If Apple's Mac Mini becomes a hit, HP, Gateway and others are likely to follow with their own miniature PCs. The Mac Mini measures 6.5 inches by 6.5 inches and stands 2 inches tall. This shot shows the top of the machine.
Look at the Mini Mac and then look at the other bricks! Apple succeeds because they make a product that combines form and function. The others fail because the combine clunky hardware and bad software with butt-ugly design.
There is a huge difference between the design of Apple and other manufacturers. As shown in the pictures, the Windows machines are ugly. Who would want to put a still large computer that looks like a football helmet in a kitchen? Very few people... Also, the Dell PC isn't that small. We have IBM's at work that are about the same size.
Windows units are limted on size by the massive amount of heat given off by Intel Prescott CPU's. Because of this, those units will be bigger, bulkier or contain have high speed fans.
Average users do not know that AMD now requires less power, generates less heat, and out performs Intel. If they did, companies could create smaller units with more whimsical designs.
I like the look of bigger and featured PCs. (Too much time in the navy I suppose!) Thus the Mini looks silly to me; I can't think of one reason to buy that over a laptop. I would love the new G5 except it has so few expansion bays. Perhaps Steve was so focused on the whole 8GB of mememory thing that he forgot the rest...
To be fair the Little PC model they show is mostly an industrial pc / industry specific computer. Take a look at their website first before you judge: <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.littlepc.com/" target="_newWindow">http://www.littlepc.com/</a>
"Apple succeeds because they make a product that combines form and function."
2.7% of market share is a success, eh?
Apple's "success" in the computer market rests solely on the backs of mere handfuls of loyal users. Apple would do well to cut their operations and stick to their IPods or some other device where they actually have a chance to compete.
The Mac Mini certainly have some grace, but the specs make any windows user laugh. What were seen on these pictures are not really what could be described at typical pcs... where are the shuttles and other small form factor pc's? Shuttle computers are about the size of a shoe box, with room to expand as well with almost standard components. They have fanless cooling system and are easy to mod. I reckon we won't see any commercial contenders to the Mini-Muc until the summer - but I can wait.
I have built >12 Shuttle boxes, both for home and business use, over the last few years. All of mine have fans and are varying degrees of quiet, but they are not silent. Just clarifying, Shuttle has good design, and their range of prices/chipsets/capabilities is very impressive.
The Little PC model wins hands down with functionality and features
Although that Little PC model isn't the most aesthetically pleasing, its functionality and features look the best.
If you look on their website - <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.littlepc.com/" target="_newWindow">http://www.littlepc.com/</a> - they have all kind of different models with different features like PCMCIA, compact flash, multiple lan ports, fanless, wireless and they even have one model where you can stick in a mini pci card. All with pretty decent cpus powering them.
They are more industry specific though their website states they serve industrial, commercial, scientific, government and military clients around the world.
LittlePC is TWICE the size! And it doesn't have proper 3d graphics
The 865GV shared memory chipset is, I think, pretty lousy at 3d compared to the ATI in the apple. The LittlePC is also DOUBLE the size. (half that space is probably heat sinks and fans). You'd better turn the volume up a lot to hear your music.
In order to have any functionality at all, the Little PC would have to be able to run software that I want to run. It cannot run one piece of software that I use, therefore, it has NO functionality to me, other than as a doorstop.
So, at $1,095 you get a box that has only a 24X CD Rom instead of a CD Burner/DVD ROM the Mac Mini gives, the same RAM as the Mini, same type of HD (3.5), and an ugly black box that is roughly twice as large - and you are still stuck runniing the most virus and spyware infected OS on the market - unless you run Linux, good for servers, but not ready for most home or business users. And at this price, you STILL don't have ANY software. The software that comes bundled with the Mac is worth more than two of these boxes. And for the price of the Base machine you can get the Mini, a new keyboard and mouse and a good 21" flat-crt monitor.
Dell was very quick to push their CEO out in front of press as soon as Mac Mini debuted, to "denounce" the impact of the Switcher / Adopter / iPod Halo effect the Mini will have on the WintelDell monopoly PCs. TV is bombarded with new Dell 400-500 dollar (with rebates) PC ads after MacWorld Mac Mini...
