Yet more Mac Mini killers.
Edwin
priced less than a Mac Mini.
http://www.cybernetman.com/default.cfm?DocId=602
http://www.pcabusers.com/reviews/skyhawk/imc6375/p1.htm
Steve Travis
thanks for the info brah... I'm going to pick up one of these bad boys
right now....
Actually, no I'm not..
mmoore321
Thank you for this information. I have some questions for
clarification.
What make these "killers"?
Would someone looking to buy a mac-mini switch to these instead?
Can you explain how this would kill the Mac-Mini?
Could these be considered "Dell Killers", too. If I bought this I would
have not bought a Dell.
Isn't it funny the the last link is by a person using .Mac?
Do any of these boxes come with Mac OS X?
Do any of these boxes come with Windows XP?
Do any of these boxes come with GEOS? GEM?
Just askin'
Bob S
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
The ZPC has been advertised in PC Mag for a long time. I always thought
it was a pretty nifty concept. Finally saw one in a colleague's office
about a year ago. His secretary was lobbying for something else because
of the angle of the keyboard. Whatever.
Grug
None of these *look* as nice and cute as a Mac Mini.
I just unplugged my Mini today as I just simply don't have anything to
use it for at the moment. I mainly got it as a second computer and to
check out OSX (which I like).
I am using the monitor that I got for my mini as a second monitor for
my main box.
It's all about the apps.
-Grug
Alan Baker
> Small size, more power, better features, better upgradeability, yet
> priced less than a Mac Mini.
>
> http://www.cybernetman.com/default.cfm?DocId=602
This one isn't priced less.
>
> http://www.pcabusers.com/reviews/skyhawk/imc6375/p1.htm
This one isn't a system. It's a kit. And they don't mention the price
>
> http://www.susansjewelry.net/epox/epoxbare.htm
This one's not a system either.
>
> http://homepage.mac.com/bjepson/PhotoAlbum16.html
Nor is this.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
Dai Ichi
as a Mini. Having just replaced a dying Shuttle PC (running as a
Java-based server platform) with a Mini, I can truly attest to the
usefulness of the small size.
And the QUIET! The Mini simply just whispers along. I'm not thinking
of buying (rather expensive) Antec power supplies for my other servers
because that blasted Mini set a new standard for my home office.
C Lund
> priced less than a Mac Mini.
> http://www.cybernetman.com/default.cfm?DocId=602
Impressive, but it costs almost $200 more than the minimac, so it
won't appeal to the barrel-scrapers. Also, it doesn't run an OS that
is both user-friendly and (currently) free of malware.
> http://www.pcabusers.com/reviews/skyhawk/imc6375/p1.htm
> http://www.susansjewelry.net/epox/epoxbare.htm
Not bad. Small and really cheap. Don't seem to come with processors.
What framerates will they get for DOOM3? Sadly, they don't run an OS
that is both user-friendly and (currently) free of malware.
> http://homepage.mac.com/bjepson/PhotoAlbum16.html
Considering which OS the author of this page seems to favour, I don't
think this'll kill any macs.. ;)
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
Steve Travis
> On Mon, 02 May 2005 17:59:54 -0400, Steve Travis
> <steve....@gmail.com> The Gay cock sucking queer, wrote:
>
> wanker>Edwin wrote:
> wanker>> Small size, more power, better features, better
> upgradeability, yet
> wanker>> priced less than a Mac Mini.
> wanker>>
> wanker>> http://www.cybernetman.com/default.cfm?DocId=602
> wanker>>
> wanker>> http://www.pcabusers.com/reviews/skyhawk/imc6375/p1.htm
> wanker>>
> wanker>> http://www.susansjewelry.net/epox/epoxbare.htm
> wanker>>
> wanker>> http://homepage.mac.com/bjepson/PhotoAlbum16.html
> wanker>>
> wanker>Edwin,
> wanker>
> wanker>thanks for the info brah... I'm going to pick up one of these
> wanker>bad boys right now, milk they're sticky white love piss into my
> wanker>mouth.
>
>
> We *ALL* know what you like to do with "Bad Boys", there is no need to
> brag about it.
Oh oh...looks like I picked up a stalker along the way. You know, at
least you're trying to be amusing.
Good effort there young lady...
Snit
TIKdnXgFm-z...@comcast.com on 5/3/05 3:00 AM:
Just so you know... you responded to my forger.
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
Edwin
You misspelled 'sock puppet.'
Edwin
C Lund wrote:
> In article <1115070465....@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> > Small size, more power, better features, better upgradeability, yet
> > priced less than a Mac Mini.
>
> > http://www.cybernetman.com/default.cfm?DocId=602
>
> Impressive, but it costs almost $200 more than the minimac,
Only when you add in the price of a screen.
> so it won't appeal to the barrel-scrapers.
I'll take it you mean Mini Mac buyers.
> Also, it doesn't run an OS that
> is both user-friendly and (currently) free of malware.
Sure it does.
> > http://www.pcabusers.com/reviews/skyhawk/imc6375/p1.htm
> > http://www.susansjewelry.net/epox/epoxbare.htm
>
> Not bad. Small and really cheap. Don't seem to come with processors.
> What framerates will they get for DOOM3? Sadly, they don't run an OS
> that is both user-friendly and (currently) free of malware.
Sure they do.
> > http://homepage.mac.com/bjepson/PhotoAlbum16.html
>
> Considering which OS the author of this page seems to favour, I don't
> think this'll kill any macs.. ;)
Probably just keep their market share below 3%, eh? ;-)
Edwin
Alan Baker wrote:
> In article <1115070465....@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > Small size, more power, better features, better upgradeability, yet
> > priced less than a Mac Mini.
> >
> > http://www.cybernetman.com/default.cfm?DocId=602
>
> This one isn't priced less.
Yes it is. The price of that computer without a screen is less than
the price of a Mac Mini.
The bottom line is...
...you are wrong...
... Again! <G>
> >
> > http://www.pcabusers.com/reviews/skyhawk/imc6375/p1.htm
>
> This one isn't a system. It's a kit.
You have an incredible command of the obvious.
> And they don't mention the price
Yes they do. "Price: MSRP $270.00"
The bottom line is...
...you are wrong...
... Again! <G>
> > http://www.susansjewelry.net/epox/epoxbare.htm
>
> This one's not a system either.
What's your point?
> >
> > http://homepage.mac.com/bjepson/PhotoAlbum16.html
>
> Nor is this.
What's your point?
Steve Carroll
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
No shit.
--
"What makes you think I am interested in "winning" a discussion?" - Snit
Steve
Alan Baker
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> Alan Baker wrote:
> > In article <1115070465....@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Small size, more power, better features, better upgradeability, yet
> > > priced less than a Mac Mini.
> > >
> > > http://www.cybernetman.com/default.cfm?DocId=602
> >
> > This one isn't priced less.
>
> Yes it is. The price of that computer without a screen is less than
> the price of a Mac Mini.
>
> The bottom line is...
>
> ...you are wrong...
>
> ... Again! <G>
You mean the price of the one with no screen, only 128 MB or RAM, no
optical drive, no operating system...
>
> > >
> > > http://www.pcabusers.com/reviews/skyhawk/imc6375/p1.htm
> >
> > This one isn't a system. It's a kit.
>
> You have an incredible command of the obvious.
A kit is hardly going to sell to the sort of people who'd buy a Mac
Mini...
>
> > And they don't mention the price
>
> Yes they do. "Price: MSRP $270.00"
I stand corrected. I missed that.
>
> The bottom line is...
>
> ...you are wrong...
>
> ... Again! <G>
Say rather that you can't say that its price is less than a Mini's
because you aren't comparing the same things.
>
>
> > > http://www.susansjewelry.net/epox/epoxbare.htm
> >
> > This one's not a system either.
>
> What's your point?
>
> > >
> > > http://homepage.mac.com/bjepson/PhotoAlbum16.html
> >
> > Nor is this.
>
> What's your point?
That pointing to a *kit* and calling it a competitor (much less a
"killer") of a complete system is asinine.
C Lund
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> C Lund wrote:
> > > Small size, more power, better features, better upgradeability, yet
> > > priced less than a Mac Mini.
> > > http://www.cybernetman.com/default.cfm?DocId=602
> > Impressive, but it costs almost $200 more than the minimac,
> Only when you add in the price of a screen.
I couldn't find the price without the screen.
> > so it won't appeal to the barrel-scrapers.
> I'll take it you mean Mini Mac buyers.
No, that's not the minimac's intended target either.
> > Also, it doesn't run an OS that
> > is both user-friendly and (currently) free of malware.
> Sure it does.
No. It won't run OS X (natively).
> > > http://www.pcabusers.com/reviews/skyhawk/imc6375/p1.htm
> > > http://www.susansjewelry.net/epox/epoxbare.htm
> > Not bad. Small and really cheap. Don't seem to come with processors.
> > What framerates will they get for DOOM3? Sadly, they don't run an OS
> > that is both user-friendly and (currently) free of malware.
> Sure they do.
No, they won't run OS X (natively).
> > > http://homepage.mac.com/bjepson/PhotoAlbum16.html
> > Considering which OS the author of this page seems to favour, I don't
> > think this'll kill any macs.. ;)
> Probably just keep their market share below 3%, eh? ;-)
That remains to be seen.
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
Edwin
C Lund wrote:
> In article <1115139639....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> > C Lund wrote:
> > > > Small size, more power, better features, better upgradeability,
yet
> > > > priced less than a Mac Mini.
> > > > http://www.cybernetman.com/default.cfm?DocId=602
> > > Impressive, but it costs almost $200 more than the minimac,
> > Only when you add in the price of a screen.
>
> I couldn't find the price without the screen.
Click the orange box that says "BUY" in it.
> > > so it won't appeal to the barrel-scrapers.
> > I'll take it you mean Mini Mac buyers.
>
> No, that's not the minimac's intended target either.
It is in the Mac world. ;-)
> > > Also, it doesn't run an OS that
> > > is both user-friendly and (currently) free of malware.
> > Sure it does.
>
> No.
Sure it does.
> It won't run OS X (natively).
Irrelevant.
> > > > http://www.pcabusers.com/reviews/skyhawk/imc6375/p1.htm
> > > > http://www.susansjewelry.net/epox/epoxbare.htm
> > > Not bad. Small and really cheap. Don't seem to come with
processors.
> > > What framerates will they get for DOOM3? Sadly, they don't run an
OS
> > > that is both user-friendly and (currently) free of malware.
> > Sure they do.
>
> No,
Sure it does.
> they won't run OS X (natively).
Irrelevant.
> > > > http://homepage.mac.com/bjepson/PhotoAlbum16.html
> > > Considering which OS the author of this page seems to favour, I
don't
> > > think this'll kill any macs.. ;)
> > Probably just keep their market share below 3%, eh? ;-)
>
> That remains to be seen.
Keep dreaming... ;-)
Edwin
Alan Baker wrote:
> In article <1115139974....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > Alan Baker wrote:
> > > In article
<1115070465....@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> > > "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Small size, more power, better features, better upgradeability,
yet
> > > > priced less than a Mac Mini.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.cybernetman.com/default.cfm?DocId=602
> > >
> > > This one isn't priced less.
> >
> > Yes it is. The price of that computer without a screen is less
than
> > the price of a Mac Mini.
> >
> > The bottom line is...
> >
> > ...you are wrong...
> >
> > ... Again! <G>
>
>
> You mean the price of the one with no screen, only 128 MB or RAM, no
> optical drive, no operating system...
When you add in 512 MB of RAM, and an optical drive, the price is still
less than a Mac Mini. Linux is free.
> >
> > > >
> > > > http://www.pcabusers.com/reviews/skyhawk/imc6375/p1.htm
> > >
> > > This one isn't a system. It's a kit.
> >
> > You have an incredible command of the obvious.
>
> A kit is hardly going to sell to the sort of people who'd buy a Mac
> Mini...
What sort of people are those?
> >
> > > And they don't mention the price
> >
> > Yes they do. "Price: MSRP $270.00"
>
> I stand corrected. I missed that.
That's minor compared to the big picture you're missing. :-D
> >
> > The bottom line is...
> >
> > ...you are wrong...
> >
> > ... Again! <G>
>
> Say rather that you can't say that its price is less than a Mini's
> because you aren't comparing the same things.
Sure I am. I'm comparing a small, inexpensive PC to a small,
inexpensive (in Apple terms) Mac. The fact Apple won't let you save
with a BYO option doesn't mean we should ignore that advantage for PCs.
> >
> >
> > > > http://www.susansjewelry.net/epox/epoxbare.htm
> > >
> > > This one's not a system either.
> >
> > What's your point?
> >
> > > >
> > > > http://homepage.mac.com/bjepson/PhotoAlbum16.html
> > >
> > > Nor is this.
> >
> > What's your point?
>
> That pointing to a *kit* and calling it a competitor (much less a
> "killer") of a complete system is asinine.
No it's not.
The bottom line is...
... you are wrong...
... Again! <G>
Daiichi
>
>Alan Baker wrote:
.
.
>>
>> Say rather that you can't say that its price is less than a Mini's
>> because you aren't comparing the same things.
>
>Sure I am. I'm comparing a small, inexpensive PC to a small,
>inexpensive (in Apple terms) Mac. The fact Apple won't let you save
>with a BYO option doesn't mean we should ignore that advantage for PCs.
>
The point you are missing is that most people don't have computer
savvy nor the dismal social life you apparently have (since you seem
to have the time and knowledge to purchase computer parts and software
and integrate them into a stable, user friendly system).
Without having to learn the ins and outs of CPU's, memory,
installation, configuration, etc... anyone (even Americans :) ) can
purchase a Mac Mini and replace that aging Pentium II machine they
bought when Billybob was a baby--and be up and running without a
computer science degree.
Yeah, sure, some people will be disenfranchised with Apple's "sealed
box" paradigm--but I think the vast majority of computer users want to
MINIMIZE the "Build Your Own" theology of PC hackers. I build my own
PC's and I hate it (which is why a couple of days ago I tried a Mac
Mini to replace my failing Shuttle XPC).
So lower that upturned nose of yours and admit that there is a market
of people that would find a Mac Mini imminently more palatable than
either a ZPC, Epox, or BYO media PC.
>> >
>> >
>> > > > http://www.susansjewelry.net/epox/epoxbare.htm
>> > >
>> > > This one's not a system either.
>> >
>> > What's your point?
>> >
>> > > >
>> > > > http://homepage.mac.com/bjepson/PhotoAlbum16.html
>> > >
>> > > Nor is this.
>> >
>> > What's your point?
>>
>> That pointing to a *kit* and calling it a competitor (much less a
>> "killer") of a complete system is asinine.
>
>No it's not.
>
>The bottom line is...
>
>... you are wrong...
>
>... Again! <G>
Daiichi
I use XHOME to protect my email! (http://www.xhome.org)
Chad Irby
> Alan Baker wrote:
> > In article <1115070465....@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > http://www.pcabusers.com/reviews/skyhawk/imc6375/p1.htm
> >
> > This one isn't a system. It's a kit.
>
> You have an incredible command of the obvious.
