as they gave Microsoft a good swift kick in the ass and made them fix their browser). Google jumped on board after the ball had already started rolling, and still aren't doing the majority of the work, so why he praised Google for work others are doing baffles me.
My point also still stands that Google is not exactly challenging Microsoft's monopoly. Google has been in the search market much longer than Microsoft as MSN search is still fairly new, so if anything, Microsoft is challenging Google with MSN Search (and doing a shitty job at it in my opinion). Google isn't much of a challenger to Microsoft with any other products (they may be better, but other than online mapping, Microsoft has a higher marketshare for all of them).
And last but not least, my point still stands that Google is simply not going to displace Microsoft (or probably even Yahoo! for that matter), or swoop in and save the industry from Microsoft. Google needs to make products that actually compete with Microsoft's cash cows (Windows and Office) before they can even begin to think of displacing them. Google clearly realizes this based on their public statements, but everyone around here seems to think that Microsoft has been dealt a deathblow by Google. Microsoft's revenues and profits continue to climb, and they still have extremely high marketshares for both of their core products, and any drop in those marketshares have been done by the likes of OpenOffice, Apple and Linux, NOT Google.
Ummm, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Google the only major search engine who fought the Government over their subpoena, instead of bending over and taking it up the ass like the other search engines did? Of course, you could go back to AT&T, all they do is feed all of your data directly to the NSA;-)
What exactly are you going on about? How did Google fix the problem with IE stagnating and pissing off users? Mozilla did, yes, as did Opera, Safari and others. Google has never made a browser before, so I fail to see how Google helped fix the browser problem one bit, except for funding Mozilla AFTER Firefox already began to become popular. And why exactly are you grouping together Google and open source....Google may help fund a few projects, but every single piece of software they make for consumers is proprietary, and also generally for non-commercial use only.
I like a lot of Google's products, but seriously, quit making them about to be some savior of the tech industry that is going to take down "M$" (what a stupid acronym btw) and save the customers from their evil grip. They're a bloody search engine that also makes a couple of nifty web apps that next to no one actually uses (with the exception of Earth and Gmail), except for some of the people who worship the company. I wouldn't be surprised if the company is bankrupt in 10 years from mis-management, as they seem to have little to no control over their employees (the senior guys admitted as much recently) and they're throwing away money on stupid projects that are never going to make them a dime, and just sit there on their web servers not being used.
Of course, Gmail, Earth, News, Calendar and Google Search rock, but who the hell needs Google Spreadsheets? Do they honestly think it is going to make them any money? At least Ask.com is around and well for if Google implodes under its own weight...about the only thing that would be hard to move away from would be Calendar and Gmail.
I just re-read my comment and realised it was a lot more rude than I intended it to be, so I apologize for that.
I have heard that Google has very very very very strict hiring guidelines, and a lot of overly qualified people still don't make the cut there, unlike at their competitors.
That is kind of odd though about their questions for managers....
His arguement is that Google is using Gmail to gather info on their users for advertising purposes. So if you're signed into Google while using their search engine, they can use your search query, search history, gmail records, calendar records, etc to more precisely target ads to you. I'm not sure how you missed that, he said it pretty clearly.
On a CPC model, how exactly is Google making money from page loads? You do realize that people actually have to CLICK Google's ads for them to even make a dime, right?
Driving directions rarely show ads on Google Maps, so they aren't making a dime. Hell, a lot of Google's services LOSE money, such as Google News, which doesn't show any advertising whatsoever.
Slashdot Mirror
The iMac would definately be faster. The iMac uses 3.5" hard drives, whereas the Mini uses the slower 2.5" drives. The Core Duo on the low end iMac is 130 MHz faster than the Core Duo on the high end Mini. (Whatever you do, don't go with the Core Solo Mini, it is too slow for what you want to do). The Mini uses an integrated video card (Intel) and borrows main system memory, whereas the iMac has a much better ATI Radeon X1600 (I think) card with dedicated RAM.
