[turtle777]

Originally Posted by baw

What is a joke though is that Apple released the Mini with the VGA output not in spec.

I have yet to find anyone having a problem with the VGA who is NOT using some dodgy KVM switches !

-t

[sodamnregistered2]

Originally Posted by turtle777

I have yet to find anyone having a problem with the VGA who is NOT using some dodgy KVM switches !

-t

No KVM here and I'm having issues creating cross-platform graphics.

[edit] My Mini goes right into my 21" Sony CRT.

It's like the whitest white is missing. You can see everything fine, it just gets in the way for creating things like cross platform graphics. Calibrating and adjusting the gamma for PC does not really solve it either.

I def did not have these issues with my Powerbook or my dual G5.

[99switcher]

Originally Posted by elvis2000

No - it's Apple's fault for crippling it with a more expensive, too-slow, notebook harddrive just to keep it slightly smaller. Not to mention the crappy 32meg Radeon 9200. That's Apple's fault. It is never the consumers fault for expecting a good value. This is why Apple still only has 3% share and why the mini is a poor seller.

The Mini is hardly crippled. Its a small, inexpensive nicely engineered desktop, desk drawer, or other small space, full featured Mac. I replaced a 1.2 GHz upgraded Cube with mine. The Cube replaced a 533 MHz upgraded to 1 GHz G4 Digital Audio PM. WTF do you want from a Mini - its half the price of a laptop because it doesn't carry an LCD display, keyboard, or trackpad. Mine is a 1.25 GHz model so I OC'd it to 1.42 GHz and stuck in a Gig of RAM - used the stick of 256 stick in something else. It'll be my main Mac at home until the rumored faster x86 model (Pentium M has about the same footprint as the G4 in the Mini) or PPC is out next year. Don't buy a Mini if you are a hard core gamer or need some serious rendering power - its not designed for that. Get the mac you need, don't bitch about the one you dont.

[elvis2000]

Originally Posted by esXXI

1) Funny, Apple don't give any information on separate consumer desktop sales, in the mini, eMac and iMac families. They're grouped as one. Apple sold around 50% more machines last financial conference, no doubt aided by the mini.

And significantly updated iMacs, and the first eMac updates in a year.

[elvis2000]

Originally Posted by discotronic

No doubt a cheap Dell is exactly what you get. The $299 model that they are pushing right now is crap. Granted it comes with a monitor, mouse and keyboard.

Intergrated/Shared graphics
Celeron processor
XP Home
256MB RAM (shared with graphics)
CD-RW only
An industry leading 90 day warranty

No iLife or OS X.

Crap compared to what?

The Celeron is always last years hot model. Thus, the current Celeron is similar to last year's crop of P4s. Thats a tad superior to an *ages* old G4 with 133mhz bus.

Shared graphics are "fine" for basic use. Apple would have done it had their BIOS supported it.

[elvis2000]

Originally Posted by Agent69

I think the Mac Mini is a fine computer but I think that the eMac is the best entry level buy at Apple right now (at least until the next Mini revision). It has a Core Image compatable graphics card, a 1.42 ghz G4, a standard 3.5" 7200rpm hard drive, and a standard 5.25" Combo drive. It also includes a CRT, keyboard, and mouse; nice if you don't have them already. Plus, I have heard that the spanning hack works on the new eMac.

Of course, the eMac has issues too. As a former owner of a 700mhz model, I can attest to the fact that they are loud, and the eMac is definitely bigger and heavier than Mac mini.

Are they still loud? I also owned a 700mhz Gen1 model and it was so loud I sold it after a few months of ownership. It was a great looking computer, though.

I still wish they had continued down the CRT iMac path with the eMac. The LCD iMacs never did it for me.

[elvis2000]

Originally Posted by iREZ

another case of 'i want my $500 dollar machine to run circles around my $1500+ powerbookitis.' the mini does just fine...the only thing that's bad about the mini is it's GPU. how come i don't see many users complain about the iBook?

.... all the drawbacks of a laptop with none of the benefits. That's why.

[elvis2000]

Originally Posted by Zubir

He's going to put the Hitachi 60gb 7200rpm after market drive in it. They run about $200. So, throw in AE, BT, Superdrive, and third party harddrive in the 1.42 model, and you've dropped $1,000.