>
> > And they don't mention the price
>
> Yes they do. "Price: MSRP $270.00"
...for a case (that's about ten times the size of the Mini) with no
processor, no RAM, and no drives.
Are you still pulling this sort of amateur shit, Edwin?
Edwin
Chad Irby wrote:
> In article <1115139974....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > Alan Baker wrote:
> > > In article
<1115070465....@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> > > "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.pcabusers.com/reviews/skyhawk/imc6375/p1.htm
> > >
> > > This one isn't a system. It's a kit.
> >
> > You have an incredible command of the obvious.
> >
> > > And they don't mention the price
> >
> > Yes they do. "Price: MSRP $270.00"
>
> ...for a case (that's about ten times the size of the Mini)
It has a case that is small, but not too small, like the Mac Mini.
> with no
> processor, no RAM, and no drives.
Gee, could that be why they call it a bare bones kit?
> Are you still pulling this sort of amateur shit, Edwin?
Welcome back, Chad. I'm sorry to see the years have not been kind to
you...
Jim Polaski
> C Lund wrote:
> > In article <1115070465....@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> > > Small size, more power, better features, better upgradeability, yet
> > > priced less than a Mac Mini.
> >
> > > http://www.cybernetman.com/default.cfm?DocId=602
> >
> > Impressive, but it costs almost $200 more than the minimac,
>
> Only when you add in the price of a screen.
When the Mini came out, you contended that folks had to buy a screen so
it would be more expensive. Now, you're acting different here.
>
> > so it won't appeal to the barrel-scrapers.
>
> I'll take it you mean Mini Mac buyers.
that would be YOUR assumption.
>
> > Also, it doesn't run an OS that
> > is both user-friendly and (currently) free of malware.
>
> Sure it does.
>
> > > http://www.pcabusers.com/reviews/skyhawk/imc6375/p1.htm
> > > http://www.susansjewelry.net/epox/epoxbare.htm
> >
> > Not bad. Small and really cheap. Don't seem to come with processors.
> > What framerates will they get for DOOM3? Sadly, they don't run an OS
> > that is both user-friendly and (currently) free of malware.
>
> Sure they do.
>
> > > http://homepage.mac.com/bjepson/PhotoAlbum16.html
> >
> > Considering which OS the author of this page seems to favour, I don't
>
> > think this'll kill any macs.. ;)
>
> Probably just keep their market share below 3%, eh? ;-)
It's not below 3% now.
>
--
Regards,
JP
"The measure of a man is what he will do while
expecting that he will get nothing in return!"
Tom Bates
You're more delusionally stupid( as others have said and now I must as
well agree with them) than anyone thought. You complain that the Mini
has no KB/mouse/monitor and is a bad deal since once *must* add these
things.
Then you post 3 systems as "mini-killers" which all need processors,
RAM, etc. One is even posted on a .Mac page(Which OS do you think that
author might be using?). Think Hard, very hard but don't hurt
yourself,much.
What a frickin tool you are.
--
Yours,
Tom
Edwin
Jim Polaski wrote:
> In article <1115139639....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > C Lund wrote:
> > > In article
<1115070465....@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> > > "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> > > > Small size, more power, better features, better upgradeability,
yet
> > > > priced less than a Mac Mini.
> > >
> > > > http://www.cybernetman.com/default.cfm?DocId=602
> > >
> > > Impressive, but it costs almost $200 more than the minimac,
> >
> > Only when you add in the price of a screen.
>
> When the Mini came out, you contended that folks had to buy a screen
so
> it would be more expensive.
When the Mac Mini first came out, I contended that it would be a good
replacement system that would allow its buyer to use their existing
monitor. Please stop making up lies about me. Thank you.
> Now, you're acting different here.
No, I'm not. You don't get to call the PC more expensive because you
added a screen to the PC but didn't add one to the Mac Mini.
> >
> > > so it won't appeal to the barrel-scrapers.
> >
> > I'll take it you mean Mini Mac buyers.
>
> that would be YOUR assumption.
Yes, Jim, that's my assumption of what he meant. Very good, you read a
sentence and got its meaning. Paste a gold star on your calender.
> > > Also, it doesn't run an OS that
> > > is both user-friendly and (currently) free of malware.
> >
> > Sure it does.
> >
> > > > http://www.pcabusers.com/reviews/skyhawk/imc6375/p1.htm
> > > > http://www.susansjewelry.net/epox/epoxbare.htm
> > >
> > > Not bad. Small and really cheap. Don't seem to come with
processors.
> > > What framerates will they get for DOOM3? Sadly, they don't run an
OS
> > > that is both user-friendly and (currently) free of malware.
> >
> > Sure they do.
> >
> > > > http://homepage.mac.com/bjepson/PhotoAlbum16.html
> > >
> > > Considering which OS the author of this page seems to favour, I
don't
> >
> > > think this'll kill any macs.. ;)
> >
> > Probably just keep their market share below 3%, eh? ;-)
>
> It's not below 3% now.
Prove it.
Edwin
How ironic that you call me "delusional stupid" before making your
following delusionally stupid statement:
> You complain that the Mini
> has no KB/mouse/monitor and is a bad deal since once *must* add these
> things.
I have NEVER called the Mac Mini a "bad deal" because one must add a
keyboard, mouse and monitor. I defy you to produce one quote of me
doing that.
I've called the Mac Mini a bad deal compared to PCs that give better
processors, better graphics chips, more RAM, more VRAM, and a bigger,
faster HD, for the same or less money.
> Then you post 3 systems as "mini-killers" which all need processors,
> RAM, etc.
The first system in my post (which you ignored) is a complete system.
The three you're bellowing about are barebones kits that are cheaper
than a Mac Mini even after you buy all the things to complete them.
I had to connect the dots for you. You're stupid enough to think I
meant to compare them to the Mac Mini as they stand.
> One is even posted on a .Mac page(Which OS do you think that
> author might be using?). Think Hard, very hard but don't hurt
> yourself,much.
Don't hurt yourself coming up with what OS he might be running on the
PC his page shows. Do you suppose he's the only guy in the world with
Mac OS X for the PC?
> What a frickin tool you are.
Does projecting your traits into me help to soothe your dark soul?
Chad Irby
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> Chad Irby wrote:
> > In article <1115139974....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Alan Baker wrote:
> > > > In article
> <1115070465....@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.pcabusers.com/reviews/skyhawk/imc6375/p1.htm
> > > >
> > > > This one isn't a system. It's a kit.
> > >
> > > You have an incredible command of the obvious.
> > >
> > > > And they don't mention the price
> > >
> > > Yes they do. "Price: MSRP $270.00"
> >
> > ...for a case (that's about ten times the size of the Mini)
>
> It has a case that is small, but not too small, like the Mac Mini.
No, for a case that's big enough to be a pain in the ass, but not small
enough to be worth the trouble, like most PCs.
> > with no processor, no RAM, and no drives.
>
> Gee, could that be why they call it a bare bones kit?
Well, *they* call it that, but (once again) you were pretending that it
was a "Mac killer" when all it was an empty case with an unpopulated
motherboard, for half the price of a Mac Mini. Once you fill it up with
drives and the rest, you have a more-expensive PC, that's several times
the size of the machine it was supposed to "kill."
> > Are you still pulling this sort of amateur shit, Edwin?
>
> Welcome back, Chad. I'm sorry to see the years have not been kind to
> you...
I'm not the one who pretended that an empty case was a "Mac Mini killer."
C Lund
> > > > > Small size, more power, better features, better upgradeability,
> yet
> > > > > priced less than a Mac Mini.
> > > > > http://www.cybernetman.com/default.cfm?DocId=602
> > > > Impressive, but it costs almost $200 more than the minimac,
> > > Only when you add in the price of a screen.
> > I couldn't find the price without the screen.
> Click the orange box that says "BUY" in it.
Why on earth would I want to do that?
> > > > so it won't appeal to the barrel-scrapers.
> > > I'll take it you mean Mini Mac buyers.
> > No, that's not the minimac's intended target either.
> It is in the Mac world. ;-)
No. It is not. Have you not been paying attention at all?
> > > > Also, it doesn't run an OS that
> > > > is both user-friendly and (currently) free of malware.
> > > Sure it does.
> > No.
> Sure it does.
Really. Which OS is that then?
> > It won't run OS X (natively).
> Irrelevant.
Not to people who want an OS that is stable, user-friendly, and free
of malware.
(snip repetition)
> > > > > http://homepage.mac.com/bjepson/PhotoAlbum16.html
> > > > Considering which OS the author of this page seems to favour, I
> don't
> > > > think this'll kill any macs.. ;)
> > > Probably just keep their market share below 3%, eh? ;-)
> > That remains to be seen.
> Keep dreaming... ;-)
Seen the future, have you?
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
C Lund
> > with no
> > processor, no RAM, and no drives.
>
> Gee, could that be why they call it a bare bones kit?
In which case it's no competition for the minimac.
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
C Lund
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> > You mean the price of the one with no screen, only 128 MB or RAM, no
> > optical drive, no operating system...
>
> When you add in 512 MB of RAM, and an optical drive, the price is still
> less than a Mac Mini. Linux is free.
But it's not user-friendly.
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
Chad Irby
C Lund <cl...@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> wrote:
> In article <1115147475....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > > with no processor, no RAM, and no drives.
> >
> > Gee, could that be why they call it a bare bones kit?
>
> In which case it's no competition for the minimac.
Oh, come on, you know how this works.
"Here's a Mac Mini killer, never mind that it's about the size of the
box the Mini came in, and I don't care that it's an ugly piece of
aluminum with no processor, drives of memory, or that you need to buy or
steal the OS for it, and you have to build the whole thing into
something resembling a system, meaning your own time is worth
effectively zero... it's a Mac Mini killer, because, er, the unpopulated
case costs half as much as a Mini, and is about half the size of a
standard PC case. But it comes with a remote for the DVD player if you
install one!"
I stopped coming here because of folks like Edwin who never seem to
remember the *hundreds* of times they posted and gotten called on insane
crap like the initial post, and when I drop in, I find that he's
actually gotten *worse*. You've got other folks who do nothing but
flame Mac advocates, then complain about the Mac guys for being upset,
people who still contend that the "current" version of Windows is stable
and secure if you do something unspecified and technical (which,
apparently, 90%+ of Windows installs can't manage), and (hard to
believe, but still in the wild) even more of the "90% of the market
means we're right" Pollyannas who don't notice that cheap isn't
necessarily "good."
neilnew...@hotmail.com
Edwin wrote:
> Small size,
Smaller than a typical PC, but nowhere near as small as the Mac Mini,
if that matters to you...
>more power,
When these SFF PCs actually happen to include the a CPU and the other
guts...
>better features,
If "less is more"...
>better upgradeability,
Good, because you'd have to "upgrade" some of them just for them to
function...so I guess the advantage here is that these offer a clear
upgrade path...
>yet
> priced less than a Mac Mini.
>
> http://www.cybernetman.com/default.cfm?DocId=602
>
> http://www.pcabusers.com/reviews/skyhawk/imc6375/p1.htm
For example, from the above:
Dimensions D12.2" x W7.9" xH7.2"
IOW, it's about 8x the size of the Mac Mini.
> http://www.susansjewelry.net/epox/epoxbare.htm
And if you can't trust a "Susan's Jewelry" PC, what can you trust?
> http://homepage.mac.com/bjepson/PhotoAlbum16.html
>From .mac, as others have already pointed out.
BTW, last year I actually looked at SFF PCs while talking to the folks
at the local independent PC parts/repair shop. For example, they had an
SFF case that included an FM radio, but you couldn't play the radio
when the PC was on! Pretty clumsy. And the whole box and ergonomics
were nowhere near what the Mac Mini offers. I notice the shop doesn't
sell those cases now, so maybe they flopped.
Another BTW: there is at least one maker of PC cases that has a case
near the size of the Mac Mini, but that PC case is really ugly and
again, much worse ergonomics too. Can't remember who makes that case,
but I've seen it on the web.
It's surprising to me that no PC maker is making a PC that has anything
near the style, elegance, and ergonomics of the Mac Mini.
neilnew...@hotmail.com
Chad Irby wrote:
> In article <1115147475....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > Chad Irby wrote:
> > > In article
<1115139974....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> > > "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Alan Baker wrote:
> > > > > In article
> > <1115070465....@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > > "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
(snip)
> > > ...for a case (that's about ten times the size of the Mini)
> >
> > It has a case that is small, but not too small, like the Mac Mini.
Now the Mac Mini is "too small?"
> No, for a case that's big enough to be a pain in the ass, but not
small
> enough to be worth the trouble, like most PCs.
Agree. Last year, I considered stuffing all the guts from my PC into an
SFF case, just to improve the looks and get something that would take
up less space and reduce clutter. But I decided the SFF PC cases just
aren't small enough to maker it worthwhile. Like so many things in the
PC world, the SFF cases look good if you only compare them to other
things in the PC world. If you compare the SFF PCs to the Mac Mini,
then you see what the PC makers are doing wrong.
> > > with no processor, no RAM, and no drives.
> >
> > Gee, could that be why they call it a bare bones kit?
>
> Well, *they* call it that, but (once again) you were pretending that
it
> was a "Mac killer" when all it was an empty case with an unpopulated
> motherboard, for half the price of a Mac Mini.
Could a dead PC be a "Mac killer?"
>Once you fill it up with
> drives and the rest, you have a more-expensive PC, that's several
times
...many times...
> the size of the machine it was supposed to "kill."
(snip)
> I'm not the one who pretended that an empty case was a "Mac Mini
killer."
Exactly.
And you're right about not wasting time on obvious trolls. Mea culpa.
Bill Riel
ci...@cfl.rr.com says...
>
> Are you still pulling this sort of amateur shit, Edwin?
>
Hey Chad, welcome back.
Oh, and yeah, Edwin's never stopped (save for the odd brief stint where
he leaves "forever").
--
Bill
Chad Irby
Bill Riel <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> In article <cirby-137FD9....@news-server1.tampabay.rr.com>,
> ci...@cfl.rr.com says...
>
> > Are you still pulling this sort of amateur shit, Edwin?
>
> Hey Chad, welcome back.
Thanks.
Kinda wanted to see how the Windroids were taking after the Mini. They
all completely missed the point. What a shock.
> Oh, and yeah, Edwin's never stopped (save for the odd brief stint where
> he leaves "forever").
You picked up a few new guys, though, at least there's some new blood.
Edwin
Chad Irby wrote:
> In article <1115147475....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > Chad Irby wrote:
> > > In article
<1115139974....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> > > "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Alan Baker wrote:
> > > > > In article
> > <1115070465....@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > > "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.pcabusers.com/reviews/skyhawk/imc6375/p1.htm
> > > > >
> > > > > This one isn't a system. It's a kit.
> > > >
> > > > You have an incredible command of the obvious.
> > > >
> > > > > And they don't mention the price
> > > >
> > > > Yes they do. "Price: MSRP $270.00"
> > >
> > > ...for a case (that's about ten times the size of the Mini)
> >
> > It has a case that is small, but not too small, like the Mac Mini.
>
> No, for a case that's big enough to be a pain in the ass, but not
small
> enough to be worth the trouble, like most PCs.
No, that's for a PC that has a small foot print without sacrificing
features or upgradeability.