The iMac also has integrated iSight, Mic, a much larger harddrive (160 GB standard on 17", 250 GB on 20", upgradeable on both). The only thing that is better on the Mini is an extra USB port compared to the iMac, however, USB hubs are cheap and small.
For my needs, the Mac Mini was good enough. If you want to do audio and video work, go with the iMac, preferably the 20".
I'd highly suggest returning the machine to Apple for repairs, there is clearly something wrong. Right this moment, I am encoding a 4 GB .MOV (MPEG-4 and AAC) to DVD Format with FFMpegX, have iTunes running on Shuffle playing my music, typing this from inside Camino, talking to friends on Adium and using X-Chat Aqua,Coreduotemp monitoring my CPU temp, and it is still running comfortably. Are you using the Core Solo or Duo? How much RAM is in it? I have the Core Duo Mini w/ 1 Gig of RAM. My Mom's 20" iMac Core Duo w/ 2 GB of RAM knocks the socks off of my old Powermac G4 1.4 GHz (upgraded with Mercury Extreme processor). Have you tried re-installing OS X? Trust me, it is not normal for your Mini to be acting like that. Yesterday, I had FFMpegX encoding another file and was using FrontRow to watch videos at the same time and it worked fine.
-MSN Messenger is beating ICQ, AIM, Y!Messenger
l 2006/tc20060717_049057.htm?chan=top+news_top+news
l e.jhtml?articleID=189601102
Last I checked, AIM has a lead of over 10 million subscribers, and is fairly entrenched in parts of the world. Unless that changed since...ummm...a week ago.
-X-Boxen are outselling Sony Playstatia
LOL: http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/ju
Sony is STILL selling more PS2's than Microsoft is selling their brand new Xbox360
-MSN Seach is gaining market share against Google and Yahoo
Ummm, yeah, sure buddy, if you say so: http://www.informationweek.com/internet/showArtic
Do you always make stuff up and then state it as fact? Took me about 30 seconds for each of your points to find a link to rebut it. I could probably do the others, but they are outside my area of interest. MSN gaining share on Google?!?!? If you'd read that link, you'd know in the short term MSN is stalled while Google is still gaining, and over the last year Google has posted pretty impressive gains, while MSN has lost marketshare.
Apple now has 50% marketshare on the desktop and Microsoft will be bankrupt in a year. OpenOffice.org has knocked MS Office revenues down 90% YOY....Geee, I guess it is kind of fun making stuff up.
1) Taking the word of a CEO of a company that isn't too fond of Red Hat's actions, and has made other statements about Red Hat to the press lately similar to this, isn't exactly smart.
2) It could be taken either way. If Red Hat is growing but not investing enough in their support infrastructure to support that growth, then Red Hat IS doing good simply because they are growing. However, if they are cutting their infrastructure and not growing, then they are just being pricks.
But yeah, unless this is coming from someone else other than Larry Ellison, I'm not going to bother even reading the article.
No need to be a complete asshole. You aren't a people person, are you?
I never said that Intel CPU's wouldn't work. Since your ability to read between the lines is either severely impaired or completely lacking, I'll spell it out for you. In my experience, Intel CPUs are noisy and not as fast as their AMD counterparts...hence the reason why AFTER seeing how the Mini makes absolutely no noise, and way less than my old AMD boxes, and is one of the fastest computers I have owned, I am actually quite happy with it. Sorry for not making this more clear so that people like you could understand what I was saying. Did you need a diagram as well?
I have to say I am very impressed with the Core Duo on my Mac Mini (1.66 GHz). For a long time I would only buy AMD, but with a Mac I don't really have a choice. But after hearing how quiet this thing is, and seeing how it flies, I'm happy it has a Core Duo in it.
Why in a much uglier form? The non-educational iMac comes with a high-end Radeon PCI-e (can't remember exact model number), and from the outside, it looks identical. The Intel Graphics chip is completely suitable for me though (using my new dual-core mini that arrived yesterday). In-fact, two days ago I was using a Sawtooth 400MHz/G4 with ATI Rage Pro 128 (16MB) and it still worked for most of my needs, the mini just flies for me.
