[Hash]

And difference in growth from 40% to 16% is very large, but of course, you may not well understand business or math well, it seems, sorry

[foo2]

Originally Posted by Hash

Yes, Macs outsold Windows PC in the PAST quarters of 2005 - do you understand why they outsold Windows PCs?

No, they didn't. Wintel has 95% or so of the market, Macs had 4%, the rest had about 1%. That you can say Macs outsold PCs is absurd.

[foo2]

Originally Posted by Hash

And difference in growth from 40% to 16% is very large, but of course, you may not well understand business or math well, it seems, sorry

Moving from such a small percentage (3.x% to 4.x%) just isn't significant.

When Apple outsells PCs (ie has 51% of the market) THEN you can talk about outselling PCs. Until then, you're being silly.

[Hash]

I think you really do not understand business and perhaps cannot comperehend written text as well. Please reread cited sources above and return when you get the idea

[Hash]

Originally Posted by foo2

Moving from such a small percentage (3.x% to 4.x%) just isn't significant.

When Apple outsells PCs (ie has 51% of the market) THEN you can talk about outselling PCs. Until then, you're being silly.

I think you really silly. Lets say your sales grew 10% and Apple sales grew 33%. It means that your market share is shrinking even if you sell larger number of units. But with this trend, soon you will sell less number of units than Apple and your market share will be less than Apple's.

[foo2]

Originally Posted by Hash

I think you really silly. PCs in all homes and businesses DO NOT sell in one moment.

These market shares are RESULTS of all past sales from today to many past years. Got it?

Please define "Outsells" for us. Please write something that would explain how you can state (in all earnestness, it appears) that Macs "outsell" PCs, even though Macs only had (last quarter) a 4.5% or so market share.

[foo2]

Originally Posted by Hash

I think you really do not understand business and perhaps cannot comperehend written text as well. Please reread cited sources above and return when you get the idea

Done. You're still just as wrong.

[WOPR]

Hash, foo2 - this thread is POINTLESS. Go outside and do something more fun, please. For heaven's sake just use the machine you're happiest with and let others do the same.

[No Time 4 Love Dr. Jones]

Originally Posted by Hash

Yes, Macs outsold Windows PC in the PAST quarters of 2005 - do you understand why they outsold Windows PCs?

About the absolute size- as you yourself said- what is important is dollar to dollar comparison, even if you sell 10000 widgets, each for 1$ and earn meager 2% on each widget, Apple may sell fewer widgets but earn 30% on each sold box, then Apple is doing better, you know, cause if you lose money even with 10000 widgets sold, you gonna out of business, pal?

"What's a widget?"

"It's a fictional product, it doesn't mat-tah."

[elvis2000]

Originally Posted by Lateralus

Are you so ignorant that you think the only thing that affects a processor's performance other than the clock speed is the bus? There are far more intricate details that have at least as much of an effect on performance as the bus speed. Cache; Not just the size, but the type of cache it is and how heavily the processor does or doesn't rely on it. Latency; How the processor communicates with memory, how often, how efficiently... etc. Pipeline stages. Vector performance. The G4 has the Celeron handily outclassed in all of the above categories.

Please educate yourself...

Suggest you do the same. Today's Celeron is last year's P4. The Celeron is always "last years" model rebadged... though often running cooler and more reliably.

And yes, bus speed is a pretty significant factor in performance. Explain the G5!

The Celeron has come a long way since '98...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celeron

And don't try to badge me a troll... I'm a proud G5 owner! I just hate listening to the one-sided BS.

[elvis2000]

Originally Posted by foo2

Don't forget p2 - even worse for the Mac:

http://www.barefeats.com/mac2pc.html

I also find it interesting just how badly many other common applications run on a Mac. For example, The Sims 2, one of the best selling games of today, wants an 800 mhz PC and a fairly basic graphics card - or a 1.2 Ghz Mac with a more advanced graphics card. Why? Why do Macs run things so slowly? Aspyr's been programming on the Mac for years....

Requirements:
PC: http://eagames.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/...i=&p_topview=1
Mac: http://www.aspyr.com/games.php/mac/10880/

Same story with Rise of Nations and Age of Mythology - what you'd think would run well (a G4/1.33 and nVidia 5200/64MB) doesn't, yet a Pentium M 1.4 runs both flawlessly.

We shouldn't even talk about Safari performance....

And note the developer's comment for X-Plane... a game *developed* on the Mac!