But Nooooo... this is just a fad with no effect on the PC Industry.
Give it a year & Dell will copy Apple's Mac Mini & flood the media with their NEW "innovation" of Michael Dell's teenie-weenie PC.
You nailed it. Dell will, no doubt, roll out their own version of the Mac Mini. It will be cheaper with comperable features and net them a ton of cash. They seem to do that with everything.
Funny how you failed to notice that the Little PC, and other miniature Intel-based computers, have been around for years. They never caught on in the market with home consumers though. So I guess it's Apple who -- once again -- stole an idea from the PC world and hyped it up as their own Insanely Great Inovation! LOL.
None of the other boxes run Mac OSX! I don't buy Apple computers because they are more expensive and have inferior specs. Who would do that? I continue to buy them because they are superior overall machines. Superior reliability, superior tech support and most importantly, superior software. They just happen to look better too. Don't forget, a 1.25ghz G4 is about the same as a 1.8 P5. Plus I don't worry about viruses, spyware, and crashing every other hour.
Lastly, Apples "marketshare" may seem paltry to the non- educated, but consider this: Apple is the worlds 5th largest computer maker. HP is #1 (worldwide) with less than 25%. Dell is #1 in America with about 17% of the total market. Lastly, Apple is not only debt-free, but has over 5 billion in cash. They also allocate a superior percentage of their earnings to R & D. That's what makes them a better machine. So give up making computers? I don't think so. Apple is healthier now more than ever and the Mac Mini is going to elevate their marketshare to a "respectable" level. CEO's who go out of their way to dismiss a new products from the competition are ALWAYS doing so for a reason. And it's never good for their respective companies.
I have had only one experience, with a "book PC". Nice little mini-case PC, but the flaw in the design was the need for high-velocity airflow to make up for the small size of the case. Sounded like a vacuum cleaner running! I shredded it and built it into a mini-tower. Hopefully this is not a problem with other mini-case designs (?)
"Look, Apple has shown the way again! ... Make them smaller, and they will come!"
If you really think the attraction of a mini-Mac is its petite and cool design, then you can be grouped with the same class of "geniuses" who once believed the earth was flat.
Take out the monitor and keyboard of a sub-note. It will be far smaller than Mac mini. Why others can do it is because the cost and the price. No Tech secret here. What makes Mac mini different is really the design.
PC's have been getting smaller for a while. Sure they're not wrapped in shiny white plastic but they've been comparable in size to the mini for some time now. People build them for entertainment center PC's or even as an ultra-portable frag box for a LAN party. Apple isn't innovating anything here. They're just giving it a face-lift.
Macs have closer to 4% new computer sales in the US. They have a much larger percentage of installed users, because they are usable longer.
In Austrailia, Macs have at least 25% of sales, and expected to grow to a third.
By quoting the 2.7% myth, anti-mac'ers want you to believe Apple is a marginal company - the smallest sellign computer company. They are marginal like BMW or Mercedes are marginal - they sell a robust amount of premium systems. They are the third largest computer seller worldwide behind Dell and HP. That would be like BMW or Mercedes being third behind General Motors and Nissan.
i have no problem with macs; i think they're decent machines and with very good aesthetic designs, but a lot of mac users are seriously like religious zealots... why do mac users have to keep insisting on telling everyone how much better macs are? using a mac does not make you cool, get over it.
Personally, I would define a zealot as someone who fanatically clings to something causing anguish to him/her due to the 66,000+ virii/adware/spyware/bugs/ whatever... rather than even attempting to find out whatever else it is that might be available. A zealot is hardly someone that has tried all available options, then settled on the one that worked best for them.
I've always felt that macs were painfully slow and inefficient compared to PC's, although it's certainly true that PC's require more tweaking. after a brief look at OSX, and after hearing all the hype about how fast the new G5's are, I talked my employer into getting me a G5 instead of a PC when he was buying systems for the new office. I do web design, so I always have Photoshop, Dreamweaver and Flash open... and usually a browser as well.