> > > with no processor, no RAM, and no drives.
> >
> > Gee, could that be why they call it a bare bones kit?
>
> Well, *they* call it that, but (once again) you were pretending that
it
> was a "Mac killer" when all it was an empty case with an unpopulated
> motherboard, for half the price of a Mac Mini. Once you fill it up
with
> drives and the rest, you have a more-expensive PC,
That's still cheaper than a Mac Mini.
> that's several times
> the size of the machine it was supposed to "kill."
But it's still small enough to fulfill the purpose of having a small
computer, while killing the Mac Mini with its better features, greater
power, and cheaper price.
> > > Are you still pulling this sort of amateur shit, Edwin?
> >
> > Welcome back, Chad. I'm sorry to see the years have not been kind
to
> > you...
>
> I'm not the one who pretended that an empty case was a "Mac Mini
killer."
Neither am I. A barebones kit is not an "empty case."
Chad Irby
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> No, that's for a PC that has a small foot print without sacrificing
> features or upgradeability.
...like the "feature" of not having a working computer inside the case?
> > Well, *they* call it that, but (once again) you were pretending that it
> > was a "Mac killer" when all it was an empty case with an unpopulated
> > motherboard, for half the price of a Mac Mini. Once you fill it up with
> > drives and the rest, you have a more-expensive PC,
>
> That's still cheaper than a Mac Mini.
So is a cardboard box, but it's not a "Mini Killer" until you can
actually, you know, *do* something with it, like boot into an OS and run
apps on it. Kinda hard to do with the "kit" you pushed as a "Mini
Killer."
When you add all of the pieces, like the memory, processor, drives,
video card, and operating system, it's going to cost more than a Mini.
Hell, it's almost half the cost of a Mini *without* those things.
> > that's several times
> > the size of the machine it was supposed to "kill."
>
> But it's still small enough to fulfill the purpose of having a small
> computer, while killing the Mac Mini with its better features, greater
> power, and cheaper price.
It's not really "small." It's "smaller," but nothing like the Mini in
footprint or total volume. But you knew that. You were only off by a
factor of eight, though, you're getting better...
> > I'm not the one who pretended that an empty case was a "Mac Mini
> > killer."
>
> Neither am I. A barebones kit is not an "empty case."
So you're pretending that a nonfunctioning case with no processor, no
drives, no operating system and no memory is a "Mini Killer."
You *have* gotten worse...
Edwin
Chad Irby wrote:
> In article <clund-6F326A....@amstwist00.chello.com>,
> C Lund <cl...@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> wrote:
>
> > In article <1115147475....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > with no processor, no RAM, and no drives.
> > >
> > > Gee, could that be why they call it a bare bones kit?
> >
> > In which case it's no competition for the minimac.
>
> Oh, come on, you know how this works.
>
> "Here's a Mac Mini killer, never mind that it's about the size of the
> box the Mini came in,
So once again we have a MacDummy using the Mac as a baseline. Why
don't you explain why a computer absolutely MUST be the size of a Mac
Mini. Then explain why you've overlooked that it's not one small box,
it's a clutter of small boxes, when you add things you need, such as a
Firewire drive and a USB hub.
> and I don't care that it's an ugly piece of
> aluminum with no processor, drives of memory, or that you need to buy
or
> steal the OS for it, and you have to build the whole thing into
> something resembling a system, meaning your own time is worth
> effectively zero... it's a Mac Mini killer, because, er, the
unpopulated
> case costs half as much as a Mini, and is about half the size of a
> standard PC case. But it comes with a remote for the DVD player if
you
> install one!"
You're still raving about one of the options I presented in that post?
It just shows how much it bites Maccies' arses that they have no BYO
option.
Why is it you ignored following option?
http://www.cybernetman.com/defÂault.cfm?DocId=602
> I stopped coming here because of folks like Edwin
Well, at least I did some good for this group. ;-)
> who never seem to
> remember the *hundreds* of times they posted and gotten called on
insane
> crap like the initial post,
I haven't forgotten that kooks and oddballs such as yourself count
attacks and insults as a method of suppressing truths they can't
handle.
> and when I drop in, I find that he's
> actually gotten *worse*.
Kooks = 0.
Edwin = 1,000,000,000
You kooks haven't beat me yet, and you never will.
> You've got other folks who do nothing but
> flame Mac advocates,
Showing you choices in computers now counts as "flaming?"
> then complain about the Mac guys for being upset,
With good cause. You have to be out of your mind if being shown a
better computer for less money makes you "upset."
> people who still contend that the "current" version of Windows is
stable
> and secure if you do something unspecified and technical (which,
> apparently, 90%+ of Windows installs can't manage), and (hard to
> believe, but still in the wild) even more of the "90% of the market
> means we're right" Pollyannas who don't notice that cheap isn't
> necessarily "good."
The position of PC advocates has never been "cheap is good." That's
the way oddballs like you misstate their arguments so you can avoid
facing the truth.
What PC Advocates say is that the PC gives you more for less money than
a Mac, more power, more features, more options, more upgradeability,
more in every way that one can think of in what a computer provides.
neilnew...@hotmail.com
Edwin wrote:
> Chad Irby wrote:
> > In article <1115147475....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Chad Irby wrote:
> > > > In article
> <1115139974....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Alan Baker wrote:
> > > > > > In article
> > > <1115070465....@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > > > "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > http://www.pcabusers.com/reviews/skyhawk/imc6375/p1.htm
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This one isn't a system. It's a kit.
(snip)
> > > > >"Price: MSRP $270.00"
> > > >
> > > > ...for a case (that's about ten times the size of the Mini)
> > >
> > > It has a case that is small, but not too small, like the Mac
Mini.
Why is the Mac Mini "too small?" Even if you hang a lot of peripherals
off it, you'd still have a system that takes up less space than a SFF
PC. Obviously.
> > No, for a case that's big enough to be a pain in the ass, but not
> >small
> > enough to be worth the trouble, like most PCs.
A "case that's big enough to be a pain in the ass, but not small
enough to be worth the trouble" is exactly the conclusion I came to
when I looked at SFF cases last year.
> No, that's for a PC that has a small
...compared to other, bigger PC cases, but those SFF cases really can't
be compared to the Mac Mini's size...
>foot print
The footprint of the SFF PCs is also much bigger than the Mac Mini's,
and footprint is only a part of the size issue...
>without sacrificing
> features or upgradeability.
"Without sacrificing features or upgradeability" is (apparently)
another way of saying "you'll have to put hardware, OS, software, etc.
into the case to turn the case into a computer."
(snip)
> > Well, *they* call it that, but (once again) you were pretending
that
> it
> > was a "Mac killer" when all it was an empty case with an
unpopulated
> > motherboard, for half the price of a Mac Mini. Once you fill it up
> with
> > drives and the rest, you have a more-expensive PC,
>
> That's still cheaper than a Mac Mini.
Assuming that's true, who cares? Anyone who can afford a PC can afford
a Mac Mini, IMHO. For almost any product, there's almost always a
cheaper, competing alternative. There are PCs that are cheaper than the
Mac Mini. But that doesn't make those PCs more desirable than the Mac
Mini.
If I were a big PC maker, I'd be pushing a Mac Mini lookalike into the
stores ASAP. By a "Mac Mini lookalike," I mean something as small,
stylish, and with as good ergonomics (like the slide-in CD/DVD drive)
as the Mac Mini. The SFF PCs are nowhere close to the Mac Mini in these
areas. Having shopped SFF cases in the past, I know this.
(snip)
> But it's still small enough to fulfill the purpose of having a small
...well, smaller than the usual PC, but nowhere near the Mac Mini...you
might want to look up the Mac Mini's dimensions, or go see one in a
store...it really is much, much smaller...you could probably hide 8 Mac
Minis in a typical SFF PC case...
> computer, while killing the Mac Mini with its better features,
greater
> power,
Huh? Most of these SFF PCs you tout are just empty cases...
>and cheaper price.
When you look at the price of the case and forget everything else.
Again, you're missing the point of the Mac Mini and the advantages that
make it desirable. It's not huge and powerful because it's not meant to
be huge and powerful. It's a small computer meant to do what most
real-world computer users do most of the time, and do it in a
convenient, reliable, and affordable way. The cleverness of the Mac
Mini is that it fulfills an obvious function in a simple way.
(snip)
If you look at typical PCs, you're correct in stating that there are
boxes that cost less than the Mac Mini. That's no secret. What Apple is
doing with the Mac Mini is providing an alternative to the PC at a
competitive price, with new features (small size, ergonomics, etc.) and
traditional Apple advantages (OS, ease of use, security, service,
support, and reliability) not available to PC buyers.
(snip)
> A barebones kit is not an "empty case."
Either is just as useful to anyone who needs to use a computer.
Edwin
Anybody wants value for their money.
> Anyone who can afford a PC can afford
> a Mac Mini, IMHO.
As a replacement system, where you're using things from your current
computer. As a new system, a Mac Mini costs $1K and up, and is a poor
choice, even for someone who wants a new Mac.
> For almost any product, there's almost always a
> cheaper, competing alternative. There are PCs that are cheaper than
the
> Mac Mini. But that doesn't make those PCs more desirable than the Mac
> Mini.
Here's the thing you guys keep deliberately ignoring: the competing
PCs aren't just cheaper, they're more powerful, and give you lots more
hardware and more options.
> If I were a big PC maker, I'd be pushing a Mac Mini lookalike into
the
> stores ASAP. By a "Mac Mini lookalike," I mean something as small,
> stylish, and with as good ergonomics (like the slide-in CD/DVD drive)
> as the Mac Mini. The SFF PCs are nowhere close to the Mac Mini in
these
> areas. Having shopped SFF cases in the past, I know this.
The big PC makers have been selling SFF PC long before Apple released
the Mac mini. I've seen them in uses in offices, and the Mac Mini
offers nothing they haven't been giving already for years.
> (snip)
>
> > But it's still small enough to fulfill the purpose of having a
small
>
> ...well, smaller than the usual PC, but nowhere near the Mac
Mini...you
> might want to look up the Mac Mini's dimensions, or go see one in a
> store...it really is much, much smaller...you could probably hide 8
Mac
> Minis in a typical SFF PC case...
Why don't you explain why one absolutely must have a computer that's no
larger than a Mac Mini?
> > computer, while killing the Mac Mini with its better features,
> greater
> > power,
>
> Huh? Most of these SFF PCs you tout are just empty cases...
No they're not. What do you think a computer case is, a box with a
CPU chip rattling around loose inside?
> >and cheaper price.
>
> When you look at the price of the case and forget everything else.
That's not the price of a case. That's the price of a barebones kit.
> Again, you're missing the point of the Mac Mini and the advantages
that
> make it desirable. It's not huge and powerful because it's not meant
to
> be huge and powerful. It's a small computer meant to do what most
> real-world computer users do most of the time, and do it in a
> convenient, reliable, and affordable way. The cleverness of the Mac
> Mini is that it fulfills an obvious function in a simple way.
The PCs I've shown you do everything the Mac Mini is supposed to do,
but wtihout the sacrifices of the Mac Mini, while having more power,
more features, and more options. So I haven't missed the point at
all.
> (snip)
>
> If you look at typical PCs, you're correct in stating that there are
> boxes that cost less than the Mac Mini. That's no secret. What Apple
is
> doing with the Mac Mini is providing an alternative to the PC at a
> competitive price, with new features (small size, ergonomics, etc.)
and
> traditional Apple advantages (OS, ease of use, security, service,
> support, and reliability) not available to PC buyers.
You'll have to look at PCs from within the RDF to get that POV.
> (snip)
>
> > A barebones kit is not an "empty case."
>
> Either is just as useful to anyone who needs to use a computer.
Except that the PC costs less for more.
Chad Irby
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> Chad Irby wrote:
>
> So once again we have a MacDummy using the Mac as a baseline.
Actually, we have *you* using it as the baseline, since you were the one
obsessed with finding a "Mac Mini Killer." Which you didn't, of course.
> Why don't you explain why a computer absolutely MUST be the size of a
> Mac Mini.
It doesn't, but it would be nice to be within a moderate range of sizes,
and the "small" PCs really aren't that small.
> Then explain why you've overlooked that it's not one small box,
> it's a clutter of small boxes, when you add things you need, such as a
> Firewire drive and a USB hub.
I don't need those things. At worst, I could get the new drives that
are out there with a 200 gig FireWire HD and a USB 2.0 hub built-in,
which merely raises the Mini by a couple of inches (doubling the size,
but still keeping it to less than a quarter the size of the empty box
you were pushing, and half the footprint. Looks good, too, as opposed
to the tacky little boxes you tend to like so much.
> Why is it you ignored following option?
>
> http://www.cybernetman.com/defè‹”ult.cfm?DocId=602
Because it's not that interesting, and loses all of the normal things
*you* insist upon when talking about PCs, like expandability and ease of
repair. It's a proprietary machine (you normally *hate* that). It's
more expensive, too, once you add in the video card (to replace the
built-in shared video monstrosity) and get it up to scratch on RAM. I'm
sure it's going to be a hit among the corporate types who are looking
for something less bulky than standard Windows boxes, but it's just not
that compelling.
Not to mention, of course, that you're frantically trying to get us to
ignore the fact that you once again tried to sell the idea of a
cheap-ass PC with pieces missing as a full computer (the "empty box"
machine) in the other part of your original post.
> The position of PC advocates has never been "cheap is good."
Heck, it's one of *your* favorite concepts:
"Yet the PC is still cheaper than the Mac, even with that $15 floppy
drive included."
"How is it the Wintel makers can offer you products that can make use
of either 'mouse / no mouse' functions, yet still be cheaper than Apple
products?"
"As to why my company uses Windows, the answer is simple: Wintel PCs are
cheaper than Macs..."
"The PC is cheaper than the Mac..."
Of course, you always add in "but the PC is faster and better," but
that's just your opinion, and you neglect to mention that the faster
machines on the PC side aren't the cheap ones.
--
I don't have a lifestyle.
I have a lifeCSS.
Edwin
Chad Irby wrote:
> In article <1115225620.5...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > Chad Irby wrote:
> >
> > So once again we have a MacDummy using the Mac as a baseline.
>
> Actually, we have *you* using it as the baseline,
No, we don't. We have you doing that. That's what your insistance
that any computer must be no larger than the Mac Mini to be compared to
it means.
> since you were the one
> obsessed with finding a "Mac Mini Killer."
Obsessed? This is called "comparison shopping," not "obsession," my
confused friend.
> Which you didn't, of course.
Of course I did. You wouldn't be here having a sh*t hemorrhage if I
hadn't.
> > Why don't you explain why a computer absolutely MUST be the size of
a
> > Mac Mini.
>
> It doesn't,
Then why are you yelling about the PCs I showed you being larger?
> but it would be nice to be within a moderate range of sizes,
PCs are in a far greater range of sizes than are Macs. Everything from
SFF, to mid range, to full size. Plus form factors the Mac doesn't
come in, such as tablet, PDA, and ruggedized laptops computers.
> and the "small" PCs really aren't that small.
They're small enough.
