Hilarious! :) The Mac mini review @ Ars
- Thread starter T2k
- Start date
T2k said:
MasterBaiter
Regular
I'd say that's about spot-on!
The MacMini may be underpowered for the price, but for its size you'd be hard pressed to find a PC that can even equal it in power.(of course if there was a large interest for a PC that size it would exist and probably would be more powerful, but as of right now no major companies offer anything like that, except the woefully underpowered VIA itx systems)
Oh yeah, sorry, I have no sense of humor. So basically the mac mini is able to perform basic computing needs while not running windows?
Oh yeah, sorry, I have no sense of humor. So basically the mac mini is able to perform basic computing needs while not running windows?
Apparently you missed the whole story, fella...
Mac mini uses a one generation older CPU and sports 256MB memory for its base price, not to mention it's two generation older video hardware with ridiculous memory.
.
Sizewise it's small, yes - and that's it.
Apparently you don't really know the subject, so let me just stick to your comments: so you're saying it's great, despite it's painfully crippled hardware - apparently itwill be useless almost immediately, when Tiger arrives - etc because it's SMALL? Is this what you're saying?
Before you, ok, WE get too smart here: have you EVER used this kinda combo - 167MHz FSB G4 + 256MB + OS X - in your life?
Because I did. That's why I know the article is very true.
PS: FYI, your comment very much sounds the same way like your other comment on Intel: "AMD system needs to perform 50% better than an Intel system at 1/4 the cost." Careful with posting without clue...
Mac mini uses a one generation older CPU and sports 256MB memory for its base price, not to mention it's two generation older video hardware with ridiculous memory.
.
Sizewise it's small, yes - and that's it.
Apparently you don't really know the subject, so let me just stick to your comments: so you're saying it's great, despite it's painfully crippled hardware - apparently itwill be useless almost immediately, when Tiger arrives - etc because it's SMALL? Is this what you're saying?
Before you, ok, WE get too smart here: have you EVER used this kinda combo - 167MHz FSB G4 + 256MB + OS X - in your life?
Because I did. That's why I know the article is very true.
PS: FYI, your comment very much sounds the same way like your other comment on Intel: "AMD system needs to perform 50% better than an Intel system at 1/4 the cost."
Careful with posting without clue... Fox5 said:
Yes.
It'll serve you - unless you want to go crazy and start more application simultaneously because in that case you're simple f*cked, together with your $500+tax.
Which is BTW, enough for a maqgnitude faster AMD or Intel-based PC w/ doubled memory, doubled hdd, quadr. video memory etc.
MasterBaiter
Regular
If you deck it out with max memory, larger cpu, HD, & the super-drive.... you're right in the $1K range. The scary thing is people will definitlely snap up these warmed over dog-turds (it really is a good idea on Apples part though).
Yes it's really small, but do we need a desktop system to really be that small?
I'd say companies such as Shuttle have a better eye on the ball.... but as the review stated... many times all Joe-blow sees is that it's purdy.
-edit- If someone states their opinion clueless or not, it's not cool to make a personal attack on them. Grow up just a bit T2k
Yes it's really small, but do we need a desktop system to really be that small?
I'd say companies such as Shuttle have a better eye on the ball.... but as the review stated... many times all Joe-blow sees is that it's purdy.
-edit- If someone states their opinion clueless or not, it's not cool to make a personal attack on them. Grow up just a bit T2k
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.
Legend
Macs have always been about style over substance, as their marketing shows. They sell them as lifestyle products, not high end computing products.
They might have had an advantage at the beginning with an advanced UI for the OS, but that time is long gone, and is more than counterbalanced by the relatively small and expensive pool of software the Mac market has.
They might have had an advantage at the beginning with an advanced UI for the OS, but that time is long gone, and is more than counterbalanced by the relatively small and expensive pool of software the Mac market has.
I do believe many of these things will sell. There are many people who only need computers to do so much (email, surfing, word) and where more power isnt necessary. Might be as big a seller as their ipod line, time will tell.MasterBaiter said:
epic
I hope it sparks an idea in somebody to build a similar product for the PC, with a Pentium-m and an 'ok' video card.
T2k said:Apparently you missed the whole story, fella...
Mac mini uses a one generation older CPU and sports 256MB memory for its base price, not to mention it's two generation older video hardware with ridiculous memory.
.
Sizewise it's small, yes - and that's it.
Apparently you don't really know the subject, so let me just stick to your comments: so you're saying it's great, despite it's painfully crippled hardware - apparently itwill be useless almost immediately, when Tiger arrives - etc because it's SMALL? Is this what you're saying?
Before you, ok, WE get too smart here: have you EVER used this kinda combo - 167MHz FSB G4 + 256MB + OS X - in your life?
Because I did. That's why I know the article is very true.
PS: FYI, your comment very much sounds the same way like your other comment on Intel: "AMD system needs to perform 50% better than an Intel system at 1/4 the cost."
Stop putting words in my mouth, I'm just saying that if someone really wanted a PC this small they don't have much choice.
I think the computer is kind of cute and very unobstrusive. It could go in the kitchen right next to the toaster or just about anywhere you'd want to fit it.
And I do believe AMD would need to offer a far superior solution in order to take a substantial amount of Intel's market share in a short amount of time. What part there do you disagree with? Obviously the athlon 64 is not enough to do that as they've barely touched Intel's market share with it, so what do you disagree with? That AMD could take a large part of Intel's market share in a short amount of time at all? I proposed a greatly exagerrated situation that could possibly do the seemingly impossible.
arrrse said:I know some Graphic Designer types I'd like you to talk to...
urm...dont mention them please. their obsession with mac's is fucking annoying. i had few talks with some of them.... praising how great for _ANY_ kind of graphics it is...blah, blah......
then, when you check the specs on apple.com you get this :
that was THE END of any discussion about mac's for me.
not to mention fucking 1 button mouse.... thats like what....stuck in 1991?
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.
Legend
arrrse said:I know some Graphic Designer types I'd like you to talk to...
Mac graphic designers only need their graphic design programs for work, they don't play games, they don't use other software, or else they'd see how limited the software (without which the hardware is useless) is compared to the PC market.
Graphic designers (who often know little about hardware) still have this hangover about Macs. This is from the days when you could only get Quark Xpress or the like on Macs, and they had a very advanced OS and UI compared to MSDOS. They were a lifestyle choice, a declaration of style and proof that you were a creative maverick, not some dull data inputter. Macs had colour and a windows OS where DOS just had a command line. Macs were sexy, PCs were boring.
The graphic designers who hang onto this golden age of Mac computing are living in the past. They hang onto their niche subculture as show of their creative personna. They blind themselves to how far the PC has come in the last few years, for fear they might see the Mac Emperor has no clothes. Like the classic car enthusiast, they hark back to their golden days, discounting the problems and ignoring the strides taken by their competitors.
By turning the Mac into a marketing led lifestyle product, Apple neatly sidesteps the issue of hardware superiority or software choice. It's not about whether the Mac is slower or has more limited software choice - its about whether it looks good on your desk, whether it makes your friends think you are cool, whether it makes *you* think you are a style leader.
I've been an Amiga zealot, I've been part of that subculture, so I know where the Mac zealots are. I know how they want to stick with the machine that proclaims their individuality and style consciousness, their freedom from the boring Wintel behemoth.
When you are more interested in your software and how fast you can run it than how nicely the proprietry box is designed, then you start to see the Mac as what it is: an overpriced, underspecced, nicely styled lifestyle product with limited software choice.
Similar threads