That's just stupid. You can buy a G5 desktop from Apple for that (see Apple Certified section of the Apple Store).

How much of a hard-on can you have for a wimpy & tiny looking computer? The G5 is much sexier.

[elvis2000]

Originally Posted by sodamnregistered2

It really just confirms that the mini should have been an all-new cube. The decsion to use more expensive, less capable notebook hard drives was just wrong.

1. Use faster desktop hard drives
2. Better video card
3. Dim video is a killer

The decision to go with notebook drives with the big "dumbass" decision here. Apple loves making bad calls -- and here is yet another one. We would have all be just as "wowed" by a slightly larger size... and with double the storage capacity and twice the speed!

The Radeon 9200 is "OK", certainly better than most stock PCs were back in January (but not now).

The Dim Video is dumbass call #2. Sure, the iBook suffers from the same problem (obviously -- this is a headless iBook after-all) --- but the iBook video out is only for temporary solutions, not full-time use.

Great design call, Apple!

I would assume Rev2 (assuming Apple doesn't pull the plug) will address these issues.

I don't understand Apple... back in the early iMac days they were updating religiously (two revisions in the first 6 months). Now they load the channel with crap and let it sit. Why?

[Randman]

Dude, posting 7 consecutive times is a bit much, don't you think?

[elvis2000]

Originally Posted by RodUK

I guess that's Apple for you though, form has won out over function in this case.

But did form really win this time? Would Form have been compromised by using desktop parts? Even at a slightly larger size I think we would have all been impressed.

[AC Rempt]

The mini is a very cool device. It's not the perfect machine for several of us, but I have seriously thought about getting one for use as a backup machine and/or small file server. I have a G5 and a PowerBook, and it would be easier to keep crucial docs synced up if I had a server in place. The mini is small, cheap and quiet, so it's very attractive to me in that regard, and 40 gigs of file space is just about all I need.

I also think the haters should take a look on the Web and see how this machine is being used. There are people who love it and are being very innovative in how they use it.

Size and form factor are the biggest selling points to the mini, not power. Is it "stupid" to expect real, G5 level performance from it? Maybe unrealistic.

Is it "stupid" to install a different drive, up the RAM and drop a grand on the mini? Depends on what the user has in mind. Maybe the form factor and the silent operation fit a real need s/he has.

Apple offers several other models, so if the mini doesn't work for you, get one of them, but why waste time insulting people or dismissing the machine because it doesn't fit your particular needs?

[elvis2000]

Originally Posted by Randman

Dude, posting 7 consecutive times is a bit much, don't you think?

I was responding to seven different messages.

[esXXI]

Originally Posted by elvis2000

And significantly updated iMacs, and the first eMac updates in a year.

The point is, you don't have information on that the Mac mini sold inadequately or "below Apple targets" because neither pieces of information are available.

Originally Posted by Randman

Dude, posting 7 consecutive times is a bit much, don't you think?

Gotta love post-count whoring.

Originally Posted by elvis2000

I was responding to seven different messages.

And? What stopped you from copy-pasting the quotes into a single one?

I still don't know why you're arguing, plenty of people have stated reasons why you misjudged what the Mac mini was for - somehow believing that a low-end consumer desktop would outpace a year old professional machine. That was your fault.

[Scotttheking]

Originally Posted by Zubir

He's going to put the Hitachi 60gb 7200rpm after market drive in it. They run about $200. So, throw in AE, BT, Superdrive, and third party harddrive in the 1.42 model, and you've dropped $1,000.

No, I put that drive in my old Powerbook. This mini is coming as I listed, and it cost my mom $500. Go used machines!

Edit: Just worried about the dim video. It might not matter, but I guess she may end up with a LCD in the future.

[osxrules]

I'm quite happy with my 1.25GHz Mac Mini apart from a recent hard drive scare that seems to be ok now. How many times do I need to tell myself to backup often? Anyway, I actually upgraded from a 2 year old 700MHz G3 ibook and if I hadn't put 1GB Ram in it, it would have been a straight swap in terms of price. That includes a keyboard and 17" CRT that goes up 1920x1440 (sometimes) - usually it's maxed at 1600x1200 but it beats a pitiful 1024x768, which most laptops are. I'd say that was pretty good value.