> > Then explain why you've overlooked that it's not one small box,
> > it's a clutter of small boxes, when you add things you need, such
as a
> > Firewire drive and a USB hub.
>
> I don't need those things.
You assume the world revolves around you?
> At worst, I could get the new drives that
> are out there with a 200 gig FireWire HD and a USB 2.0 hub built-in,
It also raises the price of the Mac Mini enough to make you look very
foolish for having bought it.
> which merely raises the Mini by a couple of inches (doubling the
size,
> but still keeping it to less than a quarter the size of the empty box
> you were pushing,
I never "pushed" an "empty box."
> and half the footprint.
BFD. Why is the Mac Mini the baseline?
> Looks good, too, as opposed
> to the tacky little boxes you tend to like so much.
Not everybody accepts your definition of style and beauty, which is
"anything that Apple makes."
> > Why is it you ignored following option?
> >
> > http://www.cybernetman.com/defÂault.cfm?DocId=602
>
> Because it's not that interesting, and loses all of the normal things
> *you* insist upon when talking about PCs, like expandability and ease
of
> repair.
Obviously you did nothing more than look at its picture before spouting
off.
> It's a proprietary machine
No its not.
>(you normally *hate* that).
No I don't. I'll buy a proprietary machine if can be proved that it
holds enough advantages to offset the benefits that come from open
systems.
> It's
> more expensive, too, once you add in the video card (to replace the
> built-in shared video monstrosity)
The built-in video doesn't need to be replaced, it's just as good as
the Maci Mini's non-upgradeable video, especially for the tasks
relegated to it by Mac Advocates.
> and get it up to scratch on RAM.
Putting in 512 MB leaves its price still lower than that of the Mac
Mini.
> I'm
> sure it's going to be a hit among the corporate types who are looking
> for something less bulky than standard Windows boxes, but it's just
not
> that compelling.
No less compelling than a Mac Mini.
> Not to mention, of course, that you're frantically trying to get us
to
> ignore the fact that you once again tried to sell the idea of a
> cheap-ass PC with pieces missing as a full computer (the "empty box"
> machine) in the other part of your original post.
I did nothing of the kind. I showed you barebones kits, which are not
"empty boxes." I left it to the intelligence of the reader (which is
lacking in your case) to understand those kits need to be completed to
match the Mac Mini, and that completing them gives a price the same or
less than a Mac Mini.
> > The position of PC advocates has never been "cheap is good."
>
> Heck, it's one of *your* favorite concepts:
>
> "Yet the PC is still cheaper than the Mac, even with that $15 floppy
> drive included."
Has that been stuck in your craw all the years you were MIA?
> "How is it the Wintel makers can offer you products that can make use
> of either 'mouse / no mouse' functions, yet still be cheaper than
Apple
> products?"
Did you come up with an answer yet?
> "As to why my company uses Windows, the answer is simple: Wintel PCs
are
> cheaper than Macs..."
...yet they do everything a Mac can, and more.
> "The PC is cheaper than the Mac..."
... but has more power and more features.
> Of course, you always add in "but the PC is faster and better," but
> that's just your opinion,
No, that's easily proven facts, such as when I show you a computer with
double the RAM, four times the VRAM, a better graphic chip, twice the
HD size, and a 64 bit processor, for less than the price of a Mac Mini.
> and you neglect to mention that the faster
> machines on the PC side aren't the cheap ones.
Why would I want to mention that lie? Let Maccies be the ones who
tell that lie.
Edwin
Chad Irby wrote:
> In article <MPG.1ce28b388...@news.individual.net>,
> Bill Riel <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> > In article
<cirby-137FD9....@news-server1.tampabay.rr.com>,
> > ci...@cfl.rr.com says...
> >
> > > Are you still pulling this sort of amateur shit, Edwin?
> >
> > Hey Chad, welcome back.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Kinda wanted to see how the Windroids were taking after the Mini.
They
> all completely missed the point. What a shock.
When the Mac Mini came out, I was in favor of it. I still say that it
isn't bad for someone who needs a replacement Mac, and who doesn't have
large requirements beyond productivity software and being an iPod base.
Unless a PC owner is really determined to have a 'Mac sampler,' he has
no reason to buy a Mac Mini.
> > Oh, and yeah, Edwin's never stopped (save for the odd brief stint
where
> > he leaves "forever").
>
> You picked up a few new guys, though, at least there's some new
blood.
Sure, as long as you count Snit and all of his sock puppets as "new
guys."
Chad Irby
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> Why don't you explain why one absolutely must have a computer that's no
> larger than a Mac Mini?
With the price of office space nowadays, you'd pay for the Mini in
square footage alone.
Of course, "absolutely must" isn't the issue. "Great to have" is the
real one. I'm going to get a Mini for my office, and it's going to free
up a lot of room (effective zero space, since it's going into a spot on
my desk that you could never fit a small PC case into). It's going to
be much, much quieter, too (nearly silent, which you don't get with the
compact PCs and Intel processor cooling requirements).
When you get right down to it, you don't understand why the Mini is such
a great machine to have for this use. That's why you can't comprehend
why the (many times larger) PCs aren't suitable.
Chad Irby
> > Huh? Most of these SFF PCs you tout are just empty cases...
>
> No they're not. What do you think a computer case is, a box with a
> CPU chip rattling around loose inside?
Well, that's more than you seem to think they are (a box without a CPU
chip, drives, operating system, et cetera...)
Randy Howard
thor...@juno.com says...
> Obsessed? This is called "comparison shopping," not "obsession,"
> my confused friend.
It doesn't make sense, no matter what terms you apply to it.
The Mac Mini is not a serious competitor to current PC hardware,
it is about 3 year old technology, in a shiny plastic, albeit
tiny box. If you want such a thing, you buy one. To pretend
like it represents a threat to the PC industry is ludicrous.
To pretend that Apple has used it as a means to bring people
over to look at their product line for the first time in
years, if not decades, is far more tenable.
All of the handwaving about form factor, color, expansion,
etc. is besides the point. If you want a Mac, then the Mini
is on the list of things you'll be looking at. If you want
a PC, it won't.
If the cheapest PC in the market was $1000, and the Mac Mini
was still half that price, that wouldn't change the minds
of those that want, for whatever reason, a PC instead.
Similarly, despite the fact that PCs have generally been
much cheaper than Macs for decades doesn't seem compelling
to the Mac faithful to change their buying decisions either.
So, if you are shopping or a Mac, and price is *INCREDIBLY*
important to you, then the Mac Mini might be on your list.
If you have a desire for a current system, with some hope
of long-term usefulness, it probably isn't. One of the
very few excuses for still looking at a Mac Mini if the price
isn't the determining factor is if you really, really, really
need such a small form factor.
--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"If the evidence doesn't seem to fit a particular conspiracy theory,
just create a bigger conspiracy theory." --Robert D. Hicks
Edwin
Chad Irby wrote:
> In article <1115228114.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > > Huh? Most of these SFF PCs you tout are just empty cases...
> >
> > No they're not. What do you think a computer case is, a box with
a
> > CPU chip rattling around loose inside?
>
> Well, that's more than you seem to think they are (a box without a
CPU
> chip, drives, operating system, et cetera...)
What you've just said above is that when you remove the drives, CPU,
and OS from a computer, what's left is an "empty box," and that makes
you look quite foolish indeed.
Edwin
C Lund wrote:
> In article <1115142996.3...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> > C Lund wrote:
> > > In article
<1115139639....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > > > Small size, more power, better features, better
upgradeability,
> > yet
> > > > > > priced less than a Mac Mini.
> > > > > > http://www.cybernetman.com/default.cfm?DocId=602
> > > > > Impressive, but it costs almost $200 more than the minimac,
> > > > Only when you add in the price of a screen.
> > > I couldn't find the price without the screen.
> > Click the orange box that says "BUY" in it.
>
> Why on earth would I want to do that?
You're just playing, right? You're really not that stupid, are you?
> > > > > so it won't appeal to the barrel-scrapers.
> > > > I'll take it you mean Mini Mac buyers.
> > > No, that's not the minimac's intended target either.
> > It is in the Mac world. ;-)
>
> No. It is not. Have you not been paying attention at all?
How long to you think you have to stamp your feet and shout no,no, no
before it becomes untrue?
> > > > > Also, it doesn't run an OS that
> > > > > is both user-friendly and (currently) free of malware.
> > > > Sure it does.
> > > No.
> > Sure it does.
>
> Really. Which OS is that then?
There are several: Windows, Linux, BSD, Solaris, SkyOS, BeOS, etc.,
etc., etc...
> > > It won't run OS X (natively).
> > Irrelevant.
>
> Not to people who want an OS that is stable, user-friendly, and free
> of malware.
Sure it is. They have lots of choices besides Mac OS X, for that.
> (snip repetition)
>
> > > > > > http://homepage.mac.com/bjepson/PhotoAlbum16.html
> > > > > Considering which OS the author of this page seems to favour,
I
> > don't
> > > > > think this'll kill any macs.. ;)
> > > > Probably just keep their market share below 3%, eh? ;-)
> > > That remains to be seen.
> > Keep dreaming... ;-)
>
> Seen the future, have you?
Yes, and in the future, you're in a warm, cheerful place, with happy
creatures cavorting about with pitchforks...
Chad Irby
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> What you've just said above is that when you remove the drives, CPU,
> and OS from a computer, what's left is an "empty box," and that makes
> you look quite foolish indeed.
Hey, I'm not the one who tried to pass off a case that never *had*
drives, CPU, or OS as a "Mac Mini Killer."
Chad Irby
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> Chad Irby wrote:
> > In article <1115225620.5...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Chad Irby wrote:
> > >
> > > So once again we have a MacDummy using the Mac as a baseline.
> >
> > Actually, we have *you* using it as the baseline,
>
> No, we don't. We have you doing that.
The opening post in this thread was from *you*, not me.
Since the major selling aspect of the Mini is the size (hence the name
"Mini" - that's means "small," by the way), the baseline was *your*
idea. Most of your comments were on the line of "the other machines are
small enough," and you still can't manage to remember that *you're* the
one who established the "baseline..."
Chad Irby
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> Unless a PC owner is really determined to have a 'Mac sampler,' he has
> no reason to buy a Mac Mini.
...except for the size issue, the silence issue, the compatibility
issue, the lower energy costs, and all of the other stuff you keep
forgetting to list.
neilnew...@hotmail.com
Edwin wrote:
> neilnewsgro...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > Edwin wrote:
> > > Chad Irby wrote:
> > > > In article
> <1115147475....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Chad Irby wrote:
> > > > > > In article
> > > <1115139974....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > > > "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Alan Baker wrote:
> > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > <1115070465....@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > > > > > "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
http://www.pcabusers.com/reviews/skyhawk/imc6375/p1.htm
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This one isn't a system. It's a kit.
(snip)
>>>> you were pretending that it
> > > > was a "Mac killer" when all it was an empty case with an
> > >>unpopulated
> > > > motherboard, for half the price of a Mac Mini. Once you fill
it
> > > > up with
> > > > drives and the rest, you have a more-expensive PC,
> > >
> > > That's still cheaper than a Mac Mini.
> >
> > Assuming that's true, who cares?
>
> Anybody wants value for their money.
Sure. But ther may be other people whose idea of "value" is different
than yours.
> > Anyone who can afford a PC can afford
> > a Mac Mini, IMHO.
>
> As a replacement system, where you're using things from your current
> computer. As a new system, a Mac Mini costs $1K and up,
Huh? It's $499 and up. If by "system," you mean adding a keyboard,
monitor, mouse, etc., that'll cost something, exactly the same as with
your SFF PC.
If you were actually interested in the Mac Mini, you could possibly
spend "$1K and up." But you wouldn't have to.
> and is a poor
> choice, even for someone who wants a new Mac.
In your opinion. Although you're not a Mac customer, which may explain
why you don't grasp what the Mac Mini has to offer.
> > For almost any product, there's almost always a
> > cheaper, competing alternative. There are PCs that are cheaper than
> the
> > Mac Mini. But that doesn't make those PCs more desirable than the
Mac
> > Mini.
>
> Here's the thing you guys keep deliberately ignoring: the competing
> PCs aren't just cheaper, they're more powerful, and give you lots
more
> hardware and more options.
I'm not ignoring that at all. What you're not grasping is that the
elegance, compact size, simplicity of use, ergonomics, superior
service, support, and reliability are the Mac Mini's virtues, and for
many people these could outweigh whatever attractions the Wintel PCs
offer you.
> > If I were a big PC maker, I'd be pushing a Mac Mini lookalike into
> the
> > stores ASAP. By a "Mac Mini lookalike," I mean something as small,
> > stylish, and with as good ergonomics (like the slide-in CD/DVD
drive)
> > as the Mac Mini. The SFF PCs are nowhere close to the Mac Mini in
> these
> > areas. Having shopped SFF cases in the past, I know this.
>
> The big PC makers have been selling SFF PC long before Apple released
> the Mac mini.
If you looked at an SFF PC and/or really compared an SFF PC's
dimensions to the Mac Mini, you'd see that the SFF PCs are much, much
bigger than the Mac Mini. One of the reasons people are hanging Mac
Minis on the back of big LCD and plasma TV screens, installing Mac
Minis in cars, etc. is that the Mac Mini really is much, much smaller
than any PC, including SFF PCs.
> I've seen them in uses in offices, and the Mac Mini
> offers nothing they haven't been giving already for years.
The Mac Mini isn't claimed to be a cutting-edge product in every
possible way. It's a computer that will do what most consumers need
done most of the time. For more demanding work, there are more powerful
Macs and PCs available.
(snip)
> Why don't you explain why one absolutely must have a computer that's
no
> larger than a Mac Mini?
In mny case, I don't "absolutely must have a computer that's no larger
than a Mac Mini," but I appreciate the thoughtfulness of the design,
including the compactness. It really opens up a lot of questions, like
"Why does any desktop computer really need to be bigger than this, when
this will do most anything most people ever need to do?"
If you really want to save space, get a laptop or notebook computer.
If you're somehow disappointed that the Mac Mini, or any other
computer, doesn't do absolutely everything, and yet have the lowest
price, you're going to continue to be disappointed.
> > > computer, while killing the Mac Mini with its better features,
> > greater
> > > power,
> >
> > Huh? Most of these SFF PCs you tout are just empty cases...
>
> No they're not. What do you think a computer case is, a box with a
> CPU chip rattling around loose inside?
I'd think that a "Mac Mini killer" (your phrase) would at the very
least, be an actual computer, not just a case and a few other parts.
> > >and cheaper price.
> >
> > When you look at the price of the case and forget everything else.
>
> That's not the price of a case. That's the price of a barebones kit.
Whatever. Maybe if you want to make an apt comparison to a Mac Mini, or
any other computer, you should offer a computer to compare them with.
For example:
http://www.ajump.com/ajump/dept.asp?dept%5Fid=9338
> > Again, you're missing the point of the Mac Mini and the advantages
> that
> > make it desirable. It's not huge and powerful because it's not
meant
> to
> > be huge and powerful. It's a small computer meant to do what most
> > real-world computer users do most of the time, and do it in a
> > convenient, reliable, and affordable way. The cleverness of the Mac
> > Mini is that it fulfills an obvious function in a simple way.
