pure. sex.

[Entropy]

But I think this will appeal to an entirely new segment of users, mainly budget PC buyers who do basic tasks only and people (like my mom!) who can barely use a PC. I have heard a lot of talk of people who would not normally buy a Mac may spring for the $500 device. I see Apples marketshare growing a bit with this move.

I think you are bit too dismissive of the capabilities of the machine. I sit on a 17"FP iMac, with a 800MHz G4 and 1 GB of memory. It is fast enough for editing DV and photoshopping 250 MB image files. But it is still significantly slower than the Mac Mini. The only thing the mini can't really do is play the latest 3D-games. For just about everything else though, it's "enough". That's a difficult word when it comes to computer performance, for sure, but that's how I see it, and I do have first hand experience.

That's why I'm hesitatant to replace my Athlon XP 3200+ with a socket 939 now that I've seen the mini. The only thing that justifies that A64 is games, really. I could get a much smaller, quieter, cooler, cheaper, you name it, system in the mini, and hook it up to my 21" Sony + peripherals. Is PC gaming really that important to me? I can spare the 1500 bucks for the Wintel box innards, but do I really want to, just for gaming? Is it worth it considering my time constraints? It's a tough call.

 

[darkblu]

The SFF is bigger, but I never said it was smaller. If the ONLY reason to get a MacMini is size, then that is another issue. If you are comparing price, features, size, and expandability as a full PRODUCT, then yes, I am dead serious.

i just don't agree with the way you're comparing them. you sum up prices for a bunch of pc components to compare to the price of a complete consumer product, whose design impersonates its purpose of a consumer computing device. this just does not make sense to me.

iff you can produce a consumer device similar to the mini from all those pc parts you quote and still retain the price point - then you'd have a basis for comparison. personally for me the SFF does not cut it. by far. it's just the same ugly frankenstein the present pc is, alas somewhat minimised.

for me, the mini has the same appeal as a good console - it's a device whose design neatly meets the device's purpose. and one can clearly see the homogenity from a design following a purpose - that is the sex appeal for me. you can hardly get that from a platform as heterogeneous as the pc, neither in the hardware nor in the software. ok, so you can make a buldozer out of the pc frankenstein, and it may be cheap alright, but it will never be sexy. not in my eyes.

 

[Inane_Dork]

Am I the only one who:
1) Doesn't give a rip about the looks of a computer?
2) Thinks Apple's oft-touted designs have no real artistic merit to speak of?

You realise you're asking MS to cram everything into a box with half the volume of the Gamecube, yes? :?

After seeing how slim the PSTwo is is that too much to ask.

Um, yes?

The PSTwo is a specific attempt to reduce size given old technology. Xenon will not be that way whatsoever. The two are incomparable.

 

[PurplePigeon]

I think the Mac mini is better compared to devices like the Cappucino PC or Book PC rather than the Shuttle-style SFF's. I've seen these and similar machines used at reception in doctor's offices and the like.

Link: http://www.cappuccinopc.com/

 

[Dave Glue]

I can spare the 1500 bucks for the Wintel box innards, but do I really want to, just for gaming? Is it worth it considering my time constraints? It's a tough call.

So come May 2006, you've decided you won't upgrade to Longhorn?

The problem is as of right now, with XP you pretty much do only need to upgrade for gaming or specialized needs such as prepress or 3D work. Bear in mind Apple's now going to have 3 additional commercial releases of its OS with Tiger, whereas MS has given us a service pack in the same time frame. XP truly does look dated next to OSX 10.4, as it should considering the amount of development that's occurred in that timespan. MS has to really impress me with Longhorn - if they don't, then I might jump off the upgrade train as well (although I haven't really been on it the past few years). A Macmini2 + Xbox2 for gaming needs? Hmmm....I'll really miss than open hardware market though.

As for me however, I pretty much work on a G5 1.8 with 20" Cinema Display most days, and I find it quite slow at times compared to my XP2500 PC at home. OSX continually improves, and some of it is MS (Word 2004 is abysmal in the speed department), but there's still instances during the normal flow in a workday where the beachball/pinwheel makes an appearance, even just browsing with Safari (which Opera runs roughshod over in the speed department on my PC).

Still, overall I really enjoy OSX and will probably pick up a mini just to futz around with it at home.

 

[cthellis42]

But I do not think Apple is doing something that is unheard of in the PC world.

Of course not. They're just trying to bring out something previously unoffered in the MAC world. And something a lot of people complain about regarding Macs in general. Why be forced to pay for a monitor if you don't need one, or pay for components you're not going to use anyway, or be forced to pay a large amount just to get "a Macintosh computer?"

Now they're bringing one out that's affordable, no frills, and delivers enough to be "a Macintosh" for people who've been interested in trying it out... but not interested enough. Certainly a step in the right direction for them, but they'll never be able to offer the scope of the rest of the PC sector.