The good thing is I have a G4 so it can play video much better and my fan hardly ever kicks in while doing so because it normally uses less than half my processor. It means it can take advantage of any auto-vectorization that the new Tiger developer tools should offer.

At first, I thought the machine wasn't much better than my old ibook but I've discovered that it's at least twice as fast on most tasks. I can even play Unreal Tournament 2004 at pretty much max settings and 1024x768 resolution - same with Soldier of Fortune 2 but it crashes for some reason.

I certainly wouldn't have gone for another imac because I got sick of being stuck with the same display, at least now I can get an LCD or bigger CRT when I want. I can even carry my Mini around with me when I visit someone and use their monitor.

I agree with what someone said though that Apple should have used standard 7200 rpm drives and used the savings to put better graphics cards in them or at least with more VRam. 64MB should be the minimum for new machines since most games have an absolute minimum of 32MB. The graphics card and hard drive let the mini down. But not enough for me not to like it.

[sodamnregistered2]

Originally Posted by Scotttheking

Edit: Just worried about the dim video. It might not matter, but I guess she
may end up with a LCD in the future.

If she does not make graphics or video for cross platform applications she will not have any problems with web surfing, e-mail, using office type apps. The dim video just makes it hard to make things look siilar on a Mini and on a PC or other Mac.

I used to calibrate my dual G5 close to a PC so I never had an issue with things looking too different between other computers. I have tried to calibrate my Mini to achieve this and have not had any luck.

My Sony CRT brightness is even set to 50%. Never had it above 10-15% before.

[mhuie]

Originally Posted by 99switcher

The Mini is hardly crippled. Its a small, inexpensive nicely engineered desktop, desk drawer, or other small space, full featured Mac.

WTF do you want from a Mini - its half the price of a laptop because it doesn't carry an LCD display, keyboard, or trackpad. Mine is a 1.25 GHz model so I OC'd it to 1.42 GHz and stuck in a Gig of RAM - used the stick of 256 stick in something else. It'll be my main Mac at home .... Don't buy a Mini if you are a hard core gamer or need some serious rendering power - its not designed for that. Get the mac you need, don't bitch about the one you dont.

It may be full featured compared to a Notebook as everyone seems to be comparing it to, but is NOT a notebook. It's interesting how everyone is trying to compare price when price is not the issue. If the mini had desktop components in it and cost $1000, I'd buy it, it would fit my needs.

BTW if you read earlier posts, its pretty useless for everyday tasks, unless you like your desktop computer to be a fast as an iBook. Sorry, I'm not one to settle for notebook performance in a desktop just because Apple doesn't sell a mid-priced headless mac.

[mhuie]

Originally Posted by esXXI

I still don't know why you're arguing, plenty of people have stated reasons why you misjudged what the Mac mini was for - somehow believing that a low-end consumer desktop would outpace a year old professional machine. That was your fault.

The "consumer desktop" $1300 iMac 17", a model outpaces the new "professional" $2700 PB17". Find a new point to argue.

What makes people pay for the notebook is the PORTABILITY. Apple's choice was to sacrifice smaller form factor for notebook class performance in a desktop machine? Like everyone has been saying, make it slightly bigger and they could have upped the VRAM and used a desktop hard drive.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by mhuie

The "consumer desktop" $1300 iMac 17", a model outpaces the new "professional" $2700 PB17". Find a new point to argue.

So WTF is your problem ?

OF COURSE does a PB cost more than a comparable desktop.

You bitched because a $600 Mac mini was outperformed by a $1800 PB.
I don't see how a PB to iMac comparison helps here to make your point.

And as far as protability goes: this INDEED is an argument FOR the Mac mini, and for some, worth sacrificing some power. What other computer (not laptop) can be carried around and hooked up to existing monitors and keyboards ?

-t

[mhuie]

The point is that a Desktop machine should ALWAYS outperform a notebook for general usage. Notebooks make performance sacrifices, more portable = less performance = higher price. Desktops do not. That has been the trend for notebooks since their inception.

Basing your whole point on the fact that your comparing how a $600 desktop shouldn't out perform a $1800 notebook is just stupid.

If you're going to get hostile, go post somewhere else. If you can't see the valid point I have AND OTHERS have posted, then go post somewhere else.