>
> The PCs I've shown you do everything the Mac Mini is supposed to do,
> but wtihout the sacrifices of the Mac Mini,
The differences we're having here are that what you see as deficiencies
in the Mac Mini are strengths to other consumers.
>while having more power,
> more features, and more options. So I haven't missed the point at
> all.
Find a PC that's as small, well designed, good ergonomics, Apple's
level of reliability, service, and support, and all the traditional
Apple virtues, and you might sell some PCs. (And I'm leaving out the
virtues of the Apple OS and software.) I'd buy a PC like that. Yet
nobody makes one! And throwing PC parts into an SFF PC case won't give
me the above either.
> > (snip)
> >
> > If you look at typical PCs, you're correct in stating that there
are
> > boxes that cost less than the Mac Mini. That's no secret. What
Apple
> is
> > doing with the Mac Mini is providing an alternative to the PC at a
> > competitive price, with new features (small size, ergonomics, etc.)
> and
> > traditional Apple advantages (OS, ease of use, security, service,
> > support, and reliability) not available to PC buyers.
>
> You'll have to look at PCs from within the RDF
Sorry, what's an "RDF?"
>to get that POV.
>
> > (snip)
> >
> > > A barebones kit is not an "empty case."
> >
> > Either is just as useful to anyone who needs to use a computer.
>
> Except that the PC costs less for more.
Or at least the empty PC case costs less. No one's disputing that, nor
am I disputing that there are some PCs you can buy for less than a Mac
Mini. The only catch is they don't have the Mac Mini's virtues and
these PCs aren't as comparable as you may think.
TravelinMan
Chad Irby <ci...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> In article <1115230514.9...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > Unless a PC owner is really determined to have a 'Mac sampler,' he has
> > no reason to buy a Mac Mini.
>
> ...except for the size issue, the silence issue, the compatibility
> issue, the lower energy costs, and all of the other stuff you keep
> forgetting to list.
And, of course, the malware issues.
Chad Irby
TravelinMan <Now...@spamfree.com> wrote:
According to our local Windows folks, they never have any issues with
viruses, or worms, or just plain old shitty software, since their
machines are apparently from some magic Windows manufacturer that's not
like all of the others on the planet, running some OS that looks exactly
like Windows but doesn't have the well-known problems that Microsoft's
does.
Andre Matuch
> Small size, more power, better features, better upgradeability, yet
> priced less than a Mac Mini.
>
> http://www.cybernetman.com/default.cfm?DocId=602
>
> http://www.pcabusers.com/reviews/skyhawk/imc6375/p1.htm
>
> http://www.susansjewelry.net/epox/epoxbare.htm
>
> http://homepage.mac.com/bjepson/PhotoAlbum16.html
I wouldn't call any of these Mac Mini killers since they're all pretty
ugly and bigger than a Mac Mini anyway. The computer in keyboard idea
is something I like (since everything would be in your immediate
vicinity) but what if the keyboard screws up? What if you spill
something on the keyboard like a lot of people do?
Besides, computers used to ALL be inside of the keyboard, and a lot of
them screwed up from overheating. Remember the TI994A, the Commodore
VIC20? Notorious for dying early deaths.
Walter Bushell
Randy Howard <randy...@FOOverizonBAR.net> wrote:
There are people who are running clones and machines from that period
for whom the Mac mini is an tremendous upgrade. Consider the StarMax
whose maximum memory is 160 meg, for example.
--
Guns don't kill people; automobiles kill people.
C Lund
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> C Lund wrote:
> > > > > > > Small size, more power, better features, better
> > > > > > > http://www.cybernetman.com/default.cfm?DocId=602
> > > > > > Impressive, but it costs almost $200 more than the minimac,
> > > > > Only when you add in the price of a screen.
> > > > I couldn't find the price without the screen.
> > > Click the orange box that says "BUY" in it.
> > Why on earth would I want to do that?
> You're just playing, right? You're really not that stupid, are you?
I'm not stupid enough to buy one of those things, no. Apparently, you
are.
> > > > > > Also, it doesn't run an OS that
> > > > > > is both user-friendly and (currently) free of malware.
> > > > > Sure it does.
> > > > No.
> > > Sure it does.
> > Really. Which OS is that then?
> There are several: Windows,
Neither user-friendly nor stable (although in XPs case the blame lies
with the malware).
> Linux,
Stable, but not user-friendly. Are you using Linux?
> BSD,
Well, I'm already running a BSD flavour. Are you?
> Solaris,
I used Solaris at the university. It was a big step down in stability.
> SkyOS, BeOS,
They may well be both user-friendly and stable... but what can you do
with them?
> etc.,
> etc., etc...
"etc" as in more OSes nobody ever uses?
> > > > It won't run OS X (natively).
> > > Irrelevant.
> > Not to people who want an OS that is stable, user-friendly, and free
> > of malware.
> Sure it is. They have lots of choices besides Mac OS X, for that.
Yeah - OSes that nobody ever uses.
> > Seen the future, have you?
> Yes, and in the future, you're in a warm, cheerful place, with happy
> creatures cavorting about with pitchforks...
Childish.
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
C Lund
<cirby-ACB501....@news-server2.tampabay.rr.com>,
Chad Irby <ci...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> I stopped coming here because of folks like Edwin who never seem to
> remember the *hundreds* of times they posted and gotten called on insane
> crap like the initial post, and when I drop in, I find that he's
> actually gotten *worse*.
Actually, edwin's behaviour is cyclical. He starts out almost sane and
sensible, and then gets progressively worse until he's spinning like a
top with bowel problems. Finally he goes off his rocker and stays away
from CSMA for a month or two (usually after promising to never ever
post here again for real this time seriously).
I'd say he's about two-thirds through his current cycle at the moment.
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
C Lund
> it is about 3 year old technology,
What was the average processor speed three years ago?
> in a shiny plastic, albeit
> tiny box.
The "tiny" part here is important. So is "quiet". Have any of these
so-called "minimac-killers" beaten the mini on size and sound?
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
neilnew...@hotmail.com
C Lund wrote:
> In article <MPG.1ce2ce5b7...@news.verizon.net>,
> Randy Howard <randy...@FOOverizonBAR.net> wrote:
> > The Mac Mini is not a serious competitor to current PC hardware,
> > it is about 3 year old technology,
It's not meant to be a state-of-the-art machine.
> What was the average processor speed three years ago?
Beats me. Given sufficient RAM, a 3-year-old Mac or PC should run
current software and OSs.
> > in a shiny plastic, albeit
> > tiny box.
>
> The "tiny" part here is important. So is "quiet". Have any of these
> so-called "minimac-killers" beaten the mini on size and sound?
Nope. I've stated in CSMA that I might buy a PC that would match the
Mac Mini in size and ergonomics, but there is no PC that does that.
Even the so-called SFF PCs are nowhere near the Mac Mini in any of the
above ways, not to mention reliability, service, support, all the
traditional Apple virtues, etc.
Actually, IMHO, the nearest competition to the Mac Mini would be a PC
laptop, not a SFF PC. But (IME) many of the PC laptops roar like
diesels when you play a DVD, because their fans go into their highest
setting when you play a DVD. Seems kinda dumb to me to include a DVD
drive in a PC, but not give much thought to what the DVD experience
will be like for the typical consumer who wants to watch a movie on the
PC occasionally. Actually, I notice a lot of PCs have a lot of fan
noise when I play a CD or DVD.
Apple seems to do a much better job of understanding and preventing so
many of the bad convenience and ergonomic issues, and in a stylish and
elegant way that seems completely (and surprisingly, IMHO) beyond the
abilities of the PC makers.
(snip)
neilnew...@hotmail.com
Chad Irby wrote:
> In article <1115228114.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > Why don't you explain why one absolutely must have a computer
that's no
> > larger than a Mac Mini?
>
> With the price of office space nowadays, you'd pay for the Mini in
> square footage alone.
What many big employers are doing now is issuing laptops to all
employees and getting rid of conventional desktop machines. I don't
think desk space is an issue, or at least I've never heard any employer
say that. What employers are offering with laptops is flexibility and
mobility.
> Of course, "absolutely must" isn't the issue. "Great to have" is the
> real one.
Agree.
> I'm going to get a Mini for my office, and it's going to free
> up a lot of room (effective zero space, since it's going into a spot
on
> my desk that you could never fit a small PC case into). It's going
to
> be much, much quieter, too (nearly silent, which you don't get with
the
> compact PCs and Intel processor cooling requirements).
Agree. I don't have a Mac Mini, but the above are just a few reasons
why it's such an attractive machine. It's strange to me how little
consideration the PC makers have given to these issues, which leaves
them vulnerable to clever products like the Mac Mini.
I won't go as far as saying that the Mac Mini will ever be as dominant
in its market as the iPod is in its market, but I can imagine that the
Mac Mini could be a really influential benchmark for future PCs, just
as any portable digital music player must now be compared to Apple's
iPods.
> When you get right down to it, you don't understand why the Mini is
such
> a great machine to have for this use. That's why you can't
comprehend
> why the (many times larger) PCs aren't suitable.
Exactly. And a computer as small and flexible in use and installation
as the Mac Mini opens up new uses and places for computers, such as in
cars and with home LCD and plasma TVs and monitors.
Elizabot v2.0.2
Remember Edwin's New Year's Resolutions:
Edwin:
1. To stop reading CSMA and to never post to it again.
2. To never think of the Macintosh again unless I have no choice.
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/29e9c6cb6aa9faa9?hl=en
--
Cuiva nwalca Carnirasse! Nai yarvaxea rasselya taltuva notto-carinnar!!
By responding to Elizabot v2.0.2 you implicitly agree to the TOS at:
http://elizabot.spymac.net/
Randy Howard
cl...@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no says...
> In article <MPG.1ce2ce5b7...@news.verizon.net>,
> Randy Howard <randy...@FOOverizonBAR.net> wrote:
> > The Mac Mini is not a serious competitor to current PC hardware,
> > it is about 3 year old technology,
>
> What was the average processor speed three years ago?
I purchased nice dual-P 2GHz workstation machine 3 years ago, and
it's still running fine. I have no idea what the "average" speed
was, not having access to that type of data.
This might come in handy as a starting point though, google
coughed it up fairly quickly...
http://www.digital-daily.com/editorial/itotals2002-cpu/
It shows that plenty of CPUs were available during that time in
excess of the current Mini's meager clock speeds.
> The "tiny" part here is important. So is "quiet". Have any of these
> so-called "minimac-killers" beaten the mini on size and sound?
That must be why I made repeated reference to it being small and
that being important to some buyers. I've stated before that
sound level to me is not a factor, all consumer computer systems
are damn near silent compared to blades are big iron servers, so
they don't bother me at all. I'm sure others may feel differently.
Besides, if you want a quiet PC, go for liquid cooling.
C Lund
"Elizabot v2.0.2" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote:
> Remember Edwin's New Year's Resolutions:
>
> Edwin:
>
> 1. To stop reading CSMA and to never post to it again.
> 2. To never think of the Macintosh again unless I have no choice.
Promises like that are dime a dozen from edwin.
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
C Lund
Randy Howard <randy...@FOOverizonBAR.net> wrote:
> In article <clund-93F573....@amstwist00.chello.com>,
> cl...@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no says...
> > > it is about 3 year old technology,
> > What was the average processor speed three years ago?
> I purchased nice dual-P 2GHz workstation machine 3 years ago, and
> it's still running fine.
But was that a top of the line processor when you bought it? Because
nobody is claiming the minimac is a top of the line computer.
> It shows that plenty of CPUs were available during that time in
> excess of the current Mini's meager clock speeds.
Meager in what way? How will the average user find it's processor
insufficient? Remember, gamer d00dz are not the average user.
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
Chad Irby
> Alan Baker wrote:
> > In article <1115070465....@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote
> > >
> > > http://www.pcabusers.com/reviews/skyhawk/imc6375/p1.htm
> >
> > This one isn't a system. It's a kit.
>
> You have an incredible command of the obvious.
>
> > And they don't mention the price
>
> Yes they do. "Price: MSRP $270.00"
...for something that will end up costing about three times that when
you actually put the computer in it...
Randy Howard
cl...@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no says...
> In article <MPG.1ce4168f1...@news.verizon.net>,
> Randy Howard <randy...@FOOverizonBAR.net> wrote:
> > In article <clund-93F573....@amstwist00.chello.com>,
> > cl...@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no says...
> > > > The Mac Mini is not a serious competitor to current PC hardware,
> > > > it is about 3 year old technology,
> > > What was the average processor speed three years ago?
> > I purchased nice dual-P 2GHz workstation machine 3 years ago, and
> > it's still running fine.
>
> But was that a top of the line processor when you bought it?
No, I think I could have sprung for dual 2.8s at a much higher
price at the time.
> Because nobody is claiming the minimac is a top of the line computer.
Of course not, I am claiming the opposite.
> > It shows that plenty of CPUs were available during that time in
> > excess of the current Mini's meager clock speeds.
>
> Meager in what way?
I mean the current Mini clock speed is about 30% less than what people
could buy from PC vendors three years ago, and is much worse when
compared to PC clock speeds today. Never mind the 64 vs 32 issue,
since that sends the spin doctors into a frenzy.
> How will the average user find it's processor insufficient?
Reports from multiple review sites and individuals say that it is
not exactly snappy. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure
it out, just looking at it on paper.
> Remember, gamer d00dz are not the average user.
Thankfully, you are correct. Remember that some people actually
use their computers for
...
are you ready for the shock?
...
COMPUTATION
There I said it. :-)
If clock speed isn't an issue, then why are so many people worried
about IBM getting the PPC to go faster? Why do we have this whole
1000 message thread about Apple migrating away from PPC to Intel
or AMD?
C Lund
Randy Howard <randy...@FOOverizonBAR.net> wrote:
> In article <clund-92B3CB....@amstwist00.chello.com>,
> > > > > The Mac Mini is not a serious competitor to current PC hardware,
> > > > > it is about 3 year old technology,
> > > > What was the average processor speed three years ago?
> > > I purchased nice dual-P 2GHz workstation machine 3 years ago, and
> > > it's still running fine.
> > But was that a top of the line processor when you bought it?
> No, I think I could have sprung for dual 2.8s at a much higher
> price at the time.
And could you have found one crammed into a box the size of a disc-man?
> > Because nobody is claiming the minimac is a top of the line computer.
> Of course not, I am claiming the opposite.
Why?
> > > It shows that plenty of CPUs were available during that time in
> > > excess of the current Mini's meager clock speeds.
> > Meager in what way?
> I mean the current Mini clock speed is about 30% less than what people
> could buy from PC vendors three years ago,
And what price would they have payed for it? You're complaining that
the minimac - which is Apple's cheapest machine, does not compete with
the fastest machines Wintel users could buy three years ago. You're
also ignoring one thing from a technological point of view - the size
and noise level of the minimac. To many users, that is more important
than the state switching speeds of the transistors.
> > How will the average user find it's processor insufficient?
> Reports from multiple review sites and individuals say that it is
> not exactly snappy. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure
> it out, just looking at it on paper.