I gotta tell you... I gave it a good try... really believed it was gonna be great... but I wasted almost 2 whole days trying to get things done on that slow machine. It amazes me that a brand new mac with all the bells and whistles still pauses for 1/2 second when you click the scrollbar to scroll down a page before anything happens... almost every visual element was slow to respond... flash animations that run at 30 fps on an old PC were clicking along at about 5 fps... that the only part of the graphics that seems to run smoothly is the toolbar at the bottom. The filing system is archaic and difficult to navigate and they still come with that lame old 1 button mouse!!! The interface on each program leaves empty space around the individual windows, so that if you accidentally miss a window edge when re-sizing, you are instantly transported to whatever other program is sitting behind it. And I really missed the toolbar that winXP has that shows you at a glance what programs are running and allows you to easily switch between them... to me that's more simple than alt-tabbing (which you can also do in windows if you prefer)
I agree with the person above who wrote that mac users seem to go for form over function.... I LOVE the look of the mac products, but I don't understand how any web professional could ever be truly productive on one of those things.
I know the mac crowd will rip me hard for this post... but I honestly gave it a try and really feel that the mac interface is inferior and there's no question that the mac is MUCH slower than even a 2 year old PC with 1/2 rhe ram (the G5 had 1 gig... my PC has 512 meg).
I simply can't believe a photoshop user would actually post this drivel. I have 2 G5's in the office and have tried to run photoshop on dual processor pcs but they just suck eggs. On the Mac's it runs flawlessly and quick.
It's funny how intel fan boys seem to be quite a bit more religiously defending the Intel world view on this forum.
As a mac OS X user since inception and a linux user since Slackware 1.0 (remember 30 floppies) - I have to say windows is a bloated, messy, virus, malware magnet with no redeeming qualities today.
I have Photoshop, Dreamweaver, and several other graphics applications that not only run well, but faster and cleaner than most PCs. I also have a Dual 2ghz dell, 1ghz dell, old micron, and a few other PCs.
I run the graphic applications on a G4 iBook, with less than a gig of ram. The fact is, either you had something wrong with you computer (and I HIGHLY doubt it), then you have just posted the biggest mess of lies I have ever seen.
Please, Could you post the flash movie that just ran so slow on your G5? Send a URL or something. I've been working with Flash for years on many Macs and have never experienced such issue. 5FPS vs. 30... Right... I have a dual 1.42 GHz G4 at work with 1 gig of RAM. Today I was running Photoshop, Illustartor, Maya, Cinema 4DR8, Entourage and Safari all at the same time. No kidding! Mac OS X didn't even hiccup. You are obviously full of it. Also, you actually expected to be fully operational with a brand new OS after 2 days??? That's funny! Did you learn Windows that fast? DOLT.
so basically, what you want me to believe, is that you ran the same software i am running right at this moment, (plus i have mail and iTunes running) on a G5, and it was slower to respond than my own experience on a G3 laptop?
go ahead, pull the other one, it has bells on it.....
Personally, I like the idea of having a Mac Mini. It's not because of it's size. It's not because of it's looks. It's because of it's affordability. The beauty of the entire package is... That Apple did not skimp on the quality of the internals. Even though form is just one selling point, I do not base my purchases on looks. The PCs that I build are not chocked full of Blue LEDs, Neon lights, Gussy paint, side window panes, useless displays, or the like. My machines are built for function. So drab tandy-beige or plain black is the norm here. The uneducated are mainly concerned with the look of the box. If looks were the only selling point, SUN workstations and servers wouldn't be the staple of most DataCenters and Development environments. Apple has done an extremely excellent job in the functionality area. Premium internal structure, and a Rock-solid OS, that's easy to use, and scrunch that into a tiny case... not just because of looks, but to remain economical... Hmmm I believe that the have the right formula. I bought the ibook G4 because it was sub $1000. I enjoy the OSX OS. The main selling point for the Mac Mini is to allow for people who always had an interest in MAC, but can't afford the expensive high end workstations, to have the opportunity to own one. I believe that a lot of people are open minded to the Mac Desktop, so I believe that it will be a tremendous success.
If you still haven't figured it out, its not the size of the mini-Mac that is its main attraction.