[piot]

Originally Posted by mhuie

The point is that a Desktop machine should ALWAYS outperform a notebook for general usage.

...er why?

[Helmling]

Any mini can kick the crap out of my old 17" Soccer-ball style iMac, so I think the specs are good for home users.

Like most Macs,it's not good for games or high end graphics. If my machine's any indication, iPhoto collections of over 1,000 images (like mine!) will be a bit pokey.

All told, though, if you don't want your mini...I'd be happy to take it off your hands.

[TomR]

Originally Posted by elvis2000

No - it's Apple's fault for crippling it with a more expensive, too-slow, notebook harddrive just to keep it slightly smaller. Not to mention the crappy 32meg Radeon 9200. That's Apple's fault. It is never the consumers fault for expecting a good value. This is why Apple still only has 3% share and why the mini is a poor seller.

No, it's not Apple's fault it's the CONSUMER'S fault for NOT doing thier homework first and researching the specs.

mhuie did NOT have to buy that machine. Apple did NOT force him/her to.

I got a mini 2 weeks ago and love the damn thing. It's a fine computer for MOST PEOPLE. Then again, I'm not anal about having the speediest/most powerful machine.

Tom

[esXXI]

Originally Posted by mhuie

The "consumer desktop" $1300 iMac 17", a model outpaces the new "professional" $2700 PB17". Find a new point to argue. [...].

And the iMac is over twice the price of the mini, it is not a low-end consumer model. It's the most expensive consumer machine Apple do (so I suppose it can be referred to as their "top-end" consumer machine). *Sighs heavily*

[cc_foo]

Apple took an iBook, removed the keyboard and LCD screen, and released it as a desktop product. They are well within their rights to do so, and there has been some consumer response to it.

The lower end one has similar specs as the PowerBook 15" that I bought in September 2003. So there is no reason for me to expect the mini to be any faster—even if its newer.

To say that a desktop should only use “desktop” components, and be inherently faster than a notebook is ridiculous. Evidently Apple targeted a certain population with its machine. If you are not part of that target audience, it doesn’t make the machine a joke.

Anyway it has been six months since the mini was unveiled (shipping not as long). It’s not like the specifications and reviews have been secret all this time.

[discotronic]

Originally Posted by elvis2000

Crap compared to what?

The Celeron is always last years hot model. Thus, the current Celeron is similar to last year's crop of P4s. Thats a tad superior to an *ages* old G4 with 133mhz bus.

Shared graphics are "fine" for basic use. Apple would have done it had their BIOS supported it.

Apple doesn't use a BIOS.

The mini has a 167MHz Bus.

Shared graphics may be "fine" for basic use but the Radeon 9200 in the mini is a whole lot better. 32MB of real video RAM is better than any shared Intel Graphics chipset. Also the Radeon doesn't beg/borrow/steal resources.

I have a PC with the Intel Extreme Graphics. I tried playing the original Medal of Honor but it was very painful. I put a GeForce4 MX 4000 64MB PCI video card in it and it played the game 10 times what the shared graphics did.

The system I linked to is crap and not even close to being on par with the mini. At least a person would get a 1 year warranty on the mini.

[Agent69]

Originally Posted by elvis2000

Apple would have done it had their BIOS supported it.

Apple did do this, back in 1992 with the IIsi. From Everymac.com:

64k-320k of the system RAM is dedicated to video function.

[cdetdi]

Alright, lets start from step 1:

The Mac Mini isn't a big power performer.

The Mac Mini, while being headless, ISN'T a desktop. On the same token, it ISN'T a laptop. It is only a couple of pounds and is, debateably, the most portable fully featured computer of any type (laptop or desktop). It performs daily tasks admirably. I use my 1.5 15" AlBook with my 128MB graphics card for this type of stuff. For me, the mac is about daily usability. I've got many PCs to do other things, but, when I sit down to come home, I go to my mac. It is easier to use and, with things like Spotlight, gives me access to all my data immediately. A mac mini provides the same. I used to be a "power user", but computers have since become more vital in my everyday life and I now rely on the stability of OSX and the portability of my Powerbook to accomplish many tasks.