"HOWEVER, IF YOU TURN ON THE "GENERATION-8 SCENERY" OPTION IN THE "RENDERING OPTIONS" SCREEN, THEN YOU DOUBLE THE SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS on the Macintosh! All that detail takes a good chunk of RAM! (The Windows machines are currently able to cache the data away using less RAM, so the system requirements do not go up for Windows machines using the Generation-8 scenery)"

http://www.x-plane.com/sysreq.html

[Link]

Originally Posted by elvis2000

And note the developer's comment for X-Plane... a game *developed* on the Mac!

"HOWEVER, IF YOU TURN ON THE "GENERATION-8 SCENERY" OPTION IN THE "RENDERING OPTIONS" SCREEN, THEN YOU DOUBLE THE SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS on the Macintosh! All that detail takes a good chunk of RAM! (The Windows machines are currently able to cache the data away using less RAM, so the system requirements do not go up for Windows machines using the Generation-8 scenery)"

http://www.x-plane.com/sysreq.html

That's due to the design of the OS and its efficiency with caching. Windows can't hold a candle to OS X in caching!

[pliny]

Originally Posted by foo2

Don't forget p2 - even worse for the Mac:

http://www.barefeats.com/mac2pc.html

I also find it interesting just how badly many other common applications run on a Mac. For example, The Sims 2, one of the best selling games of today, wants an 800 mhz PC and a fairly basic graphics card - or a 1.2 Ghz Mac with a more advanced graphics card. Why? Why do Macs run things so slowly? Aspyr's been programming on the Mac for years....

Requirements:
PC: http://eagames.custhelp.com/cgi-bin...li=&p_topview=1
Mac: http://www.aspyr.com/games.php/mac/10880/

Same story with Rise of Nations and Age of Mythology - what you'd think would run well (a G4/1.33 and nVidia 5200/64MB) doesn't, yet a Pentium M 1.4 runs both flawlessly.

We shouldn't even talk about Safari performance....

It's posts like this that make you a source of ridicule.

[discotronic]

Originally Posted by pliny

It's posts like this that make you a source of ridicule.

[WOPR]

Please stop bumping this pointless thread.


DOH!!

[ryaxnb]

One person's joke is another person's heaven. I've been running on 1Ghz Windows and 366 Mac OS 9 Macs, even my 900 Mhz/256/10.2 iBook, much less my 1.25Ghz G4/1GB/10.3 Mini, is a breath of fresh air. The Mini is never slow for me unless I really push it, but I'm just doing Web browsing and iPhoto and stuff. No, it's not for QuickTime Pro or Photoshop, and if you've got money to blow, I thing an iMac is a better machine for Photoshop Elements or iMovie, but $499 for a machine that makes movies, edits photos, plays tunes, browses the web, runs Office great, and comes with built-in productivity (if not the best) and top-notch iLife and Mac OS X OS. If you're a switcher, the Mini rivals a Dell. I set up a comparison: Dell against Mini. Do your own if you like. The gist of it was:
*The Dell had 2 years of virus protection - the Mini had one (who needs virus protection on a Mac)
*The Dell had a 2.8 Ghz proc: The mini is more like 1.8 or 2.0.
*The Dell did not have iLife competitors of any magnitude
*The Mac had .mac.
*The Dell cost about $100 more. That's with .Mac for all its great features. Don't want it? $150 more.
*The Dell had a Mouse ($15) and keyboard ($15). Switcher? Get a mouse/keyboard compatibility port setup for $8.
I conclude: Switchers often run old, 500 Mhz, 1Ghz, etc. PCs. A mini is often 1.5-5 times faster then the old PC, which often still runs Windows Me, 2000, or 98SE. Upgrading to XP costs $99. A Mac is $499 + new software costs, which, admittedly, can really run up. It's obvious why when it's new system time, a Mac Mini is a good choice.

How about new users? Although the mini is not a good choice here, the eMac is obvious; a ready-to-go computer for $799 (256MB) or $999 (512MB + SuperDrive). I'd recommend the $999 version most of the time, as putting new memory into a machine is too complex for newbies. When it's replace time around 2009, an eMac or iMac Intel is a natural choice.

How about old Mac users? Tons of users are still sitting on their 300-700Mhz Power Mac butts, waiting for a truly affordable computer. Many of these users don't really need the power and expandability of 2.0 Ghz G5's, nor do they want to throw out their old screen. The Mac mini carves out a niché here as well, for old Power Mac users who don't need 3-4 times more power; 1.5-3 times plus wireless, bluetooth, and a huge 80GB HD (very important, many of these users relied on their 20GB-40GB HD back in the days and now need a fairly large amount of space too) is fine. Got an old iMac G3, or even an original iMac G4? Upgrade from barely 10-capable to 10-blazer with a new eMac/iMac.
I think Apple's line has never been stronger, although I do think that they need to bring the iMac to the masses with a $999 model. 1.8 Ghz of G5 power is simply more then most need.