That's a RAM issue. Plop in more RAM and all of a sudden it *is*
snappy. My G4 mac has half the clock frequency and a slower chip than
the minimacs, much more RAM. And there's nothing sluggish about it at
all.
> > Remember, gamer d00dz are not the average user.
> Thankfully, you are correct. Remember that some people actually
> use their computers for
> COMPUTATION
Yeah, but those aren't average computer users either.
> If clock speed isn't an issue, then why are so many people worried
> about IBM getting the PPC to go faster?
Marketing. It's that simple. Any computer made today is fast enough
for the average user (as long as they don't put a bloaty kludge-fest
like Windows on it). It's only when gamers and professionals and some
hobbyists get involved that processor power become a real issue.
But for the average user, size and noise level should be a bigger deal
than the processor speeds.
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
imout...@mac.com
> In article <clund-92B3CB....@amstwist00.chello.com>,
> cl...@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no says...
> > In article <MPG.1ce4168f1...@news.verizon.net>,
> > Randy Howard <randy...@FOOverizonBAR.net> wrote:
> > > In article <clund-93F573....@amstwist00.chello.com>,
> > > cl...@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no says...
> > > > > The Mac Mini is not a serious competitor to current PC
hardware,
> > > > > it is about 3 year old technology,
> > > > What was the average processor speed three years ago?
> > > I purchased nice dual-P 2GHz workstation machine 3 years ago, and
> > > it's still running fine.
> >
> > But was that a top of the line processor when you bought it?
>
> No, I think I could have sprung for dual 2.8s at a much higher
> price at the time.
No, 2.8s were announced in Sept 2002.
Three years ago a dual 2.4 would set you back ~$1350, for the CPUs
alone.
Dual 2.0 was ~$450 for 2, but the xeon shared-FSB architecture ain't so
hot at quad-pumped 100Mhz
(quad-pumping is only about 70% as efficient as SDR at the same nominal
frequency).
> > Because nobody is claiming the minimac is a top of the line
computer.
>
> Of course not, I am claiming the opposite.
It's not a bottom-of-the-line computer, either.
Apple was very smart to give it a 'nano' size at a 'micro' CPU/graphics
oomph level.
> > > It shows that plenty of CPUs were available during that time in
> > > excess of the current Mini's meager clock speeds.
> >
> > Meager in what way?
>
> I mean the current Mini clock speed is about 30% less than what
people
> could buy from PC vendors three years ago, and is much worse when
> compared to PC clock speeds today.
First, clockspeed, like RPM, is meaningless alone. The 1.4Ghz G4
compares very well to uber-new P4-M class CPUs that Intel is releasing
now wrt clockspeed which is not surprising since the P4-M is just a P3
in drag. Early P4 machines had 30% more clockspeed than P3s, too but
didn't benchmark much faster than them (once Intel ramped the
clockspeeds up over 2.0Ghz the P3 started to become eclipsed, at least
until Intel modified the P3 and called it the P4-M).
> Never mind the 64 vs 32 issue,
> since that sends the spin doctors into a frenzy.
What spin doctoring? Benchmarking on x86 shows 64-bit isn't faster than
32-bit, and that's with x86-64s additional registers to help out.
There's no inherent reason 64-bit will be faster than 32-bit, other
than intensive integer operations which are generally better off going
through vector units anyway, and plenty of reasons 64-bit will come out
slower (losing effective cache size due to the wider data).
> > How will the average user find it's processor insufficient?
>
> Reports from multiple review sites and individuals say that it is
> not exactly snappy. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure
> it out, just looking at it on paper.
Where? How? 512MB 1.42Ghz G4 would be perfectly snappy for daily use.
I'm perfectly happy on a 800/133 G4, and the mini is 30-50% faster.
"On paper", the top of the line G4s were considered quite "snappy" two
years ago. What has changed? OS X has gotten *much* more efficient at
important things like window resizing, software hasn't gotten any less
efficient in these two years, and the Mac Mini is essentially a top of
the line PowerMac G4 from 2 years ago. Hell, the 9200 is the
top-of-the-line ATI GPU from 2-3 years ago.
> > Remember, gamer d00dz are not the average user.
>
> Thankfully, you are correct. Remember that some people actually
> use their computers for
> COMPUTATION
>
>
> There I said it. :-)
Really, fewer people wait for number crunching than play games.
> If clock speed isn't an issue,
it's not. cf. the Cell CPU with its 8 independent vector engines. I'd
take this baby at 1Ghz over any P4.
> then why are so many people worried about IBM getting the PPC to go
faster?
It's about price/performance and the high-end. At the high end, there's
great demand for every bit of throughput IBM can supply, for Photoshop,
Maya, and general computation. IBM is doing OK here, but the 2.0 ->
2.5 -> 2.7 curve seems to be topping out, which makes sense when one
looks at the horrendous heat/Ghz curves for the chip.
For the midrange, even tho Intel is kinda stuck with its current
throughputs, Intel has immense volumes that mean Apple, and hence its
customers, are paying more for less.
Plus the P4-M does seem to be pulling away from Apple's laptop
offerings at the moment.
> Why do we have this whole
> 1000 message thread about Apple migrating away from PPC to Intel
> or AMD?
Roadmaps, IBM's inability to deliver a CPU that beats Intel/AMD for
price/performance, Moto being a no-show wrt its new PPC offerings.
Apple would sell a lot more laptops if they could get a cool-running
2.0Ghz chip with a better FSB. Plenty of people like me don't see a
great amount of diff between 800/133Mhz and the current 1.6/166Ghz.
It's coming up on 2 years with the G5, and so far it's been something
of a bust as far as consumer segment is concerned. The iMac G5 required
a lot of engineering compromise to get the G5 working without a massive
amount of noise, like running the FSB at 2/3rds what it is capable of.
Edwin
wrote:
>In article <MPG.1ce563b04...@news.verizon.net>,
> Randy Howard <randy...@FOOverizonBAR.net> wrote:
>> In article <clund-92B3CB....@amstwist00.chello.com>,
>> cl...@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no says...
>> > > > > The Mac Mini is not a serious competitor to current PC hardware,
>> > > > > it is about 3 year old technology,
>> > > > What was the average processor speed three years ago?
>> > > I purchased nice dual-P 2GHz workstation machine 3 years ago, and
>> > > it's still running fine.
>> > But was that a top of the line processor when you bought it?
>> No, I think I could have sprung for dual 2.8s at a much higher
>> price at the time.
>
>And could you have found one crammed into a box the size of a disc-man?
Why is that a requirement?
>> > Because nobody is claiming the minimac is a top of the line computer.
>> Of course not, I am claiming the opposite.
>
>Why?
Because he's telling the truth.
>> > > It shows that plenty of CPUs were available during that time in
>> > > excess of the current Mini's meager clock speeds.
>> > Meager in what way?
>> I mean the current Mini clock speed is about 30% less than what people
>> could buy from PC vendors three years ago,
>
>And what price would they have payed for it?
How is that relevant to the fact the Mac Mini is underpowered even by
three-year old standards?
> You're complaining that
>the minimac - which is Apple's cheapest machine,
The Mini Mac wouldn't be the price it is if it were made three years
ago, not even if it had a full size case. You have your usual
problem of applying your rules of judgement equally to both sides of
an argument.
> does not compete with
>the fastest machines Wintel users could buy three years ago.
In terms of power and features.
>You're
>also ignoring one thing from a technological point of view - the size
>and noise level of the minimac.
You have yet to demonstrate any advantage in the size of the Mac Mini,
especially since it amounts to a clutter of little boxes, not one
little box. The noise 'issue' is easily solved for the PC, while
still being cheaper than the Mac.
> To many users, that is more important
>than the state switching speeds of the transistors.
How many users? As many users as are currently using PC Linux?
Here's yet another area where you play fast and loose: with the
significance of the number of users. Somehow it takes far few users
to make an Apple product 'significant' than it takes to do the same
for some PC product, in your mind.
>> > How will the average user find it's processor insufficient?
>> Reports from multiple review sites and individuals say that it is
>> not exactly snappy. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure
>> it out, just looking at it on paper.
>
>That's a RAM issue. Plop in more RAM and all of a sudden it *is*
>snappy.
And the price goes up. You also need a faster drive to make it
"snappy." The price goes up more.
> My G4 mac has half the clock frequency and a slower chip than
>the minimacs, much more RAM. And there's nothing sluggish about it at
>all.
And here we go again with applying different rules of judgement to the
Mac than Maccies do to the PC. Point out a faster PC processor, and
they'll yell that there's more to a computer than processor speed.
When they want to extrapolate performance from the Mac they own, to a
Mac they've never used (and will never own) suddenly the processor
speed is all that matters in the comparison. They forget all the
years they claimed that slower Macs could outdo PCs with faster
processors, due to the other parts of the computer system.
>> > Remember, gamer d00dz are not the average user.
>> Thankfully, you are correct. Remember that some people actually
>> use their computers for
>> COMPUTATION
>
>Yeah, but those aren't average computer users either.
In whose definition of the "average user?" Your definition of them
seems to be "whatever justifies what Apple is currently selling."
>> If clock speed isn't an issue, then why are so many people worried
>> about IBM getting the PPC to go faster?
>
>Marketing. It's that simple.
Simple words from a simpleton.
> Any computer made today is fast enough
>for the average user (as long as they don't put a bloaty kludge-fest
>like Windows on it).
Again, without any real definition of what "average user" is, other
than "all they need is what Apple makes."
>It's only when gamers and professionals and some
>hobbyists get involved that processor power become a real issue.
The state of computing is advancing all the time, and with that, the
expectations of users is also advancing. You ought to visit AMD's
site some time and read about what they call "prosumers."
>But for the average user, size and noise level should be a bigger deal
>than the processor speeds.
Ipse dixit.
--
"I will admit that I occasionally defend an Apple position I don't really
agree with. Advocacy is a game that I enjoy playing."
-- ZnU, March 17,2001
sam tygier
but suppose all that you want to do is:
send emails
rip your entire cd colection to your hard drive
write a book
surf the web
browse through a few thousand photos from your digital camera
watch dvds
play some not so high spec games (how many games need more than a 32mb radeon?)
and you want a small and quite machine to do this on
then the mac mini is a very nice choice
i would have bought one if it had been out when i got my 600mhz fanless via epia system, which i use mostly as a juke box.
John Bailo
> if the mac mini is not right for you then you are obviously not the
> target user.
>
> but suppose all that you want to do is:
> send emails
> rip your entire cd colection to your hard drive
> write a book
> surf the web
> browse through a few thousand photos from your digital camera
> watch dvds
> play some not so high spec games (how many games need more than a 32mb
> radeon?)
Unfortunately, you could not do all those at once, and none of them well.
You might as well take $500 and throw it down a hole ( sorry, thats more
like $700 with all the othe parts ).
Whereas you could get a high performance AMD GNOME linux workstation
that could do all that with alacrity for under $500.
>
>
> and you want a small and quite machine to do this on
>
> then the mac mini is a very nice choice
>
> i would have bought one if it had been out when i got my 600mhz fanless
> via epia system, which i use mostly as a juke box.
--
Texeme Construct
http://texeme.com
Chad Irby
Edwin <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> You have yet to demonstrate any advantage in the size of the Mac Mini,
> especially since it amounts to a clutter of little boxes, not one
> little box.
On the other hand, we can just imagine you sitting in your cluttered
office, screaming,
"Why would someone want a small computer? Computers should be large abd
bulky and noisy, and make a lot of heat! Small computers are, er,
*sneaky*, yeah, that's it! Sneaky computers, nobody needs them, unless
they're running Windows, in which case they're 'Mini Killers,' and
should get medals or something, yes, yesssss, my preciousssss...."
Chad Irby
John Bailo <jab...@texeme.com> wrote:
> sam tygier wrote:
> > if the mac mini is not right for you then you are obviously not the
> > target user.
> >
> > but suppose all that you want to do is:
> > send emails
> > rip your entire cd colection to your hard drive
> > write a book
> > surf the web
> > browse through a few thousand photos from your digital camera
> > watch dvds
> > play some not so high spec games (how many games need more than a 32mb
> > radeon?)
>
> Unfortunately, you could not do all those at once, and none of them well.
Well, you technically can't do all of those at once on *any* standard
machine (since most of them take direct attention from the user and
would sit idle while the other stuff was being done), but the Mini will
do all of them quite nicely, with all of the programs open at once, and
do them *very* well. You have a problem with the CD rip versus DVD play
(only one drive), but you get the drift.
Mail? If you don't like Apple's Mail app, use another one. works fine.
Rip CDs? iTunes.
Write? Text editing is trivial on any of a dozen major packages.
Web surfing? Safari, FireFox, et cetera.
Browse photos? iPhoto (although I use Graphic Converter)
Watch DVDs? Trivial, again.
Games? Pretty easy, though (as the first poster mentioned) not the
top-end games out right now.
Hell, I can do most of those on the ancient G3 I'm posting from (pretty
much the bare minimum machine for using OSX), and it's a small fraction
of the power of the Mini. I just checked (open: Mail, FireFox,
MT-Newswatcher, QuickTime looping a movie off the hard drive, iTunes
ripping a tune from CD, GraphicConverter with a folder of files showing).
Edwin
You could imagine that, but doing so would not make your failure to
justify the Mac Mini with rational arguments any less profound.
Edwin
wrote:
>if the mac mini is not right for you then you are obviously not the target user.
>
>but suppose all that you want to do is:
>send emails
>rip your entire cd colection to your hard drive
>write a book
>surf the web
>browse through a few thousand photos from your digital camera
>watch dvds
>play some not so high spec games (how many games need more than a 32mb radeon?)
That's all stuff you could do on a $300 Linux PC.
>and you want a small and quite machine to do this on
Put in quiet fans, and the PC will be quiet too. Why does your
computer have to be a clutter of small boxes on your desk?
>then the mac mini is a very nice choice
Sure, if all you want out of a computer is a base for an iPod.
>i would have bought one if it had been out when i got my 600mhz fanless via epia system, which i use mostly as a juke box.
So you can do whatever a Mac Mini offers on your 600 MHz computer, you
have no need to upgrade?
Isn't it strange how the most vocal supporters of the Mac Mini neither
have one, nor any intention of buying one?
sam tygier
> sam tygier wrote:
>
>> if the mac mini is not right for you then you are obviously not the
>> target user.
>>
>> but suppose all that you want to do is:
>> send emails
>> rip your entire cd colection to your hard drive
>> write a book
>> surf the web
>> browse through a few thousand photos from your digital camera
>> watch dvds
>> play some not so high spec games (how many games need more than a 32mb
>> radeon?)
>
>
> Unfortunately, you could not do all those at once, and none of them well.
all at once, i dont think i could do those all at once with BlueGene/L sat in front of me, until i get a multitasking os in my head.
how exactly would a mini fail to do any of those well?
what spec would you recomend for sending email?
dvds used to play perfectly on my 400mhz G3 imac with an 8mb radeon
my cd colection as 192kbps comes to about 20gig
correct me if i am wrong, but doesn't a mini out spec an xbox
> You might as well take $500 and throw it down a hole ( sorry, thats more
> like $700 with all the othe parts ).