Now, I work in two locations, and I bring the powerbook between them. In both locations, I have larger LCDs to work on (a 19 and 21 widescreen) and I use those instead of the powerbook's screen. Now, considering I don't use the powerbook for all of its performance, and I use external LCDs anyway, I consider myself the perfect candidate for a mac mini. I'm not doing anything that requires lots of processing power, but I'm using the computer to be productive. It is less of a computer and more of a tool that I work with and rely on. And for $500 bucks (alright, realistically I wouldn't get one that was under 650) I can still make movies and organize photos much better than a PC can. It isn't just about the speed, it is about the whole package.

cdetdi

[goMac]

Originally Posted by mhuie

Notebooks use small expensive parts and include displays. Its no stretch that a $450 Dell desktop outperforms a $1700 notebook.

Really? My friend has a $1700 notebook that outperforms his parent's $400 Dell.

[baw]

Originally Posted by turtle777

I have yet to find anyone having a problem with the VGA who is NOT using some dodgy KVM switches !

-t

Go to the Apple.com discussion area.

[mhuie]

Originally Posted by TomR

No, it's not Apple's fault it's the CONSUMER'S fault for NOT doing thier homework first and researching the specs.

mhuie did NOT have to buy that machine. Apple did NOT force him/her to.

I got a mini 2 weeks ago and love the damn thing. It's a fine computer for MOST PEOPLE. Then again, I'm not anal about having the speediest/most powerful machine.

Tom

Well if you're satisfied buying a NEW desktop computer with performance specs of an iBook, essentially useless exposé on a 20+" LCD, useless portrait mode (think the Matrix), and can't even play 480p h.264, then I guess that's you.

I like to buy a computer that is able to run the OS as it was designed to run. *shrug*

Oh wait... I guess you are are saying since the Mac Mini is cheap/low end consumer, it doesnt have to work like it should...

[galarneau]

Originally Posted by mhuie

Well if you're satisfied buying a NEW desktop computer with performance specs of an iBook, essentially useless exposé on a 20+" LCD

I was concerned about the expose performance of the mini since it only has a 32MB video card.

I went down to my local apple store that had a mini hooked up to a 20" LCD running at the native resolution (1680x1050). Opened a bunch of windows (~10), and tried expose.

Result? It works just fine. Is it as smooth as a dual G5? No. Does it work well? Yes.

Essentially useless? I think you exaggerate.

To all the people who say that the mini is only good for "light duty... email etc", need I remind you all that just 2-3 years ago, Apple was shipping PowerMacs with the same speed chip as the mini currently has:

(http://www.everymac.com/systems/appl..._1.25_mdd.html)

...and people were using them for professional work (2D editing, 3D rendering, video production etc), and loving the results.

So, yes, the mini has flaws. But useless? A joke? You guys need to find some perspective.

[sodamnregistered2]

true...

I'm sitting using YourSQL to mess with some mySQL databases, doing light web editing on a couple of pages in Dreamweaver MX2004, and kinda surfing the web is it's all good. I was just "inspired" to post that the mini is a very good computer, the most bang for the apple buck ever.

I have even pulled off some surprising 3d renders in Cinema 4d XL7. The 9200 has limits, but you can do some work with it. The ONLY thing keeping me from saying you can't do PShop, AE, 3d, etc is the dim video with CRT monitors. I COULD buy an LCD but I already have a sweet 21" Sony CRT, so... I was a target mini customer in lot of ways.

I had to swap the 60GB 7200rpm Hitachi from my Dell laptop into the Mini before I thought performance was reasonably acceptable. Of course I stuffed 1GB of ram into after opening the box.

The mini is cool. Within reason, it charms people, and it will do anything a 1.42GHz G4 computer has ever done.

However, it would be my opinion that the mini has 3 fairly major flaws:

1. dim video - my Mini may go to Craigslist over this yet, ie if I don't buy an LCD
2. should have used a SATA desktop drive - faster, more storage, cheaper
3. should have also had something like a 9600 64MB video card

The above concedes two major things, the above mini would be a little bit larger, and make a little more noise and prolly drink a little more juice, but honesty:

What if this would have been the first "high end" mini?

$600
1.42 GHz G4
160GB SATA desktop drive
9600 64MB
or even the dreaded... Ge5200 64MB

We'd find other things to bitch about, but, seriously, that would have been sweet.