[ryaxnb]

Originally Posted by Zubir

I love OS X, but I have to agree that the mini is a joke. My 4 year old DA w/1.4 G4 upgrade is at least twice as fast in terms of feel. A $500 Dell w/512mb will run circles around it. And yes, people who just surf and read email do care how fast the machine does it. I listen to them bitch at work all day about the 2.4 Celeron D XP machines w/256mb that my boss thinks is enough. These PC's are much faster than the mini, by the way.

The slow hard drive is the killer. How do I know this? Because I bought a mini last Friday, put in 1gb, and grew steadily disappointed at the pregnant pauses and clicks coming from the hard drive. If it had a 7200 RPM drive, I'd keep it. I'll be taking it back this weekend, and keeping an eye out for the next revision of the mini.

Something is **cking wrong with the celeron, XP, or your software, internet connection, or whatever because for browsing the web, my 1Gig Athlon is speedy! It runs Office instantly, and plays Sims 2 just fine. And if I run OS 9 the old iMac 366 runs fast at the web and is sprightly at e-mail.
Edit: You guys complaining about HD speed must be doing HD intensive stuff like movies, 'cause my HD works fine.

[ryaxnb]

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...

Ah so the iBook can't run the OS designed to run either??!!??!

The Mac Mini is a headless iBook. It's basically they took the monitor off the ibook and ripped $500 off the price. Is a battery, built-in monitor, keyboard, and trackpad, and laptop design, (plus .08ghz more power + better GPU) worth $500? That depends. Playing games? Yes (or consider the eMac.) Need portability? Yes. Power outages frequent? Probably. Take it where there's no power (i.e. remote cabin) Yes. Making lots of movies or running intensive software? Consider the eMac or iMac.
Mac OS X in my opinion runs OK on a 900 Mhz G3. It runs on lots of hardware.

[mhuie]

Originally Posted by ryaxnb

Ah so the iBook can't run the OS designed to run either??!!??!

The Mac Mini is a headless iBook. It's basically they took the monitor off the ibook and ripped $500 off the price. Is a battery, built-in monitor, keyboard, and trackpad, and laptop design, (plus .08ghz more power + better GPU) worth $500? That depends. Playing games? Yes (or consider the eMac.) Need portability? Yes. Power outages frequent? Probably. Take it where there's no power (i.e. remote cabin) Yes. Making lots of movies or running intensive software? Consider the eMac or iMac.
Mac OS X in my opinion runs OK on a 900 Mhz G3. It runs on lots of hardware.

The processor speed has nothing to do with the issue. The stupid PC vs. Mac comparison has nothing to do the with the issue, nor does the price.

The simple fact is, you run the Mac mini on 1600x1200 and greater, which =21+" LCD's, and you get crap usability. Yes that includes the Apple 23" and 30" if you think that Apple products are immune. I don't care if you throw the fastest hard drive ever made, 1gig of ram or whatever you want to put it in, the UI lag makes it unusable.

[Link]

What the hell for do you want to run a $900+ monitor on a $500 computer? That computer isn't even intended for people who want to drive anything higher than 1280x1024 (or maybe a 20"er) -- which it can handle fine.

Besides, what about all the cheap machines that don't even have dedicated VRAM? They don't usually have AGP slots, I don't care if you show me dells till you're blue in the face.

[hudson1]

Originally Posted by Link

What the hell for do you want to run a $900+ monitor on a $500 computer? That computer isn't even intended for people who want to drive anything higher than 1280x1024 (or maybe a 20"er) -- which it can handle fine.

Besides, what about all the cheap machines that don't even have dedicated VRAM? They don't usually have AGP slots, I don't care if you show me dells till you're blue in the face.

Every one of those $500 computers in Apple stores are hooked up to $800 monitors. So it's hard to make that argument that a mini isn't intended for a 1680 X 1050 resolution. BTW, not that this is an excuse for the mini lacking 64MB Q2DE-capable video card but the those minis on display in Apple stores don't seem all that slow with a 20" ACD.