But if you just want to compare on design, and cost alone, you can futz around with the numbers all you want. Not Dell, HP, Compaq, IBM, LittlePC come close to comparing.
From an engineering standpoint, the miniMac is a marvel (as usual from Apple), my best friend (supported by angst from me) got his mini-Mac and took it apart.
I decided to check out the littlePC, on their web site. Guess what? For a base model, without even an operating system (OS), you will have to spend more than DOUBLE of what you would spend on a mini-Mac. If you don't believe me, here is the link to their price list: <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.littlepc.com/products_p4littlepc_pricelist.htm" target="_newWindow">http://www.littlepc.com/products_p4littlepc_pricelist.htm</a>
Look, wouldn't it be nice to have a computer that you spent more time using, than tweaking? Wouldn't it be nice to have an OS with a PROVEN track record of stability and security? Wouldn't it be nice to have a computer that integrates easily with you current equipment? Wouldn't it be nice to be able to use a computer with having any kind of training? Wouldn't it be nice to have a computer that came with all of the software you would use every single day? Wouldn't it be nice to have a computer the comes WITH a development environment? Wouldn't it be nice to have a computer that integrated all of its apps, but did not make them dependent on OS changes? Wouldn't it be nice if the computer worked for you, instead of you working for it? Wouldn't it be nice if there was a computer that anyone, from age 6 to 100+ could use? Oops ... forgot ... Apple built their company on that idea in the 1980s. Guess they just keep trying to improve upon it.
I happen to like Apple products (I'm even using one right now), but I can't stand it when Steve Jobs talks them up like Apple was the first company to think of them. He did it with the iPod, and he'll do it with every product they produce.
Go to www.mini-itx.com and look at the dates on the archives. Small PC (let's say x86 to include Windows, Linux, etc) have been pushing this concept since well before the Mac Mini (or G4 Cube, for that matter). And, of course, there's Shuttle's efforts ...
Just a thought ... oh, and for that matter, what is so revolutionary about a $500 computer with no monitor? I know it's a Mac, but I guess that's the point I'm making ...
steve jobbs also invented the concept of shuffling songs... it's really great. i can't believe no one else though of such a revolutionary concept... where would the world be without this shuffle concept? complete disarray i tell you!
Hey, use whatever gets the job done for you. If you like the looks of a Mac, enjoy the user experience, and feel that being a Mac user expresses something individual and hip about you, cool. Don't, however, let your pride in your chosen platform express itself as disdain for those that choose a PC. We all make purchase decisions that are in line with our individual needs. It's okay to "Think Different", but live and let live.
For PC users who are looking for a smaller form factor, there are a number of choices, some that marry form and function quite well. Whether they are better or worse than the Mac Mini is debatable by those with more time on their hands than me.
Shuttle PC <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://global.shuttle.com/Product/Barebone/brb_default.asp" target="_newWindow">http://global.shuttle.com/Product/Barebone/brb_default.asp</a> , for example, has a number of SFF (Small Form Factor) offerings that are far from ugly, some of which include liquid cooling and/or noise dampening. For those who appreciate the utility of the PC and the looks of the Mac Mini, it's worth a look.
Firends, I was incorrect about liquid cooling on the Shuttle PC. Actually, they use convection: a technology they are calling the "Heat Pipe". <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://global.shuttle.com/WhyXPC/Why_02_cooling.asp" target="_newWindow">http://global.shuttle.com/WhyXPC/Why_02_cooling.asp</a>
You wanna revolution? How about a miniture elegant box, with all software tools and power that any user can use starting out at $199? Maybe even $99? A Linux box with OpenOffice, Firefox and Thunderbird, anyone? I'm surprised the folks at Linspire and Lycoris were not already on top of that one. If they can partner with Lenovo, HP, Acer or Dell on the hardware end, they could conceivably compete with Apple MacMini and be available at everywhere you find a Walmart, Kmart, (fill in your fave)Mart, etcetera. Instead, watch Apple in five years transform from a computer company into an electronics entertainment company, providing content and hardware, very much like Sony.