As it is right now, I give Mini 3 out of 5 stars.

[iREZ]

saying that running expose is 'useless' is thee most retarded statement i've ever heard. so what if it's choppy...it still spreads the windows, hides the windows, or switches through the application just fine. your argument is full of holes and until you learn how to read and compare...it will always be so. let me do the math for you READ below:

your Powerbook:
your MacMini:

Processor speed
PB: 1.5 <winner
MM: 1.42

RAM
PB: 1GB <winner
MM: 512MB

GPU
PB: probably 64MB, but could've been BTO'd to 128MB ATI 9700 <winner
MM: 32MB AI 9200

HD
PB: probably 80GB 4200, but could've been BTO'd to 5400RPM <winner if BTO'd or else it's a tie
MM: 80GB 4200

FSB
PB: 167mhz
MM: 167mhz
it's a wash

Do we see a trend developing?

Can we now see why your powerbook is a faster machine? if apple released the mini at a cost of $1000 it'd be another story where i'd back you up 100% in saying that apple released a desktop that's slower than a year old powerbook, because frankly that'd be a terrible deal. but the facts are in, the machine sells for $500 (less with student discount), apple has not lied about what the machine can and cannot do, it's your job as a consumer to do your homework before you just go out and buy, and i'm almost positive that the most expensive Dell laptop out there a year ago could beat the living pants off of the POS low end desktop they offer now (don't hold me to this....but i'm 90% sure this is true....and i'm talking the MOST expensive PRO notebook, not consumer notebook). you and elvis gotta realize that this machine fills a niche in most peoples lives. if it had 64mb of VRAM it'd fill mine too, but!!!!! i did my homework and realize that Tiger and later OS's are going to be graphic hogs...so i didn't buy. when an update does come...i think i will be buying as an UPGRADE from my machine because i know that it'll be better, spec wise, as compared to my current PB.

[elvis2000]

Originally Posted by esXXI

And? What stopped you from copy-pasting the quotes into a single one?

I still don't know why you're arguing, plenty of people have stated reasons why you misjudged what the Mac mini was for - somehow believing that a low-end consumer desktop would outpace a year old professional machine. That was your fault.

Wrong guy. You are good at cutting and pasting, but yet unable to keep track of who said what. Hence -- the reason for responding to messages one at a time. Not my fault MacNN doesn't have nested threads.

[elvis2000]

Originally Posted by discotronic

Apple doesn't use a BIOS.

Hence, the inability to use shared memory. Video memory allocation is controlled throught he hardware BIOS on PCs.

The mini has a 167MHz Bus.

My mistake. But doesn't change my point. 167mhz is as slow as 133mhz in the modern (last few years) computing era.

I have a PC with the Intel Extreme Graphics. I tried playing the original Medal of Honor but it was very painful. I put a GeForce4 MX 4000 64MB PCI video card in it and it played the game 10 times what the shared graphics did.

Of course you did. Those mainboard chipsets are not for gaming. Neither is a Radeon 9200 with 32megs RAM. Trust me, Apple didn't "give" you dedicated memory because they are nice. They did it because they *can't* do shared memory. The 9200 with 32megs is *on par* if not a little worse than whats offered on "better" PC MGP mainboards.

The system I linked to is crap and not even close to being on par with the mini. At least a person would get a 1 year warranty on the mini.

What's crap about it? $299 gets you a full system, with monitor, etc etc. The shared memory is no better than the crappy 9200. And Dell offers you a choice on the warranty. For $29 you can add 1 year warranty if that's such a big deal to you. You happened to not mention that.

Look -- I run a crappy little Sage iMac as my 2nd computer (OS9, thank you very much). I like Macs. But what I don't like is the blind advocacy that I believe is hurting the brand. If the loyal consumers won't hold Apple to a higher standard, WHO WILL?

[elvis2000]

Originally Posted by TomR

No, it's not Apple's fault it's the CONSUMER'S fault for NOT doing thier homework first and researching the specs.

mhuie did NOT have to buy that machine. Apple did NOT force him/her to.

I got a mini 2 weeks ago and love the damn thing. It's a fine computer for MOST PEOPLE. Then again, I'm not anal about having the speediest/most powerful machine.