>
> Whereas you could get a high performance AMD GNOME linux workstation
> that could do all that with alacrity for under $500.
yes but it would be big and ugly, and probably cost you as much per year in electricty
you can run linux on a mac you know.
Chad Irby
Edwin <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 07 May 2005 21:45:26 +0100, sam tygier <samt...@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >if the mac mini is not right for you then you are obviously not the target
> >user.
> >
> >but suppose all that you want to do is:
> >send emails
> >rip your entire cd colection to your hard drive
> >write a book
> >surf the web
> >browse through a few thousand photos from your digital camera
> >watch dvds
> >play some not so high spec games (how many games need more than a 32mb
> >radeon?)
>
> That's all stuff you could do on a $300 Linux PC.
...after a couple of months of learning how to use linux well, and a
couple of weeks of getting the software to work.
> Put in quiet fans, and the PC will be quiet too. Why does your
> computer have to be a clutter of small boxes on your desk?
You keep saying that silliness about the "clutter of small boxes," and
completely fail to justify having to have more than the one small box,
which will do (nicely) all of the above tasks.
Tell us, pray, why we'd need a "clutter of small boxes" to do any of the
things on the above list.
On the other hand, if some PC company had come out with a
smaller-than-average PC, you'd be crowing about some mythical box called
a "Mac Mini Killer."
Chad Irby
Edwin <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 07 May 2005 20:53:13 GMT, Chad Irby <ci...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <q55q7194ep89urm2c...@4ax.com>,
> > Edwin <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> >
> >> You have yet to demonstrate any advantage in the size of the Mac Mini,
> >> especially since it amounts to a clutter of little boxes, not one
> >> little box.
> >
> >On the other hand, we can just imagine you sitting in your cluttered
> >office, screaming,
> >
> >"Why would someone want a small computer? Computers should be large abd
> >bulky and noisy, and make a lot of heat! Small computers are, er,
> >*sneaky*, yeah, that's it! Sneaky computers, nobody needs them, unless
> >they're running Windows, in which case they're 'Mini Killers,' and
> >should get medals or something, yes, yesssss, my preciousssss...."
>
> You could imagine that, but doing so would not make your failure to
> justify the Mac Mini with rational arguments any less profound.
Oh, we justified the hell out of it, Gollum, you just keep looking the
other way and asking for your Precious.
Jim
Mac Mini is a very attractive piece of kit for someone like me who's
looking to condense his entertainment stack... right now I'm using a
Dell Optiplex GX115 (1.0GHz PIII) workstation, and while it's not the
smallest of computers, it's still decently small enough not to look too
far out of place beneath a VCR and DVD player and Sky Digibox.
Thing is now, with a new cabinet design I have in the works (built to
accomodate a theatre-aspect [2.35:1] 84" panel array), a honking big
computer is gonna stick out, presenting an immediate hazard for anyone
walking past it. So in this instance, the dimensions of the Mini (what,
less than 7" deep?) coupled with its (average) performance specs, and at
a decent price for a system with OS thrown in (£180 [cost of OSX) off of
£339 leaves a fairly cheap box, IMHO), makes it the ideal choice.
And before you ask, no a Shuttle won't cut it; they're the same depth as
the GX115, which writes them off as an option.
--
Cheers,
Jim
-begin sig-
Opinions expressed in this message may or may not be representative of
the opinions of its author. You decide.
Web: http://www.dotware.co.uk
http://www.dotware-entertainment.co.uk
Portable: P4m 2.0, 1GB, 40GB, MX440/15" XGA@1600x1200, Wi-Fi, GPRS,
DVD/CDRW, XPSP2/Knoppix
Powerbook G3/400, 392MB, 20GB, Rage 128/15"@1024x768, Wi-Fi, DVD, Mac OS
X 10.4 "Tiger" Dev. Build
Desktop: AMD64 32...@2.63GHz, 512MB, 80GB, FX5700LE/32" WXGA@2048x768,
DVD+-RW, XPSP1/Debian
FileServer: Athlon XP 2400+, 256MB, 2.72TB, Blind, MuLinux
More but I'm not tellin' ya, there's a pool forming at your feet.
-end sig-
Daiichi
Why is it that there are people in the world who think that the only
way to be the tallest tree in the forest is to chop all other trees
down?
I have been using this Mac Mini for six days now. I indeed have some
criticisms--all of them very minor and not detracting on my pleasure
of having the mini join the family.
(1) My Java server appears to be eating up CPU. I used the
(remarkably! Built-in!) Java profiler and found that the CPU usage is
in the Java VM itself in Socket.receive ... in other words, absolutely
nothing I can do about it. After about 6 hours, the CPU utilization
goes up to about 100% (according to perfboard). This problem doesn't
occur at all when I run the application under Linux. I suspect a
busyloop in the implementation of Apple's datagram packet reading.
However, the snappiness of the GUI doesn't seem to deteriorate.
Strange. Anyhow, I hope that they have this problem licked in 10.4.
(2) I decided to upgrade the mini to 1GB of RAM (I had bought it with
256MB). Damn. That is a HARD box to get into! What in God's name
did Apple have in mind when they designed that ^%$^%^$%^$ case?!
After Googling on the internet, I found a video that showed how it's
done. And with much trepidation (opening the case requires some
modicum of force--it sort of feels like putting out a fire by jumping
on it)--I managed to open the box and add the RAM. But seriously,
this box was not made for the average hobbyist to self-upgrade.
(3) I find I have more pleasure in reading mail and news (Entourage)
on the Mac than I do on the PC (Outlook). My dual Xeon workstation is
basically a TV whenever I browse through Slashdot. Even with the
unfriendly (unfamiliar?) interface of Safari. Might be a case of
New-Desktop-Infatuation though.
About the speed? Oh the Mac Mini is more than snappy enough.
Remember that in today's world (unless you're a gamer or other "high
end user" which I am not), the computer is more I/O bound than CPU
bound. I'm sure one day I'll find an App on the Mac that'll make me
grind my teeth, but so far neither Office 2004 or any of the
applications that came with the Mac seem to fall in that category.
Cheers.
On Fri, 06 May 2005 17:21:59 GMT, Randy Howard
<randy...@FOOverizonBAR.net> wrote:
Daiichi
I use XHOME to protect my email! (http://www.xhome.org)
Daiichi
>On Sat, 07 May 2005 10:24:19 +0200, C Lund <cl...@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <MPG.1ce563b04...@news.verizon.net>,
>> Randy Howard <randy...@FOOverizonBAR.net> wrote:
>>> In article <clund-92B3CB....@amstwist00.chello.com>,
>>> cl...@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no says...
>>> > > > > The Mac Mini is not a serious competitor to current PC hardware,
>>> > > > > it is about 3 year old technology,
>>> > > > What was the average processor speed three years ago?
>>> > > I purchased nice dual-P 2GHz workstation machine 3 years ago, and
>>> > > it's still running fine.
>>> > But was that a top of the line processor when you bought it?
>>> No, I think I could have sprung for dual 2.8s at a much higher
>>> price at the time.
>>
>>And could you have found one crammed into a box the size of a disc-man?
>
>Why is that a requirement?
Why is it a requirement that Mac Mini's be a serious competitor to
[high-end] PC's? Since you want to make up your requirements, I
think that Randy is perfectly justified in making up his.
By the way, it was a requirement of mine: really quiet PC, small form
factor--since I was replacing a rather noisy Shuttle XPC that I was
using as a Java-based server. The Mac Mini set a new standard for
quietness--I'm now spending a small fortune trying to quiet down my
other servers. In case you're wondering, it's because I have a number
of machines running in the room adjoining my master bedroom--the
constant humming had always been soothing. Now that I put the Mini
in, the humming from the PC's seem annoying. To quiet them down, I'm
replacing all the PC power supplies with Antec Phantoms. At a tune of
$180 apiece.
>
>>> > Because nobody is claiming the minimac is a top of the line computer.
>>> Of course not, I am claiming the opposite.
>>
>>Why?
>
>Because he's telling the truth.
>
The Mac Mini isn't the top of the line computer. It's a cheap,
easy-to-set-up machine that anyone can use. Compare it to an
e-Machine if you want. Don't compare it to an Athlon 64.
>>> > > It shows that plenty of CPUs were available during that time in
>>> > > excess of the current Mini's meager clock speeds.
>>> > Meager in what way?
>>> I mean the current Mini clock speed is about 30% less than what people
>>> could buy from PC vendors three years ago,
>>
>>And what price would they have payed for it?
>
>How is that relevant to the fact the Mac Mini is underpowered even by
>three-year old standards?
>
You can conclude this simply by its clock speed? How naive. Do you
have a computer engineering or science degree? If so, what
crackerjack box did you get it out of?
By the way (if you didn't understand the sarcasm), clock speed is not
a very good measure of the performance of a computer.
>> You're complaining that
>>the minimac - which is Apple's cheapest machine,
>
>The Mini Mac wouldn't be the price it is if it were made three years
>ago, not even if it had a full size case. You have your usual
>problem of applying your rules of judgement equally to both sides of
>an argument.
>
>> does not compete with
>>the fastest machines Wintel users could buy three years ago.
>
>In terms of power and features.
>
>>You're
>>also ignoring one thing from a technological point of view - the size
>>and noise level of the minimac.
>
>You have yet to demonstrate any advantage in the size of the Mac Mini,
>especially since it amounts to a clutter of little boxes, not one
>little box. The noise 'issue' is easily solved for the PC, while
>still being cheaper than the Mac.
Oh? This is really interesting. How do you "easily solve" the noice
problem with the PC for less than $500 total (including the PC and
operating system)? Inquiring minds would really like to know since
I'm spending $180 per box JUST TO QUIET THE POWER SUPPLY. I'm hoping
this will lower the dB enough that I can actually enjoy MP3's in my
home office without having to wear headphones--my fear is that I'll
have to do something about the hard drives as well.
>
>> To many users, that is more important
>>than the state switching speeds of the transistors.
>
>How many users? As many users as are currently using PC Linux?
>Here's yet another area where you play fast and loose: with the
>significance of the number of users. Somehow it takes far few users
>to make an Apple product 'significant' than it takes to do the same
>for some PC product, in your mind.
>
Well, I for one. I really don't give a damn about all the others.
>>> > How will the average user find it's processor insufficient?
>>> Reports from multiple review sites and individuals say that it is
>>> not exactly snappy. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure
>>> it out, just looking at it on paper.
>>
>>That's a RAM issue. Plop in more RAM and all of a sudden it *is*
>>snappy.
>
>And the price goes up. You also need a faster drive to make it
>"snappy." The price goes up more.
>
Actually, having just put a 1GB chip in my Minimac, I can tell you
that the RAM chip didn't make the machine more "snappy"... but then
again, when it only had 256MB of RAM, it was pretty darn snappy
already...
>> My G4 mac has half the clock frequency and a slower chip than
>>the minimacs, much more RAM. And there's nothing sluggish about it at
>>all.
>
>And here we go again with applying different rules of judgement to the
>Mac than Maccies do to the PC. Point out a faster PC processor, and
>they'll yell that there's more to a computer than processor speed.
>When they want to extrapolate performance from the Mac they own, to a
>Mac they've never used (and will never own) suddenly the processor
>speed is all that matters in the comparison. They forget all the
>years they claimed that slower Macs could outdo PCs with faster
>processors, due to the other parts of the computer system.
>
And I guess you learned logic from the back of a cereal box too?
The G4 mac and the MiniMac both use the G4 processor. Since it's the
same processor, obviously a faster processor in one would make that
machine faster than the other.
You, on the other hand, are trying to compare two different processor
technologies (G4 vs. Intel/AMD) solely by its clock frequency. That's
like trying to compare two automobile performances by their gasolines.
>>> > Remember, gamer d00dz are not the average user.
>>> Thankfully, you are correct. Remember that some people actually
>>> use their computers for
>>> COMPUTATION
>>
>>Yeah, but those aren't average computer users either.
>
>In whose definition of the "average user?" Your definition of them
>seems to be "whatever justifies what Apple is currently selling."
>
>>> If clock speed isn't an issue, then why are so many people worried
>>> about IBM getting the PPC to go faster?
>>
>>Marketing. It's that simple.
>
>Simple words from a simpleton.
>
>> Any computer made today is fast enough
>>for the average user (as long as they don't put a bloaty kludge-fest
>>like Windows on it).
>
>Again, without any real definition of what "average user" is, other
>than "all they need is what Apple makes."
>
>>It's only when gamers and professionals and some
>>hobbyists get involved that processor power become a real issue.
>
>The state of computing is advancing all the time, and with that, the
>expectations of users is also advancing. You ought to visit AMD's
>site some time and read about what they call "prosumers."
>
>>But for the average user, size and noise level should be a bigger deal
>>than the processor speeds.
>
>Ipse dixit.
Daiichi
wrote:
>if the mac mini is not right for you then you are obviously not the target user.
I have an 1Ghz VIA system (I don't count this as one of my regular
computers since I rarely turn it on anymore--it's used only for
experimentation nowadays). Compared to it, the Mac Mini is a Cray.
Daiichi
wrote:
>sam tygier wrote:
>> if the mac mini is not right for you then you are obviously not the
>> target user.
>>
>> but suppose all that you want to do is:
>> send emails
>> rip your entire cd colection to your hard drive
>> write a book
>> surf the web
>> browse through a few thousand photos from your digital camera
>> watch dvds
>> play some not so high spec games (how many games need more than a 32mb
>> radeon?)
>
>Unfortunately, you could not do all those at once, and none of them well.
>
Don't be snide. Sure you could do all of those at the same time on a
Mac Mini. Though how one would write a book and play a game at the
same time is beyond me...
>You might as well take $500 and throw it down a hole ( sorry, thats more
>like $700 with all the othe parts ).
>
>Whereas you could get a high performance AMD GNOME linux workstation
>that could do all that with alacrity for under $500.
>
You're absolutely right about this... but it would take me much more
time and hassle to get Linux running the way I wanted it to. I
decided to simply pay Apple to do the integration rather than waste a
day doing it myself.
Also keep in mind that any PC you buy for $500 will be about fifty
times NOISIER and ten times BIGGER than the Mac Mini.
>>
>>
>> and you want a small and quite machine to do this on
>>
>> then the mac mini is a very nice choice
>>
>> i would have bought one if it had been out when i got my 600mhz fanless
>> via epia system, which i use mostly as a juke box.
Oh about the size: Funny story. I told my family four days after I
bought the Mini that I had purchased a Mac. They asked me where it
was, I told them that it was in the office. After searching for a few
minutes, they asked me where. All of them were shocked at how small
it is.
C Lund
> wrote:
> >> > > > > The Mac Mini is not a serious competitor to current PC hardware,
> >> > > > > it is about 3 year old technology,
> >> > > > What was the average processor speed three years ago?
> >> > > I purchased nice dual-P 2GHz workstation machine 3 years ago, and
> >> > > it's still running fine.
> >> > But was that a top of the line processor when you bought it?
> >> No, I think I could have sprung for dual 2.8s at a much higher
> >> price at the time.
> >And could you have found one crammed into a box the size of a disc-man?
> Why is that a requirement?
Because it's supposedly a "Mac Mini Killer". That means it has to beat
the minimac on all it's selling points.