I am just waiting for the return of the keyboard type PC boxes like the old Commodore 64, Amiga 500 or even Apple ][ with newer/better processors and Windows or MAC OS's. With custom microchips the way they are now... These systems would bring back some childhood memories and provide a common OS PC for the masses.
I have a homemade box at home w/ a 1.25 GHz AMD and 512 MB RAM. It seems to run Flash about the same as my G3 at work.
I am a Mac desktop support tech for a publishing company. Have experience w/ G5s aplenty. I'll take that same site down to one w/ 8 GB of RAM and see what happens.
I'll also try the url at home tonight to compare it on my AMD.
This is so stupid! We're talking about a computer! The emphasis should be on function but no, the emphasis is on STYLE!! This is how you know Apple has given up being known for performance! Oh, and you can't beat the arrogance of the macfanatics. It rivals the french!
First personal computer not in a kit - Apple First commercial implementation of GUI - Apple First commercial implementation of mouse - Apple First commercial implementation of 3.5" floppy - Apple First abandonment of outdated floppy technology - Apple First commerical implementation of Firewire - Apple First commercial implementation of wireless - Apple Best commercially viable implementation of UNIX w/GUI - Apple
There are MANY other innovations that Apple pioneered use of in commercially viable machines that anyone can use.
People who use Apple are very proud of their babies, as well they should be. Anyone who uses something that is underappreciated should cherish it. I love the Dreamcast for just that reason: I saw the beauty in the machine that many people missed.
However, suppose something you love goes mainstream. Now you're inviting the rest of the population (we'll call them "idiots" - no offense to anyone intended) to come over and play, as it were. Then things get dumber and things get simpler and the quality of life, on the whole, declines. That's not to say that OSX (or OSXI) will magically start sucking, but look at what happened to video games when they went mainstream. Now you can't turn around in a game store without tripping over the "next best thing" or "Doom meets Deus Ex meets Command and Conquer meets Pokemon."
As things go mainstream, the hardcore typically get left behind. No worries, though, I'll be right there to cry with you. I think us hardcore gamers and hardcore Mac-heads will have a lot in common if Apple goes mainstream (although it won't be the games - KIDDING).
Average users do not know that AMD now requires less power, generates less heat, and out performs Intel. If they did, companies could create smaller units with more whimsical designs.
2.7% of market share is a success, eh?
Apple's "success" in the computer market rests solely on the backs of mere handfuls of loyal users. Apple would do well to cut their operations and stick to their IPods or some other device where they actually have a chance to compete.
with 'basic' add ons
1Gb Ram
wi/fi
KEYBOARD AND MOUSE!!!! (optional??? *** apple, it's like 3 bucks)
80GB HDD
DVD-RW
and NO MONITOR!
$1,161.00
Dell Dimension 3000
1GB Ram
80 GB HDD
Free! Keyboard and mouse
17" Flat Panel
SB Audigy
Firewire
DVD RW
GB Ethernet
802.11 b/g
$1,099
Which, in fact is a rip off since Dell isn't offering free shipping.
I'll save the $75 and buy a machine I can upgrade later, vs. a cute box that can only be upgraded by an "Authorized Service Center".
Its still a box. A box dosen't really excite me.
Shuttle computers are about the size of a shoe box, with room to expand as well with almost standard components. They have fanless cooling system and are easy to mod. I reckon we won't see any commercial contenders to the Mini-Muc until the summer - but I can wait.
All of mine have fans and are varying degrees of quiet, but they are not silent.
Just clarifying, Shuttle has good design, and their range of prices/chipsets/capabilities is very impressive.
If you look on their website - <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.littlepc.com/" target="_newWindow">http://www.littlepc.com/</a> - they have all kind of different models with different features like PCMCIA, compact flash, multiple lan ports, fanless, wireless and they even have one model where you can stick in a mini pci card. All with pretty decent cpus powering them.
They are more industry specific though their website states they serve industrial, commercial, scientific, government and military clients around the world.
pretty lousy at 3d compared to the ATI in the
apple.
The LittlePC is also DOUBLE the size. (half that
space is probably heat sinks and fans). You'd
better turn the volume up a lot to hear your
music.
without a good OS. You have to try it to appreciate it.
to be able to run software that I want to run.