 

[Acert93]

I think you are bit too dismissive of the capabilities of the machine. I sit on a 17"FP iMac, with a 800MHz G4 and 1 GB of memory. It is fast enough for editing DV and photoshopping 250 MB image files. But it is still significantly slower than the Mac Mini. The only thing the mini can't really do is play the latest 3D-games. For just about everything else though, it's "enough". That's a difficult word when it comes to computer performance, for sure, but that's how I see it, and I do have first hand experience.

I disagree. "enough" is totally subjective. It may be enough for you, but I know a lot of casual PC users who require a lot more than what the Mac Mini is offering. With a 40GB HDD (and a whopping extra $100 for the 80GB HDD) there is not a lot of room on the system. My stock art collection for web design alone takes up more than 40GB. To put that in the real world, think about programs like PrintShop and Clip Art that a lot of consumers
buy. That stuff is very popular and takes up a lot of HDD space.

And lets look at those people who will use this--iPod type users. My brother has 10GB of MP3s from his CD collection and MusicMatch. I have friends with much more than that. With iPods with 40GB and 20GB drives selling well, a lot of users will obviously want to store music on the Mac Mini for backup. That 40GG HDD is going to fill quickly. And another area is digital cameras. I just got a nice digital camera 2 weeks ago that takes movies (and a fast 1GB SD card) and already have put a couple GBs of movies on my HD and at least a half GB of pictures. Everyone I know with a digital camera is similar--they store tons of pictures on their PC.

As for video editing, that not only requires HDD space, but it also requires RAM. 256MB of DDR333 RAM is not a lot--comparing your system with 1GB of RAM is an apples-to-oranges comparison.

Obviously you are very happy with your Mac, and I am glad! But I think when you get down to the nuts and bolts of what PCs are being used for today outside of gaming on one extreme and basic email/browsing/word processing on the other, a lot of it has to do with Music, Videos and video editing, and other media intensive tasks. With the small HDD and lack of fast RAM I think you are overestimating the Mac Mini for those type of tasks. Since this is aimed at PC users, how are they going to feel going from 48x and 52c CDRWs to a 24x?

I guess we will have to wait and see

The only thing the mini can't really do is play the latest 3D-games.

That is a big consideration for a lot of casual consumers. The casual consumer is not an avid gamer, but they do play new games here and there. And while in an ideal world everyone who wants to play games could have a Mac Mini, PC, console, etc... the fact the Mac Mini is a budget product. Not everyone has the money to buy a console, controllers, memory cards, and so forth AND a computer. It is nice to be able to do both on one device, especially among those with less cash.

 

[Acert93]

i just don't agree with the way you're comparing them. you sum up prices for a bunch of pc components to compare to the price of a complete consumer product, whose design impersonates its purpose of a consumer computing device. this just does not make sense to me.

And I think your definition of "sex appeal" it very narrow. Btw, those parts can all be purchased at this moment, and if someone did not have the time/knowhow you can purchase completes systems from Shuttle (or other SFF) makers directly. From this and your other comments, it seems you think the PC is to "broad" and not focused enough. But is that not the point of the PC? Flexibility and dynamic? If you can have the small size of the Mac Mini, with sleek looks (I know a ton of people who think SFF cases look awesome), but combind that with power, flexibility, expandability, and access to a massive software library--and games and media intensive tasks--well, I call that sexy. You do not. To each their own

...but it will never be sexy. not in my eyes.

That is ok. Just giving another impression. You think PCs/SFF are not sexy and never will be. Not everyone looks at it the same way as you do, and that is the point. That is why I said it was my opinion. I find it less sexy, for many reasons, than a SFF. Obviously consumer devices will appeal to different users. Some people hate the GCN box, others love it. Why? Because people place varying degrees of emphasis on varying aspects of a product. In the end the general public will decide if the product is good, and that will be spoken through sales. 12 months from now we will have a good idea how sexy and how useful consumers have found the Mac Mini.

Personally, I think it will be very successful among certain segments, especially Mac enthusiests who have been stuck using PCs because of price and possibly bargin savy shoppers who do basic tasks on the PC. I think among men and families with children who may want to play games it wont make much of a dent. In the big picture it will be a boom for Apple, but will only be a small blip on the radar in the industry. What comes AFTER the Mac Mini will be more interesting imo.

 

[Squeak]

Jobs doesn't believe in upgrades.

He can make more money by having you buy new units, not upgrades.

That is why it's a closed design with little or no upgradability.

Jobs didn't believe in networks or OOP either.

People know about expandability from PCs and they wonder why their iMac can't do that.

I'm not talking about bringing over expandability hell from the PC. There has to be a middle road where the hardware manufacturer controls power expansions and a new current spec is released "when it's time". A bit like consoles, only more frequently and less expensive.

 

[wazoo]

I just bought a low end Celeron DELL for my dad last fall. This MAC would have been perfect for him

 

[Snyder]

*sigh* If it only had component video out and SP/DIF out, this would make a great media hub. Especially the lack of SP/DIF is a decision I can't understand.