> >> I mean the current Mini clock speed is about 30% less than what people
> >> could buy from PC vendors three years ago,
> >And what price would they have payed for it?
> How is that relevant to the fact the Mac Mini is underpowered even by
> three-year old standards?
Because he's comparing a top of the line product from three years ago
with an entry level product from today. That's why.
> > You're complaining that
> >the minimac - which is Apple's cheapest machine,
> The Mini Mac wouldn't be the price it is if it were made three years
> ago, not even if it had a full size case.
Precisely. That's why the "three year old tech" argument is just plain
silly.
> >You're
> >also ignoring one thing from a technological point of view - the size
> >and noise level of the minimac.
> You have yet to demonstrate any advantage in the size of the Mac Mini,
> especially since it amounts to a clutter of little boxes,
What "little boxes"? There's the mini itself, and the power brick.
Where's the rest of the "clutter"?
As for the PC - you get a large, noisy machine that won't really fit
on your desk and a tangle of wires all over the place.
> > To many users, that is more important
> >than the state switching speeds of the transistors.
> How many users? As many users as are currently using PC Linux?
> Here's yet another area where you play fast and loose: with the
> significance of the number of users. Somehow it takes far few users
> to make an Apple product 'significant' than it takes to do the same
> for some PC product, in your mind.
In this context, "many users" is probably the majority of computer
users regardless of platform. You see, edwin, most users don't do
number crunching tasks on their machines, nor do they give a rat's ass
about bleeding edge games.
I'm not playing fast and loose. It's just that you don't have a clue
what I'm talking about.
> >> > How will the average user find it's processor insufficient?
> >> Reports from multiple review sites and individuals say that it is
> >> not exactly snappy. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure
> >> it out, just looking at it on paper.
> >That's a RAM issue. Plop in more RAM and all of a sudden it *is*
> >snappy.
> And the price goes up. You also need a faster drive to make it
> "snappy." The price goes up more.
The RAM is all it takes to make it "snappy". The extra HD is for
increased storage and backups. And neither RAM nor HD space costs much
these days, so even though the price goes up, it doesn't go up that
much.
> > My G4 mac has half the clock frequency and a slower chip than
> >the minimacs, much more RAM. And there's nothing sluggish about it at
> >all.
> And here we go again with applying different rules of judgement to the
> Mac than Maccies do to the PC. Point out a faster PC processor, and
> they'll yell that there's more to a computer than processor speed.
Because it's true.
> When they want to extrapolate performance from the Mac they own, to a
> Mac they've never used (and will never own) suddenly the processor
> speed is all that matters in the comparison. They forget all the
> years they claimed that slower Macs could outdo PCs with faster
> processors, due to the other parts of the computer system.
Yeah - I could also have mentioned the slower motherboard and slower
system bus, but I didn't see how that would change my argument.
But what you've done here is attempt to avoid my argument by spinning
it off in an irrelevant direction. The fact remains: My three and a
half year old mac is not sluggish in any way. The minimac has better
hardware in all respects except storage space and RAM - and the two
latter can be increased. So any claims about the minimac being
"sluggish" are plain stupid unless one is talking about the base
configuration with the minimal RAM.
> >> > Remember, gamer d00dz are not the average user.
> >> Thankfully, you are correct. Remember that some people actually
> >> use their computers for
> >> COMPUTATION
> >Yeah, but those aren't average computer users either.
> In whose definition of the "average user?" Your definition of them
> seems to be "whatever justifies what Apple is currently selling."
No. I've explained what "average users" are in previous threads. Do
you have problems with your short-term memory?
> >> If clock speed isn't an issue, then why are so many people worried
> >> about IBM getting the PPC to go faster?
> >Marketing. It's that simple.
> Simple words from a simpleton.
Yeah, that's what your words are.
> >But for the average user, size and noise level should be a bigger deal
> >than the processor speeds.
> Ipse dixit.
Right. You may now tell me what kind of processors one needs to do
each of the following tasks at a satisfying speed:
Read/write email.
Write/edit text documents.
Play solitaire and tetris.
Rip / burn / download / upload music.
Surf the web.
Goof around with photoshop and similar apps.
And finally, the joker:
Run Longhorn.
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
C Lund
> Sure, if all you want out of a computer is a base for an iPod.
edwin, the minimac is better than my current mac in all ways except
the HD space. And I use my mac for a lot more than as "a base for an
iPod."
Fool.
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
C Lund
> > if the mac mini is not right for you then you are obviously not the
> > target user.
> > but suppose all that you want to do is:
> > send emails
> > rip your entire cd colection to your hard drive
> > write a book
> > surf the web
> > browse through a few thousand photos from your digital camera
> > watch dvds
> > play some not so high spec games (how many games need more than a 32mb
> > radeon?)
> Unfortunately, you could not do all those at once,
You can have all the apps needed to do the above active and running at
the same time on OS X. I do it all the time.
> and none of them well.
Really? Want to tell us why not?
> You might as well take $500 and throw it down a hole ( sorry, thats more
> like $700 with all the othe parts ).
Uh. No. For those $500+ you get a nice little computer that does what
most users want from a computer, and without the hassle offered by the
two alternative platforms (malware and kludges on Windows and
geekiness level required by Linux).
> Whereas you could get a high performance AMD GNOME linux workstation
> that could do all that with alacrity for under $500.
Assuming your time is free or you know somebody who's time is also
free and is willing to install it for you.
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
Lloyd Parsons
C Lund <cl...@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> wrote:
I'm using my base mini at work as a replacement for my old, dying,
Lombard Powerbook. I keep about 6 programs up and running at all times
and it is very snappy at it.
For entertainment, while running all those apps, I go over and download
full screen movie trailers just to piss off the pc techs cleaning up yet
another pc full of malware.....
no ipod needed
Chad Irby
C Lund <cl...@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> wrote:
> In article <28dq719vi048a65k2...@4ax.com>,
> Edwin <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> > >then the mac mini is a very nice choice
> > Sure, if all you want out of a computer is a base for an iPod.
>
> edwin, the minimac is better than my current mac in all ways except
> the HD space. And I use my mac for a lot more than as "a base for an
> iPod."
Don't forget, Eddie's running PCs. He's used to three year old machines
being nothing much more than doorstops, or having to replace all of the
hardware a bit at a time to keep them working. The idea of a running,
useful computer in the five year age range makes his head hurt.
Walter Bushell
imout...@mac.com wrote:
<snip>
> What spin doctoring? Benchmarking on x86 shows 64-bit isn't faster than
> 32-bit, and that's with x86-64s additional registers to help out.
> There's no inherent reason 64-bit will be faster than 32-bit, other
> than intensive integer operations which are generally better off going
> through vector units anyway, and plenty of reasons 64-bit will come out
> slower (losing effective cache size due to the wider data).
<snip>
Might help in Mac emulation. PearPC is notably slow. Word is that this
is largely due to lack of registers. Run a native Darwin under an
emulated upper level OSX and application layer anyone?
--
Guns don't kill people; automobiles kill people.
Edwin
C Lund wrote:
> In article <28dq719vi048a65k2...@4ax.com>,
> Edwin <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> > >then the mac mini is a very nice choice
> > Sure, if all you want out of a computer is a base for an iPod.
>
> edwin, the minimac is better than my current mac in all ways except
> the HD space.
That's known as "damning with faint praise..."
> And I use my mac for a lot more than as "a base for an
> iPod."
It also use it to prop up your head while you post to Usenet?
> Fool.
You signed your name.
Edwin
TravelinMan wrote:
> In article
<cirby-A22643....@news-server1.tampabay.rr.com>,
> Chad Irby <ci...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <1115230514.9...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Unless a PC owner is really determined to have a 'Mac sampler,'
he has
> > > no reason to buy a Mac Mini.
> >
> > ...except for the size issue, the silence issue, the compatibility
> > issue, the lower energy costs, and all of the other stuff you keep
> > forgetting to list.
>
> And, of course, the malware issues.
So what you're saying is that making the computer as small as the Mac
Mini gives no room for malware to fit?
TravelinMan
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
Where did I say that?
You said that there was no reason to buy a Mini unless you are a PC
users who really wants a Mac sampler.
Chad said that size, silence, compabitiliby, energy costs, and other
reasons to buy a Mini exist.
I just added one more reason to buy the Mini instead of a PC to Chad's
list. Your reading comprehension seems to get worse weekly.
Chad Irby
TravelinMan <Now...@spamfree.com> wrote:
> I just added one more reason to buy the Mini instead of a PC to Chad's
> list. Your reading comprehension seems to get worse weekly.
Don't worry, in a couple of hours he'll be telling us that we didn't
give him any reasons at all, and he's still waiting.
macguy
On 2005-05-04 09:22:41 -0700, "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> said:
>
> Chad Irby wrote:
>> In article <1115147475....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
>> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Chad Irby wrote:
>>>> In article
> <1115139974....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
>>>> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>>> In article
>>> <1115070465....@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
>>>>>> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.pcabusers.com/reviews/skyhawk/imc6375/p1.htm
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This one isn't a system. It's a kit.
>>>>>
>>>>> You have an incredible command of the obvious.
>>>>>
>>>>>> And they don't mention the price
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes they do. "Price: MSRP $270.00"
>>>>
>>>> ...for a case (that's about ten times the size of the Mini)
>>>
>>> It has a case that is small, but not too small, like the Mac Mini.
>>
>> No, for a case that's big enough to be a pain in the ass, but not
> small
>> enough to be worth the trouble, like most PCs.
>
> No, that's for a PC that has a small foot print without sacrificing
> features or upgradeability.
>
>>>> with no processor, no RAM, and no drives.
>>>
>>> Gee, could that be why they call it a bare bones kit?
>>
>> Well, *they* call it that, but (once again) you were pretending that
> it
>> was a "Mac killer" when all it was an empty case with an unpopulated
>> motherboard, for half the price of a Mac Mini. Once you fill it up
> with
>> drives and the rest, you have a more-expensive PC,
>
> That's still cheaper than a Mac Mini.
It doesn't matter if it is cheaper!!! The quality is what matters. The
mac mini is even smaller than those machines.
>
>> that's several times
>> the size of the machine it was supposed to "kill."
>
> But it's still small enough to fulfill the purpose of having a small
> computer, while killing the Mac Mini with its better features, greater
> power, and cheaper price.
>
>>>> Are you still pulling this sort of amateur shit, Edwin?
>>>
>>> Welcome back, Chad. I'm sorry to see the years have not been kind
> to
>>> you...
>>
>> I'm not the one who pretended that an empty case was a "Mac Mini
> killer."
>
> Neither am I. A barebones kit is not an "empty case."
You totally don't know the difference between a mac mini and one of
those competitors do you? Get out of here and go somewhere else.
C Lund
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> C Lund wrote:
> > In article <28dq719vi048a65k2...@4ax.com>,
> > Edwin <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> > > >then the mac mini is a very nice choice
> > > Sure, if all you want out of a computer is a base for an iPod.
> > edwin, the minimac is better than my current mac in all ways except
> > the HD space.
> That's known as "damning with faint praise..."
Want to elaborate on that?
> > And I use my mac for a lot more than as "a base for an
> > iPod."
> It also use it to prop up your head while you post to Usenet?
Fool.
> > Fool.
> You signed your name.
Lame IKWYABWAI.
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
Edwin
Hi, Snit.
sam tygier
> So you can do whatever a Mac Mini offers on your 600 MHz computer, you
> have no need to upgrade?
the mini would be faster at encoding music.
the mini would be far better at playing dvds
the via epia do not have much in the way of a graphics card.
but i have not real need to upgrade
> Isn't it strange how the most vocal supporters of the Mac Mini neither
> have one, nor any intention of buying one?
the reason i dont not have one is purely to do with its release date, and that i got round to making a poor (but good enough for my needs) imitation of it a few months earlier.
sam tygier
JEDIDIAH
> In article <28dq719vi048a65k2...@4ax.com>,
> Edwin <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 07 May 2005 21:45:26 +0100, sam tygier <samt...@yahoo.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >if the mac mini is not right for you then you are obviously not the target
>> >user.
>> >
>> >but suppose all that you want to do is:
>> >send emails
>> >rip your entire cd colection to your hard drive
>> >write a book
>> >surf the web
>> >browse through a few thousand photos from your digital camera
>> >watch dvds
>> >play some not so high spec games (how many games need more than a 32mb
>> >radeon?)
>>
>> That's all stuff you could do on a $300 Linux PC.
>
> ...after a couple of months of learning how to use linux well, and a
> couple of weeks of getting the software to work.
That's just mindless FUD.
The apps will come installed straight out of the box. Anything
that you would want to buy 3rd party "Macintosh" style would have very
easy to deal with install procedures.
>
>> Put in quiet fans, and the PC will be quiet too. Why does your
>> computer have to be a clutter of small boxes on your desk?
>
> You keep saying that silliness about the "clutter of small boxes," and
> completely fail to justify having to have more than the one small box,
> which will do (nicely) all of the above tasks.
Lots of MP3's
Lots of DV video.
Lots of games.
Any of those individually can easily overwhelm laptop grade storage.
[deletia]
We're basically just talking about a laptop with less mobility here...
--
The best OS in the world is ultimately useless |||
if it is controlled by a Tramiel, Jobs or Gates. / | \
JEDIDIAH
> On Sat, 07 May 2005 19:37:06 GMT, Edwin <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 07 May 2005 10:24:19 +0200, C Lund <cl...@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <MPG.1ce563b04...@news.verizon.net>,
>>> Randy Howard <randy...@FOOverizonBAR.net> wrote:
>>>> In article <clund-92B3CB....@amstwist00.chello.com>,
>>>> cl...@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no says...
>>>> > > > > The Mac Mini is not a serious competitor to current PC hardware,
>>>> > > > > it is about 3 year old technology,
>>>> > > > What was the average processor speed three years ago?
>>>> > > I purchased nice dual-P 2GHz workstation machine 3 years ago, and
>>>> > > it's still running fine.
>>>> > But was that a top of the line processor when you bought it?
>>>> No, I think I could have sprung for dual 2.8s at a much higher
>>>> price at the time.
>>>
>>>And could you have found one crammed into a box the size of a disc-man?
>>
>>Why is that a requirement?
>
>
> Why is it a requirement that Mac Mini's be a serious competitor to
> [high-end] PC's? Since you want to make up your requirements, I
> think that Randy is perfectly justified in making up his.
...no. The expectation is that a Mac Mini would be a serious
competitor to it's $260 PC equivalent.
>
> By the way, it was a requirement of mine: really quiet PC, small form
> factor--since I was replacing a rather noisy Shuttle XPC that I was
> using as a Java-based server. The Mac Mini set a new standard for
> quietness--I'm now spending a small fortune trying to quiet down my
> other servers. In case you're wondering, it's because I have a number
> of machines running in the room adjoining my master bedroom--the
> constant humming had always been soothing. Now that I put the Mini
> in, the humming from the PC's seem annoying. To quiet them down, I'm
> replacing all the PC power supplies with Antec Phantoms. At a tune of
> $180 apiece.
OTOH, you can't get a 400G 2.5 drive & external enclosures are
also quite noisy.
[deletia]