It cannot run one piece of software that I use, therefore, it has
NO functionality to me, other than as a doorstop.
80 Gig
HDD 3.5"
24X CD-ROM
256 RAM
So, at $1,095 you get a box that has only a 24X CD Rom instead
of a CD Burner/DVD ROM the Mac Mini gives, the same RAM as
the Mini, same type of HD (3.5), and an ugly black box that is
roughly twice as large - and you are still stuck runniing the most
virus and spyware infected OS on the market - unless you run
Linux, good for servers, but not ready for most home or
business users. And at this price, you STILL don't have ANY
software. The software that comes bundled with the Mac is
worth more than two of these boxes. And for the price of the
Base machine you can get the Mini, a new keyboard and mouse
and a good 21" flat-crt monitor.
Once again Apple outdoes the alsorans.
soon as Mac Mini debuted, to "denounce" the impact of the
Switcher / Adopter / iPod Halo effect the Mini will have on the
WintelDell monopoly PCs.
TV is bombarded with new Dell 400-500 dollar (with rebates) PC
ads after MacWorld Mac Mini...
But Nooooo... this is just a fad with no effect on the PC Industry.
Give it a year & Dell will copy Apple's Mac Mini & flood the media
with their NEW "innovation" of Michael Dell's teenie-weenie PC.
Funny how you failed to notice that the Little PC, and other miniature Intel-based computers, have been around for years. They never caught on in the market with home consumers though. So I guess it's Apple who -- once again -- stole an idea from the PC world and hyped it up as their own Insanely Great Inovation! LOL.
Nano-ITX form factor:
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.windowsfordevices.com/news/NS3090098124.html" target="_newWindow">http://www.windowsfordevices.com/news/NS3090098124.html</a>
computers because they are more expensive and have inferior
specs. Who would do that? I continue to buy them because they
are superior overall machines. Superior reliability, superior tech
support and most importantly, superior software. They just
happen to look better too. Don't forget, a 1.25ghz G4 is about
the same as a 1.8 P5. Plus I don't worry about viruses, spyware,
and crashing every other hour.
Lastly, Apples "marketshare" may seem paltry to the non-
educated, but consider this: Apple is the worlds 5th largest
computer maker. HP is #1 (worldwide) with less than 25%. Dell is
#1 in America with about 17% of the total market. Lastly, Apple
is not only debt-free, but has over 5 billion in cash. They also
allocate a superior percentage of their earnings to R & D. That's
what makes them a better machine. So give up making
computers? I don't think so. Apple is healthier now more than
ever and the Mac Mini is going to elevate their marketshare to a
"respectable" level. CEO's who go out of their way to dismiss a
new products from the competition are ALWAYS doing so for a
reason. And it's never good for their respective companies.
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://news.com.com/Dell+expands+lead+in+still-growing+PC+market/2100-1042_3-5540712.html" target="_newWindow">http://news.com.com/Dell+expands+lead+in+still-growing+PC+market/2100-1042_3-5540712.html</a>
and they will come!"
If you really think the attraction of a mini-Mac is its petite and
cool design, then you can be grouped with the same class of
"geniuses" who once believed the earth was flat.
What makes Mac mini different is really the design.
a much larger percentage of installed users, because they are
usable longer.
In Austrailia, Macs have at least 25% of sales, and expected to
grow to a third.
By quoting the 2.7% myth, anti-mac'ers want you to believe
Apple is a marginal company - the smallest sellign computer
company. They are marginal like BMW or Mercedes are marginal
- they sell a robust amount of premium systems. They are the
third largest computer seller worldwide behind Dell and HP. That
would be like BMW or Mercedes being third behind General
Motors and Nissan.
clings to something causing anguish to him/her due to the
66,000+ virii/adware/spyware/bugs/ whatever... rather than
even attempting to find out whatever else it is that might be
available.
A zealot is hardly someone that has tried all available options,
then settled on the one that worked best for them.
