Mini Mac: Hit Or Miss?

[MajesticTreeFrog 0]

So, what do people here think of the mini mac. Having taken the plunge and purchased an ibook a while back(and loved it dearly ever since), I hope these things are successful. That being said, what do you think? Something you want to get?

[Dizasta 0]

I haven't seen too much of this but Apple has continued to prove its prowess as a designer of classy consumer computer electronics and if that is anything to go by then I expect the Mini Mac to be a success.

[meself88 0]

The mini mac will probably do well within the already established mac "community" or loyal following. I have never used a mac, or at least one of the recent ones, but it seems that whoever use them really like them. The Mac "news" doesn't really get out very well because acccording to the computer techies at places like anandtech and pcstats apple's PR department is very difficult to work with. Am I still correct that Macs only have one mouse button? That would irritate me for sure, but a lot of people can stand it. According to apple's web site, it has a G4 processor (IBM architecture, i think) which is plenty fast, and up to 1GB of RAM (which is not as much as many computers these days.) The only thing is that it has a "dedicated video processor" which happens to be an ATI Radeon 9200. It does seem to be lacking in the video department, especially considering apple mainly focuses on the media crowd. It would be good as a stylish office machine or college computer, but most of those roles are filled by Microsoft almost completely, and since Apple will only work in proprietary technology, it seems to me like the mini mac will be probably a success, but not a huge one like the dual G5s in the PowerMac (these have been used extensively in video game development (anybody heard of Halo 2??)).

[ouachiski 0]

who cares, what is the point unless you live in a mini house, or a travel trailer.

[Brian1405241474 0]

 

The Mac "news" doesn't really get out very well because acccording to the computer techies at places like anandtech and pcstats apple's PR department is very difficult to work with.

You're right Mac news doesn't get out much, as I can tell by your post. Let me correct you a bit:

Am I still correct that Macs only have one mouse button?  That would irritate me for sure, but a lot of people can stand it. 

Apple's mouse only has one button, but supports a two button mouse quite nicely, including spell checking of all text.

 

 

According to apple's web site, it has a G4 processor (IBM architecture, i think) which is plenty fast, and up to 1GB of RAM (which is not as much as many computers these days.)  The only thing is that it has a "dedicated video processor" which happens to be an ATI Radeon 9200.  It does seem to be lacking in the video department, especially considering apple mainly focuses on the media crowd.  It would be good as a stylish office machine or college computer, but most of those roles are filled by Microsoft almost completely, and since Apple will only work in proprietary technology, it seems to me like the mini mac will be probably a success, but not a huge one like the dual G5s in the PowerMac (these have been used extensively in video game development (anybody heard of Halo 2??)).

Yes, it won't be as good as the G5, it's only an entry level machine and I think it should do very well at introducing people to the Mac. It will also make a nice second ("or third or fourth," as Steve said) computer for Mac users. Would work well in the family room to play DVD's record TV, play MP3's, etc... It's very portable. I've already thought about clustering:

 

 

I think Apple has done well.

[meself88 0]

supports a two button mouse quite nicely, including spell checking of all text.

I don't follow you there.
What I am trying to say is this:
I do not believe the 'mini mac' will recruit any new people for Apple. It does not seem to have much over say a Shuttle lan box. It will be good for those Mac users that are already loyal to Apple, as you said, for a secondary type computer. The only reason I would even consider a Mac over a PC would be if I was doing a lot of video and 3d developing work (That processor architecture is a beast for it). It certainly will not make it in the enthusiast department, and I don't see what advanteges in portability it has over a laptop, unless you want to use it for lan parties, but with only that Radeon 9200 it wouldn't be very powerful in that market either, especially since there are some games that won't run on Mac OS. Apple's main fault, in my mind, is there strict mindset of 'apple hardware' must run 'apple software' (OS). I didn't particularly care for Mac OS last time I experienced it, and with absolutely no problems with Windows XP and lack of PR from Apple, I wouldn't have even known the mini mac existed unless I had stumbled across this thread. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be anti-Apple here, because I'm not. I would certainly consider an Apple especially if they would let me choose to put Windows on it.
Clustering sounds like neat idea, though. With such a small size you could build a relatively powerful cluster in a fairly small area. Only thing there is that you could take some of those Shuttle cases with AMD 64Bit processors, run a 64bit Linux or Unix kernel, and be able to support a much more flexible (if hard to work with) environment. (<-- I wouldn't wan't to do that. The macs sound like a better idea.)
It's small, but you have to at least have room for the monitor unless it is on a TV. At least from my point of view, the size was developed solely for aesthetic purposes. Still, I find it amazing they could put all that in that tiny box.