Don't ever buy a Vaio, period. Sony's desktops are absolute junk (I owned one), so I'm scared to think what their laptops are like.
Actually, the motto is Don't Be Evil.
http://investor.google.com/conduct.html
Naw, Canada isn't trying to pass laws against net neutrality, there have never been any laws against it here in the first place. I have 2 broadband providers in my area. Shaw interferes with their customers' VOIP traffic, unless you are using Shaw's VOIP service. Telus recently blocked access for ALL of their customers to the union website while their employees were on strike.
No, more along the lines of my computer is not my life, and I just want to use it to do things. It's a tradeoff, either use a Mac with the chip, or use something else without the chip. Frankly, I don't care enough to waste money and time switching to something else that I won't enjoy as much, and that chip isn't enough for me to not buy my new mini, as I enjoy using Macs. Sorry if that is too difficult for you to understand, but I can't think of any way to state it more simply so you are capable of understanding. It isn't a matter of logic or illogic, it is a matter of me simply not caring whether there is a TCP chip in my computer or not. If I was arguing that TCP was GOOD for privacy, then it could be viewed as an error in logic, but caring or not caring is a matter of priorities, not logic. It isn't illogical to not give a shit about something.
The issue may be important enough to you that you don't want to use or buy a Mac. Great, buy something else. Be my guest. But I don't want someone "making me" answer for my choice in computer, as the original poster implied, as that would annoy me, which is all I was trying to point out to the original poster. Sorry if that flew over your head.
I just took issue with his "make them" statement, as it generally annoys me when people try to force their views on me, and I'm sure most other people feel that way. If I don't care and don't want to hear about it, don't talk to me about it. Make Steve Jobs, Make Bill Gates and make whomever runs Intel deal with it, but don't bug me about something I couldn't give two shits about. That's all I was saying to him.
"And the best thing of all - how many distros let you surf the web while you're installing them?"
SimplyMEPIS, Knoppix, Kanotix, to name a few. And they've done it for far longer than Ubuntu has done it....in-fact, I did a Knoppix install while browsing Slashdot before Ubuntu began to exist.
So? I used DOS from 1990-1993, switched to Windows 3.1, have used Windows 95, 98, 2000 and XP since, and have now switched to a Mac. Should Microsoft be shitting bricks right now? I think not. How does two people have nothing better to do with their time but to write about why they switched products make this any different? Of course they have valid reasons for doing so, as did I. Of course this is going to happen, Apple has been making computers since the 80's (or earlier?), and there are many people who have used them since the 80's. Anyone who thinks SOME people aren't going to switch eventually (or thinks some longtime Windows or Linux people aren't going to switch) is delusional. My mom has driven Toyota's all of her life, and just recently bought a GM. Does this mean Toyota is going down?
Just a slow news day is all.
Have you ever thought that they simply don't care (like myself), and that by making them, you're not making them face the facts, but merely annoying them?
The way I look at it, I bought PPC Apple computers, I paid Apple for the hardware and software, and I liked the computers. Now Apple has switched to even faster Intel processors, so they have added the Trusted Computing chip in order to lock OS X into their systems, it's a tradeoff. I get the "big brother chip", but I get much faster computers. I read Slashdot, am fully aware of what Apple is doing, and tomorrow my new Intel Mini arrives from FedEx, because I simply don't care.
I doubt it. I had my whole family and some friends using Firefox, and I suggested Linux, and they said "Does Firefox run on that?"
The masses don't go and browse through the Mozilla website and learn about the development methology of Open source software. They hit the front page, see a download link for what looks like an ordinary application, they quickly check for the price, are happy when it is freeware (in their mind at least), and they use it. I've even had someone ask me once if Firefox came bundled with Spyware.
So yeah, I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that the masses learn that there are alternatives to Windows by downloading Firefox, but my experiences are far from it. They couldn't tell the difference between it, Opera, Maxthon or (for some people) Internet Explorer if their life depended on it. They simply don't care enough to want to find out.