I gotta tell you... I gave it a good try... really believed it was gonna be great... but I wasted almost 2 whole days trying to get things done on that slow machine. It amazes me that a brand new mac with all the bells and whistles still pauses for 1/2 second when you click the scrollbar to scroll down a page before anything happens... almost every visual element was slow to respond... flash animations that run at 30 fps on an old PC were clicking along at about 5 fps... that the only part of the graphics that seems to run smoothly is the toolbar at the bottom. The filing system is archaic and difficult to navigate and they still come with that lame old 1 button mouse!!! The interface on each program leaves empty space around the individual windows, so that if you accidentally miss a window edge when re-sizing, you are instantly transported to whatever other program is sitting behind it. And I really missed the toolbar that winXP has that shows you at a glance what programs are running and allows you to easily switch between them... to me that's more simple than alt-tabbing (which you can also do in windows if you prefer)
I agree with the person above who wrote that mac users seem to go for form over function.... I LOVE the look of the mac products, but I don't understand how any web professional could ever be truly productive on one of those things.
I know the mac crowd will rip me hard for this post... but I honestly gave it a try and really feel that the mac interface is inferior and there's no question that the mac is MUCH slower than even a 2 year old PC with 1/2 rhe ram (the G5 had 1 gig... my PC has 512 meg).
We had to return the mac and get a PC.
-R
drivel. I have 2 G5's in the office and have tried to run
photoshop on dual processor pcs but they just suck eggs. On
the Mac's it runs flawlessly and quick.
It's funny how intel fan boys seem to be quite a bit more
religiously defending the Intel world view on this forum.
As a mac OS X user since inception and a linux user since
Slackware 1.0 (remember 30 floppies) - I have to say windows is
a bloated, messy, virus, malware magnet with no redeeming
qualities today.
applications that not only run well, but faster and cleaner than
most PCs. I also have a Dual 2ghz dell, 1ghz dell, old micron,
and a few other PCs.
I run the graphic applications on a G4 iBook, with less than a gig
of ram. The fact is, either you had something wrong with you
computer (and I HIGHLY doubt it), then you have just posted the
biggest mess of lies I have ever seen.
Now the question is, why?
your G5? Send a URL or something. I've been working with Flash
for years on many Macs and have never experienced such issue.
5FPS vs. 30... Right...
I have a dual 1.42 GHz G4 at work with 1 gig of RAM. Today I
was running Photoshop, Illustartor, Maya, Cinema 4DR8,
Entourage and Safari all at the same time. No kidding! Mac OS X
didn't even hiccup. You are obviously full of it.
Also, you actually expected to be fully operational with a brand
new OS after 2 days??? That's funny! Did you learn Windows that
fast? DOLT.
so basically, what you want me to believe, is that you ran the
same software i am running right at this moment, (plus i have
mail and iTunes running) on a G5, and it was slower to respond
than my own experience on a G3 laptop?
go ahead, pull the other one, it has bells on it.....
Even though form is just one selling point, I do not base my purchases on looks. The PCs that I build are not chocked full of Blue LEDs, Neon lights, Gussy paint, side window panes, useless displays, or the like. My machines are built for function. So drab tandy-beige or plain black is the norm here.
The uneducated are mainly concerned with the look of the box. If looks were the only selling point, SUN workstations and servers wouldn't be the staple of most DataCenters and Development environments.
Apple has done an extremely excellent job in the functionality area. Premium internal structure, and a Rock-solid OS, that's easy to use, and scrunch that into a tiny case... not just because of looks, but to remain economical... Hmmm I believe that the have the right formula.
I bought the ibook G4 because it was sub $1000. I enjoy the OSX OS. The main selling point for the Mac Mini is to allow for people who always had an interest in MAC, but can't afford the expensive high end workstations, to have the opportunity to own one. I believe that a lot of people are open minded to the Mac Desktop, so I believe that it will be a tremendous success.
that is its main attraction.
But if you just want to compare on design, and cost alone, you
can futz around with the numbers all you want. Not Dell, HP,
Compaq, IBM, LittlePC come close to comparing.
From an engineering standpoint, the miniMac is a marvel (as
usual from Apple), my best friend (supported by angst from me)
got his mini-Mac and took it apart.