[kevlar557 0]

I honestly don't like the mini. I need something that I can't accidentally sit on at a LAN party. In my house, I would probally lose it among the mice, and extra keyboards laying around my room. Like everyone else said, it probally won't get more people to go over to the mac side.

[Mastermund 0]

This is definately a miss. You could easily get something better from Dell when you take advantage of one of their deals, which occur regularly. If you want an Apple, sure, this'll work. But if you just want a computer, this won't work. Why would I pay more for a box I can't open up, for which I can't replace the CD/DVD drive, I can't put anything more in, that includes only 5 ports, and that doesn't include a keyboard, monitor, or mouse? If I wanted to play DVDs, I'd but a DVD player. If I wanted to record TV, I'd buy a TiVo. If I wanted to play MP3s, I'd buy speakers.

[pixelsmack 0]

I would love a mac however the price has always put me off, however if you can get a G4 for less than £400 (in the UK) i want it. Its a great idea to open macs up to the masses. Apple seems like it can't lose at the moment with whatever it does with the success of the iPod people will be wanting desktop systems by them now so this is the natural extension to the product line.

[intelboy 0]

MAC is really better, but, dont forget that uncle bill also owns part of intel, Intel Architecture + Mircrosoft, is the most "published" and standarized PC.Also DONT FORGET AMD USES INTEL ARCHITECTURE (IA32 - IA64 - I386 - ETC).The explnation is on "comercialization" issues..Intel and Microsoft cahnnels, keep all resellers world wide, with a product of them on the stores, as MAC is only on "selected" sotres

[Brian1405241474 0]

I don't follow you there. 

What I am trying to say is this:

I do not believe the 'mini mac' will recruit any new people for Apple.  It does not seem to have much over say a Shuttle lan box.  It will be good for those Mac users that are already loyal to Apple, as you said, for a secondary type computer. 

I agree with you on that one for the most part. I don't think the Mac mini will recruit any switchers, but those that are deciding to try a Mac because they love their iPod will find it easier to buy a Mac because now they have a more "dell-priced" option. And they can use their old keyboard, mouse, and monitor and only have to buy a new CPU. The Mac mini (I believe) is more to accommodate for switchers, rather then create them.

 

Apple's main fault, in my mind, is there strict mindset of 'apple hardware' must run 'apple software' (OS).  I didn't particularly care for Mac OS last time I experienced it, and with absolutely no problems with Windows XP and lack of PR from Apple,

Apple's "mindset" is that they are trying to make a good overall system. Mac OS X is awesmone. I like Apple's machines. They have something to be desired and aren't for some one who like building custom PC. I don't know the last time you look at Mac OS, but if you are talking about Classic, I can understand why you didn't like it. Mac OS X is SO much better!

 

I wouldn't have even known the mini mac existed unless I had stumbled across this thread. 

Well it was introduced on Tuesday!

 

Clustering sounds like neat idea, though.  With such a small size you could build a relatively powerful cluster in a fairly small area. 

Yes this is the picture of my idea:

 

 

 

At least from my point of view, the size was developed solely for aesthetic purposes.  Still, I find it amazing they could put all that in that tiny box.

I agree with you: The size of the mini, I think it was mostly for the look and it does look cool. But it should be pretty portable. You brought up some great points, great talking with ya'.

[meself88 0]