 

[Entropy]

Peripherals help.
I've had both scanners, the printer and an external HD connected to a FireWire hub, which in turn is connected to both the PC and the Mac. Why worry about the size of the internal HD, when I put all my scans on the external HD anyway, and burn them to DVDs for backup?
You need sound connectivity? There's external boxes around, from soundblasters and up. Et cetera.
A lot of niches can be filled this way. Not all of course. But many.
The problem are those areas that cannot be filled by external hardware, that is dependent on the the core abilities. The only such area I can see that is reasonably widespread is high-end 3D-gaming (i.e. not games like Sims/Sims2 where the real volume is.) A lot of people don't necessarily need that niche of gaming, or, pertinent here, fill that niche with a console, instead of buying and maintaining a high-end PC for the purpose.

Hell, I've rooted for Via Epia and the Eden platforms since I first saw them. Perfect for most offices, much more suitable than the P4s that hold that niche now. Horses for courses.

The mac mini is an example of an alternative evolutionary road for those that do not have wet dreams of SLI'ed 6800 Ultras. It is interesting to note here in the console forum in conjunction with the "many hundreds of Watts" quote regarding the XBox2. Where do we want to go, on the desk and in the living room? That's the question that the Mac mini poses, and it's an interesting one to consider, regardless of whether the mini fits your needs or not.

 

[Fox5]

Jobs doesn't believe in upgrades.

He can make more money by having you buy new units, not upgrades.

That is why it's a closed design with little or no upgradability.

Jobs didn't believe in networks or OOP either.

People know about expandability from PCs and they wonder why their iMac can't do that.

I'm not talking about bringing over expandability hell from the PC. There has to be a middle road where the hardware manufacturer controls power expansions and a new current spec is released "when it's time". A bit like consoles, only more frequently and less expensive.

Like RISC, a full transition to OOP never happened. It's better for some things, worse for others, so you see a mix of both.(RISC and CISC barely even exist anymore...RISC would be the Arm processors, and CISC...maybe the cpus in calculators?)

The only such area I can see that is reasonably widespread is high-end 3D-gaming (i.e. not games like Sims/Sims2 where the real volume is.) A lot of people don't necessarily need that niche of gaming, or, pertinent here, fill that niche with a console, instead of buying and maintaining a high-end PC for the purpose.

The sims2 requires a 3d card....

Hell, I've rooted for Via Epia and the Eden platforms since I first saw them. Perfect for most offices, much more suitable than the P4s that hold that niche now. Horses for courses.

Ew, way too underpowered for my tastes. Too bad there is no ITX form factor for athlons, amd cpus are available very cheap and can actually get better performance/power consumption levels than the via cpus.(underclock a mobile xp or 64, I believe hits sub 20w at around 800mhz)
BTW, AMD has that Geode thing. Not exactly high powered, but it's like $300, for the complete system, and I believe has an integrated memory controller. It actually uses the design of an old never released cyrix cpu. A centrino based PC would work well too.

 

[Fodder]

BTW, AMD has that Geode thing. Not exactly high powered, but it's like $300, for the complete system, and I believe has an integrated memory controller. It actually uses the design of an old never released cyrix cpu.

They have two lines of Geode (GX and NX), the first is the dead slow Geode chip AMD inherited, the second is an ultra-low-power Athlon XP which comes at 6W/667MHz, 6W/1GHz and 14W/1.4GHz.

 

[Fox5]

BTW, AMD has that Geode thing. Not exactly high powered, but it's like $300, for the complete system, and I believe has an integrated memory controller. It actually uses the design of an old never released cyrix cpu.

They have two lines of Geode (GX and NX), the first is the dead slow Geode chip AMD inherited, the second is an ultra-low-power Athlon XP which comes at 6W/667MHz, 6W/1GHz and 14W/1.4GHz.

Is it really athlon xp based? Hmm, that could be pretty good then, I hope they gave it a Barton core though and not a thoroughbred.(6W at 1Ghz I believe blows away everything VIA has)
I heard something about the geode having an integrated memory controller, does amd have any low end processors that do?

 

[Fodder]

The NX is a 130nm 256k L2 chip, so I'm guessing it's TBred-based, but it may actually be a separate core with some design tweaks to trade off MHz for power requirements. The GX is a ~1W ~500MHz chip with integrated memory/video/audio capabilities that AMD bought from National Semiconductor, and there's a fair bit of info on both hidden around AMD's Geode family site.

 

[Fox5]

The NX is a 130nm 256k L2 chip, so I'm guessing it's TBred-based, but it may actually be a separate core with some design tweaks to trade off MHz for power requirements. The GX is a ~1W ~500MHz chip with integrated memory/video/audio capabilities that AMD bought from National Semiconductor, and there's a fair bit of info on both hidden around AMD's Geode family site.

Hey, the GX could be a decent PDA chip. And it's x86 so it could run windows.