Even better.
http://search.msn.com/
Less than 1% of the Google employees that came from Microsoft would start a hostile takeover of a company who's founders and CEO own well over 50% of the voting power??? I sincerely hope you were kidding, and a bunch of people clicked insightful by accident instead of funny.
OK, fine, take that part of my comment off (haven't gone to bed yet actually, but you were pretty close). My point still stands that the original poster was way off base about Google fixing the IE problem, that was done by groups like Mozilla and Opera (primarily Mozilla, as they gave Microsoft a good swift kick in the ass and made them fix their browser). Google jumped on board after the ball had already started rolling, and still aren't doing the majority of the work, so why he praised Google for work others are doing baffles me.
My point also still stands that Google is not exactly challenging Microsoft's monopoly. Google has been in the search market much longer than Microsoft as MSN search is still fairly new, so if anything, Microsoft is challenging Google with MSN Search (and doing a shitty job at it in my opinion). Google isn't much of a challenger to Microsoft with any other products (they may be better, but other than online mapping, Microsoft has a higher marketshare for all of them).
And last but not least, my point still stands that Google is simply not going to displace Microsoft (or probably even Yahoo! for that matter), or swoop in and save the industry from Microsoft. Google needs to make products that actually compete with Microsoft's cash cows (Windows and Office) before they can even begin to think of displacing them. Google clearly realizes this based on their public statements, but everyone around here seems to think that Microsoft has been dealt a deathblow by Google. Microsoft's revenues and profits continue to climb, and they still have extremely high marketshares for both of their core products, and any drop in those marketshares have been done by the likes of OpenOffice, Apple and Linux, NOT Google.
Why would you pay Google to use Adsense? Or are you thinking of Adwords?
Ummm, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Google the only major search engine who fought the Government over their subpoena, instead of bending over and taking it up the ass like the other search engines did? Of course, you could go back to AT&T, all they do is feed all of your data directly to the NSA ;-)
What exactly are you going on about? How did Google fix the problem with IE stagnating and pissing off users? Mozilla did, yes, as did Opera, Safari and others. Google has never made a browser before, so I fail to see how Google helped fix the browser problem one bit, except for funding Mozilla AFTER Firefox already began to become popular. And why exactly are you grouping together Google and open source....Google may help fund a few projects, but every single piece of software they make for consumers is proprietary, and also generally for non-commercial use only.
I like a lot of Google's products, but seriously, quit making them about to be some savior of the tech industry that is going to take down "M$" (what a stupid acronym btw) and save the customers from their evil grip. They're a bloody search engine that also makes a couple of nifty web apps that next to no one actually uses (with the exception of Earth and Gmail), except for some of the people who worship the company. I wouldn't be surprised if the company is bankrupt in 10 years from mis-management, as they seem to have little to no control over their employees (the senior guys admitted as much recently) and they're throwing away money on stupid projects that are never going to make them a dime, and just sit there on their web servers not being used.
Of course, Gmail, Earth, News, Calendar and Google Search rock, but who the hell needs Google Spreadsheets? Do they honestly think it is going to make them any money? At least Ask.com is around and well for if Google implodes under its own weight...about the only thing that would be hard to move away from would be Calendar and Gmail.
I just re-read my comment and realised it was a lot more rude than I intended it to be, so I apologize for that.
I have heard that Google has very very very very strict hiring guidelines, and a lot of overly qualified people still don't make the cut there, unlike at their competitors.
That is kind of odd though about their questions for managers....
His arguement is that Google is using Gmail to gather info on their users for advertising purposes. So if you're signed into Google while using their search engine, they can use your search query, search history, gmail records, calendar records, etc to more precisely target ads to you. I'm not sure how you missed that, he said it pretty clearly.
On a CPC model, how exactly is Google making money from page loads? You do realize that people actually have to CLICK Google's ads for them to even make a dime, right?
Driving directions rarely show ads on Google Maps, so they aren't making a dime. Hell, a lot of Google's services LOSE money, such as Google News, which doesn't show any advertising whatsoever.