I visited the link you gave me on Mac OS X 10.4(?) Tiger. I'm not so sure I would like it. The way I think is so structured that I can't stand the thought of not being able to see the directory trees in a search. All of the images it found were placed in some kind of temporary folder for viewing, instead of listing the directory of each one. (That could be completely wrong, because the video was not too clear to me.) It seems like it feels about like the X11 system in Linux, using desktops like twm or xfce, but with the power of KDE. I bet I could get used to it if I used it. There is just something comforting about the 'start' menu being the place to go if you want to open something, it is quick and efficient. I can also do without safari (note that I don't use IE either). Firefox is so powerful. iChat is a very good idea, but you'd have to have a whole corporate office of Macs, which doesn't seem very likely considering most corporate database and office programs are limited to Windows, Linux, or IBM's OS (which I think can communicate with Windows pretty well. Automator is an extremely good idea. Batch files can do the same thing pretty much but you have to be a good programmer. For a non-programmer Automator could save a lot of time. VoiceOver: Windows XP has had that capability for quite some time. Parental controls: can easily be accomplished by only giving kids access to one account on a windows computer; ownership of files prevents the kids from accessing anything in a personal folder in any other account, which includes 'my documents' and the desktop. .Mac sync--windows xp pro will do it, windows xp home will not. Quick Time--Apple compiles an .exe binary! And it doesn't come with quick time pro? Yep, I was right, it says Mac OS is 64 bit UNIX based.

 

The Mac OS X 10.4 definitely looks more user-friendly than windows, but I haven't seen Longhorn, yet, either. Still OS X came out a while ago so they've got a one up on Microsoft there. Windows just feels so powerful if you know what you are doing. I guess it is just because I've used windows for so long.

Apple's "mindset" is that they are trying to make a good overall system. Mac OS X is awesmone. I like Apple's machines. They have something to be desired and aren't for some one who like building custom PC. I don't know the last time you look at Mac OS, but if you are talking about Classic, I can understand why you didn't like it. Mac OS X is SO much better!

I was not trying to particularly refer to Mac OS X exclusively. It's that Mac hardware is designed to run only Mac software. An Intel or AMD based computer will run just about anything under the sun, and Windows just happens to be the most popular. Even in the hardware realm, it is so easy to upgrade a PC, but a Mac will only accept Mac parts, correct? Or at least that was Apple's original mindset, maybe it has changed, but that was what threw Apple out of the running with Microsoft and Intel and AMD and IBM etc... Microsoft is so much more successful because Windows runs on Dell, Gateway, Alienware, Sony, IBM, Falcon-NW, Micron, or any other PC manufacturer you can think of. Mac OS X only runs on Macs. That's what I meant by apple's mindset. The product may be clearly superior, but what the masses of people see is Windows, and that's what they're stuck to, because most people don't want to take the time to learn a new OS.

It's nice to finally find a forum with intelligible people to talk with, Brian.

[MajesticTreeFrog 0]

Why would I pay more for a box I can't open up, for which I can't replace the CD/DVD drive,  I can't put anything more in, that includes only 5 ports, and that doesn't include a keyboard, monitor, or mouse? If I wanted to play DVDs, I'd but a DVD player. If I wanted to record TV, I'd buy a TiVo. If I wanted to play MP3s, I'd buy speakers.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Maybe because most people don't wanna mess with replacing/messing with/dealing with any of this. They can buy this one product, and get a DVD player, computer, TiVo(with mythTV), and even stereo hook up for all your music. On top of that, as a computer, it doesn't get the endless viruses and spyware/adware and all that. And before anyone goes and says 'oh but all they have to do is run spybot + adaware + microsoft anti-spyware + blah blah and it will be fine', please remember that people hate having to deal with all that BS.

 

So, the reason people will buy it is because they get an attractive, multi-purpose, computer that doesn't have all the *BLEEP* that comes with windows. And let me tell you, there is a lot of BS that comes with windows. I am a switcher, and I now notice all the annoying things that I had slowly become numb to while using windows(programs crashing, extreme slowdowns, programs that can't play nice together, etc).

 

As for the dell's and such being better for the price, they aren't really. The appearance and the size and weight and the *silence* of the mini's operation are worth more to many(most?) people than 'it theoretically goes faster', especially if that 'faster' is quickly eaten by spyware and adware and other such crap.

 

The people who buy low end computers don't use them for gaming, they use them for productivity, for which this is more than adequate. If you aren't gaming and you need power, then you most likely are doing some form of content creation, for which the macs are better anyway AND come with the software. If that is what you are doing any price difference between the dell and the mini-mac is gone from the differences in software costs.

 

Finally, if the mini-mac is anything like my ibook it comes loaded with software not even advertised, such as quicken, which is of tremendous use to most people.

 

An Intel or AMD based computer will run just about anything under the sun, and Windows just happens to be the most popular. Even in the hardware realm, it is so easy to upgrade a PC, but a Mac will only accept Mac parts, correct?