I decided to check out the littlePC, on their web site. Guess
what? For a base model, without even an operating system (OS),
you will have to spend more than DOUBLE of what you would
spend on a mini-Mac. If you don't believe me, here is the link to
their price list:
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.littlepc.com/products_p4littlepc_pricelist.htm" target="_newWindow">http://www.littlepc.com/products_p4littlepc_pricelist.htm</a>
Look, wouldn't it be nice to have a computer that you spent
more time using, than tweaking? Wouldn't it be nice to have an
OS with a PROVEN track record of stability and security?
Wouldn't it be nice to have a computer that integrates easily with
you current equipment? Wouldn't it be nice to be able to use a
computer with having any kind of training? Wouldn't it be nice
to have a computer that came with all of the software you would
use every single day? Wouldn't it be nice to have a computer the
comes WITH a development environment? Wouldn't it be nice to
have a computer that integrated all of its apps, but did not make
them dependent on OS changes? Wouldn't it be nice if the
computer worked for you, instead of you working for it?
Wouldn't it be nice if there was a computer that anyone, from
age 6 to 100+ could use? Oops ... forgot ... Apple built their
company on that idea in the 1980s. Guess they just keep trying
to improve upon it.
computer with having any kind of training?"
ROTFLMAO!
That was good!
but I can't stand it when Steve Jobs talks them up like Apple was
the first company to think of them. He did it with the iPod, and
he'll do it with every product they produce.
Go to www.mini-itx.com and look at the dates on the archives.
Small PC (let's say x86 to include Windows, Linux, etc) have been
pushing this concept since well before the Mac Mini (or G4 Cube,
for that matter). And, of course, there's Shuttle's efforts ...
Just a thought ... oh, and for that matter, what is so
revolutionary about a $500 computer with no monitor? I know
it's a Mac, but I guess that's the point I'm making ...
For PC users who are looking for a smaller form factor, there are a number of choices, some that marry form and function quite well. Whether they are better or worse than the Mac Mini is debatable by those with more time on their hands than me.
Shuttle PC <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://global.shuttle.com/Product/Barebone/brb_default.asp" target="_newWindow">http://global.shuttle.com/Product/Barebone/brb_default.asp</a> , for example, has a number of SFF (Small Form Factor) offerings that are far from ugly, some of which include liquid cooling and/or noise dampening. For those who appreciate the utility of the PC and the looks of the Mac Mini, it's worth a look.
Instead, watch Apple in five years transform from a computer company into an electronics entertainment company, providing content and hardware, very much like Sony.
Sorry about seeming condescending.
I have a homemade box at home w/ a 1.25 GHz AMD and 512
MB RAM. It seems to run Flash about the same as my G3 at work.
I am a Mac desktop support tech for a publishing company. Have
experience w/ G5s aplenty. I'll take that same site down to one
w/ 8 GB of RAM and see what happens.
I'll also try the url at home tonight to compare it on my AMD.
You did say you were on a broadband connection?
First commercial implementation of GUI - Apple
First commercial implementation of mouse - Apple
First commercial implementation of 3.5" floppy - Apple
First abandonment of outdated floppy technology - Apple
First commerical implementation of Firewire - Apple
First commercial implementation of wireless - Apple
Best commercially viable implementation of UNIX w/GUI - Apple
There are MANY other innovations that Apple pioneered use of
in commercially viable machines that anyone can use.
However, suppose something you love goes mainstream. Now you're inviting the rest of the population (we'll call them "idiots" - no offense to anyone intended) to come over and play, as it were. Then things get dumber and things get simpler and the quality of life, on the whole, declines. That's not to say that OSX (or OSXI) will magically start sucking, but look at what happened to video games when they went mainstream. Now you can't turn around in a game store without tripping over the "next best thing" or "Doom meets Deus Ex meets Command and Conquer meets Pokemon."
As things go mainstream, the hardcore typically get left behind. No worries, though, I'll be right there to cry with you. I think us hardcore gamers and hardcore Mac-heads will have a lot in common if Apple goes mainstream (although it won't be the games - KIDDING).
I thought one of the "advantages" of using a Mac was that they were simpler and easier to use...