Tom

Consumers can't be held responsible for Apple's mistakes. That's foolishness. I work in Marketing for a major consumer goods company. If I *ever* said something was the consumer's fault I'd be fired for being a sniveling excuse-maker.

[elvis2000]

Originally Posted by osxrules

I'm quite happy with my 1.25GHz Mac Mini apart from a recent hard drive scare that seems to be ok now. How many times do I need to tell myself to backup often? Anyway, I actually upgraded from a 2 year old 700MHz G3 ibook and if I hadn't put 1GB Ram in it, it would have been a straight swap in terms of price. That includes a keyboard and 17" CRT that goes up 1920x1440 (sometimes) - usually it's maxed at 1600x1200 but it beats a pitiful 1024x768, which most laptops are. I'd say that was pretty good value.

So this is typical -- most people satisfied with the Mini are coming from pretty low ground. A 700mhz G3 iBook is going to seem slower in comparison to a roughly 2-3 times more powerful Mini.

But those coming from G5s (which I can't understand)... or switchers used to getting more for their money on the PC side... are the ones screaming foul.

JW

[elvis2000]

Originally Posted by mhuie

It may be full featured compared to a Notebook as everyone seems to be comparing it to, but is NOT a notebook. It's interesting how everyone is trying to compare price when price is not the issue. If the mini had desktop components in it and cost $1000, I'd buy it, it would fit my needs.

BTW if you read earlier posts, its pretty useless for everyday tasks, unless you like your desktop computer to be a fast as an iBook. Sorry, I'm not one to settle for notebook performance in a desktop just because Apple doesn't sell a mid-priced headless mac.

Very, very well said!

[galarneau]

Originally Posted by mhuie

...its pretty useless for everyday tasks, unless you like your desktop computer to be a fast as an iBook.

I agree that I (and many others) would probably be much happier if Apple had made the Mini a little larger so it could accomodate 3.5" drives.

But useless for everyday task? Hardly.

It's SLOWER for everyday tasks than a machine with a 3.5" hard drive. SLOWER.

This is different than useless.

Really. You can look it up in a dictionary if you don't believe me.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=useless

I for one, don't care about the hard drive speed. I've spent much time using an iBook and the speed is just fine. If I want to upgrade, I'll hook up my external seagate 200GB drive and boot off that.

If your everyday tasks REQUIRE 35MB per second hard drive speeds, then you're doing something that is hardly consumer-oriented.

I agree the dim video problem is a serious one, and needs to be addressed before I would consider buying a mini.

The 32MB video RAM and lack of Core Image full compatibility? Meh.... It would be NICE to have a 64MB video card, but hardly a requirement for what I plan to do with it.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by mhuie

What I don't get is why Apple introduced a machine with notebook class performance. Isn't that the reason why manufacturers make "Desktop replacement" notebooks that sacrifice size and battery life for performance?

Actually, the initial requests for a machine like this came from businesses. They wanted a cheap workstation that could use their existing peripherals (like keyboards, mice, monitors, and so forth) as businesses upgraded existing Macs or even switched from Windows. Apple responded with the Mini.

I'm not making this one up; I've talked with Apple folks about it. I don't understand why they market it as a consumer machine, though, except for the fact that it's cheap.

[Agent69]

Originally Posted by mhuie

Well if you're satisfied buying a NEW desktop computer with performance specs of an iBook, essentially useless exposé on a 20+" LCD, useless portrait mode (think the Matrix), and can't even play 480p h.264, then I guess that's you.

I like to buy a computer that is able to run the OS as it was designed to run. *shrug*

Oh wait... I guess you are are saying since the Mac Mini is cheap/low end consumer, it doesnt have to work like it should...

I call ********.

I run Tiger on a PowerMac G4 with a single 1.25ghz G4 and a Radeon 9000 Pro. The only areas that my Mac might perform better than the Mini is that it has 64MB of VRAM (instead of 32MB) and it has a 7200rpm drive (instead of 4200/5400). Tiger runs just fine on my Mac, and from what I have seen at the Apple Store, it runs fine on the Mini as well.

It seems to me that instead of just concluding that the Mini just isn't for you, you feel the need to trash a computer that others might not have a problem with.

[galarneau]

Originally Posted by Agent69

It seems to me that instead of just concluding that the Mini just isn't for you, you feel the need to trash a computer that others might not have a problem with.