An intel/amd based computer will run anything compiled for x86(and the OS you are running which is also compiled for x86). A mac will run anything compiled for PPC, and thier chips are made by IBM and Motorola. So, an intel/amd will run linux/windows/*BSD. A mac(ppc) will run macOS/linux/*bsd. Macs now also generally take 'standard' parts, just like PCs. However, the whole point of the mac is to have it be NOT NECESSARY to upgrade. The 'life cycle' of a windows PC is about 3 years. Macs I hear get between 5 and 8. I suspect its closer to five, but I can say that all the people I know with macs do indeed upgrade very infrequently(and not for lack of money).

 

And for those of you who love firefox(such as myself) there is a fully functional mac port. It works, thats what I am using right now.

 

In terms of windows being needed for the office, Macs have microsoft office as well. They have idenical functionality(for good or for ill).

 

Big database apps, as was mentioned, are usually cross platform because of unix running servers. Mac OSX runs on unix, which means those products work as well.

[Brian1405241474 0]

I visited the link you gave me on Mac OS X 10.4(?) Tiger.  I'm not so sure I would like it.  The way I think is so structured that I can't stand the thought of not being able to see the directory trees in a search.

I'm not sure what you're refering too, but I'm sure you could find a way to get the same sort of thing with OS X.

 

All of the images it found were placed in some kind of temporary folder for viewing, instead of listing the directory of each one.  (That could be completely wrong, because the video was not too clear to me.) 

I don't think I follow you there.

 

I bet I could get used to it if I used it.  There is just something comforting about the 'start' menu being the place to go if you want to open something, it is quick and efficient.

or you can use the Dock that has all you most used and open applications:

 

I can also do without safari (note that I don't use IE either).  Firefox is so powerful.

I think you'd like Safari. It is a GOOD browser. ( alot better than IE ) And Firefox is availbe for the Mac.

 

iChat is a very good idea, but you'd have to have a whole corporate office of Macs

iChat is also a AV IM client for AIM and I've heard that in the furture it will support Jabber so you can use it with any IM protocol.

 

Automator is an extremely good idea.  Batch files can do the same thing pretty much but you have to be a good programmer.  For a non-programmer Automator could save a lot of time.

Apple already has AppleScript wich is an awesome scripting language thats pretty easy to use, but when Automator come out then it will be easy for anyone to use. I'm excited for that.

  Yep, I was right, it says Mac OS is  64 bit UNIX based.

yes, you are right!

 

The Mac OS X 10.4 definitely looks more user-friendly than windows, but I haven't seen Longhorn, yet, either.

If Longhorn ever actually comes out...

 

Still OS X came out a while ago so they've got a one up on Microsoft there.  Windows just feels so powerful if you know what you are doing.  I guess it is just because I've used windows for so long.

It's that Mac hardware is designed to run only Mac software.  An Intel or AMD based computer will run just about anything under the sun, and Windows just happens to be the most popular. 

Mac hard ware can run any software written for it. It's just that no one writes an OS for a computer that has such a small market share and one company owns the computer and OS. I do believe there is a Linux version for the Mac.

 

  Or at least that was Apple's original mindset, maybe it has changed, but that was what threw Apple out of the running with Microsoft and Intel and AMD and IBM etc...  Microsoft is so much more successful because Windows runs on Dell, Gateway, Alienware, Sony, IBM, Falcon-NW, Micron, or any other PC manufacturer you can think of.  Mac OS X only runs on Macs.

again, no one makes compatible computers because of Apple's "monopoly" on the Mac. When Macs were more popular (in the 80's) companies made computers than ran Mac OS.

 

The product may be clearly superior, but what the masses of people see is Windows, and that's what they're stuck to, because most people don't want to take the time to learn a new OS. 

right, but Apple doesn't want to give up it's OS or hardware just do get a few more users. Apple's mindset is different. It's not like, say, Dell's. They could have more sales, but thats not what they are after.

 

It's nice to finally find a forum with intelligible people to talk with, Brian.

[MajesticTreeFrog 0]

  It's just that no one writes an OS for a computer that has such a small market share and one company owns the computer and OS.  I do believe there is a Linux version for the Mac.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, microsoft writes for mac, as do Adobe and macromedia and many other higher end content production companies. There are a couple of linux variants for the mac, the best known being yellow dog(which is rpm based like red hat). You can also use debian. And of course the 'compile your own' varients work just dandy.