Ah, I think you're onto something here...

Instead of blaming himself for buying a computer without researching its capabilities and limitations first, he blames Apple for making a machine that isn't everthing he ever dreamed/wanted in a machine for $500.

[discotronic]

Originally Posted by elvis2000

Hence, the inability to use shared memory. Video memory allocation is controlled throught he hardware BIOS on PCs.




My mistake. But doesn't change my point. 167mhz is as slow as 133mhz in the modern (last few years) computing era.



Of course you did. Those mainboard chipsets are not for gaming. Neither is a Radeon 9200 with 32megs RAM. Trust me, Apple didn't "give" you dedicated memory because they are nice. They did it because they *can't* do shared memory. The 9200 with 32megs is *on par* if not a little worse than whats offered on "better" PC MGP mainboards.



What's crap about it? $299 gets you a full system, with monitor, etc etc. The shared memory is no better than the crappy 9200. And Dell offers you a choice on the warranty. For $29 you can add 1 year warranty if that's such a big deal to you. You happened to not mention that.

Look -- I run a crappy little Sage iMac as my 2nd computer (OS9, thank you very much). I like Macs. But what I don't like is the blind advocacy that I believe is hurting the brand. If the loyal consumers won't hold Apple to a higher standard, WHO WILL?

A Mac doesn't have a BIOS like you stated. So that was your mistake also.

So, let me mention the whole price and see what we can come up with. Add up the initial price of $299 + $29 warranty + $99 shipping + $21.35 taxes and you pay a grand total of $448.35.

Even though it comes with a monitor, keyboard and mouse it is still a pile of crap and it runs XP Home.

Right now a person can get the mini for the same price. It comes with a modern OS, the iApps, virus and spyware free, and an effective built-in firewall.

http://www.lacomputercompany.com/cgi...?group=macmini

Add a 17" CRT monitor and a keyboard and mouse for $100 after shipping from TigerDirect.

I doubt Apple will ever go to shared memory for their graphics no matter what the cost of the Mac. I would take the 32MB 9200 over shared graphics any day of the week.

There is no blind loyalty here. Some people need to realize that the mini is a consumer model computer. It wasn't introduced to be a main system. Apple didn't advertise it as one. At this point in "computing history" if a consumer walks into buying a computer blindly that is their own fault. There is plenty of information out there so they can make an informed decision. A lot of people on this board are so blind that they can't see what the mini is for. It is a small footprint computer that is meant for light tasks. It isn't a power user's machine.

[AC Rempt]

Originally Posted by galarneau

Ah, I think you're onto something here...

Instead of blaming himself for buying a computer without researching its capabilities and limitations first, he blames Apple for making a machine that isn't everthing he ever dreamed/wanted in a machine for $500.

This is definitely it. Both he and elvis have issues, so they go off trying to convince us all we're wrong, and the mini is crap, and Apple is evil and incompetent in its desire to dupe the world into buying a substandard machine.

Think of all the time that could have been saved if they had just read the specs on the side of the box . . .

[Randman]

Obviously, the mini isn't for everyone. But it does fill a niche. My PB17 is still my main Mac at home but I got a very good deal on a 1.42 mini (80GB hd w/ bluetooth and airport + 1GB of ram). It's perfect as a second computer as I had an Apple monitor to plug in.
My wife uses it and I use it to keep my 45GB or so of music on a hard drive without needing to plug and unplug my PB in all of the time. And I can have my printer and externals and other stuff plugged into it as well.

I haven't tried Doom but it does handle Unreal Tournament 2004 just fine.

[doucy2]

mac mini is a joke you could buy a used mac laptop for the same price and have way more fun with it
and have about the same perfromance

[iREZ]

you sure the 'y' in your name wasn't an 'he' before? you show me an apple notebook for $500 that is only slightly slower in performance than the mini, and i'll show you a buyer.

[galarneau]

Originally Posted by doucy2

mac mini is a joke you could buy a used mac laptop for the same price and have way more fun with it
and have about the same perfromance

Oh dear jebus, the idiots are out in force this week.

Life is too short to try and talk sense to people who can only express themselves with hyperbole.

I'm walking away from this discussion, and suggest all reasonable people do the same.