People like to dump all over Intel's Integrated Graphics but on modern machines it works very well (and you don't really have a VRAM limit, either). Of course Windows doesn't rely on compositing and all that kind of heavy lifting that the OS X UI demands. Backing that up, I recall seeing a couple of posts that claim that the UI speed on those OS X-on-Intel developer boxes is very very fast. Don't those lack a dedicated video card?

[buggsuperstar]

Originally Posted by hudson1

Every one of those $500 computers in Apple stores are hooked up to $800 monitors. So it's hard to make that argument that a mini isn't intended for a 1680 X 1050 resolution. BTW, not that this is an excuse for the mini lacking 64MB Q2DE-capable video card but the those minis on display in Apple stores don't seem all that slow with a 20" ACD.

Apple Stores hook up their Minis to ACDs because they would like to showcase their Apple displays too. Imagine an Apple Store hooking up a Mini to a BenQ LCD? What would that do for the image of the store?

I don't have an official Apple Retail Store in my neck of the woods, but I do have Authorised Apple Resellers. And these guys hook up their Minis to Samsung and LG displays.

[hudson1]

Originally Posted by buggsuperstar

Apple Stores hook up their Minis to ACDs because they would like to showcase their Apple displays too. Imagine an Apple Store hooking up a Mini to a BenQ LCD? What would that do for the image of the store?

I don't have an official Apple Retail Store in my neck of the woods, but I do have Authorised Apple Resellers. And these guys hook up their Minis to Samsung and LG displays.

Sure, I can accept that they want to showcase their ACDs. However, just because they want to do that doesn't mean that the mini wasn't intended to be used with ACDs. If that's not how the mini is intended to be used then only a statement by Apple to that effect would substantiate that point.

[Lateralus]

Originally Posted by elvis2000

Suggest you do the same. Today's Celeron is last year's P4. The Celeron is always "last years" model rebadged... though often running cooler and more reliably.

And yes, bus speed is a pretty significant factor in performance. Explain the G5!

The Celeron has come a long way since '98...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celeron

And don't try to badge me a troll... I'm a proud G5 owner! I just hate listening to the one-sided BS.

I'm sorry, but you're very confused. The Celeron has never, ever been a rebadged version of any Pentium. Yes, the Celeron has always had its design based off of the Pentium to make manufacturing more simple. But the Celeron has always been cache crippled, and always performs more weakly in the multimedia arena.

What do you want me to explain about the G5? How with a bus speed of 900MHz, a 1.8GHz G5 can barely outperform a 1.8GHz G4 on a 133MHz bus because of latency and less efficient use of cache?

No, it hasn't come a long way. Because the Celeron isn't a design, it's a continuously recycled name.

Please spend some time reading a few articles on processor architecture before you try playing teacher to a group of people, many of whom know a great deal more than you seem to.

[mhuie]

Originally Posted by Link

What the hell for do you want to run a $900+ monitor on a $500 computer? That computer isn't even intended for people who want to drive anything higher than 1280x1024 (or maybe a 20"er) -- which it can handle fine.

Besides, what about all the cheap machines that don't even have dedicated VRAM? They don't usually have AGP slots, I don't care if you show me dells till you're blue in the face.

Only the cheapo $80 processor and mobo combos (where the chip is soldered on) don't have AGP slots, rare nowadays. But they have PCI, and you can easily get DVI PCI cards.

I just picked up a Radeon 9200 DVI 64MB PCI for $30 the other day.

BTW. 20" LCD's can be had for around 500-600 (where have you been?) and the Mini doesnt exactly sell for $500.

[elvis2000]

Originally Posted by Lateralus

Please spend some time reading a few articles on processor architecture before you try playing teacher to a group of people, many of whom know a great deal more than you seem to.

You seem to be the one posing as a knowledgeable techie. Spend some time looking over the other side of the fence. The celeron's have always had less cache memory (this is why they are so slow), part of the reason being when the Pentium chips are tested, any which fail the cache tests have their cache size reduced and rebadged as celeron's. Thus, today's Celeron is usually "yesterday's" P4. I didn't mean this literally (like they wipe the Pentium name off the chips). Wake up!

[ryaxnb]

Originally Posted by mhuie

Only the cheapo $80 processor and mobo combos (where the chip is soldered on) don't have AGP slots, rare nowadays. But they have PCI, and you can easily get DVI PCI cards.

I just picked up a Radeon 9200 DVI 64MB PCI for $30 the other day.

BTW. 20" LCD's can be had for around 500-600 (where have you been?) and the Mini doesnt exactly sell for $500.

BOTTOM LINE: Mini is a joke at 1600x1200. Mini is not a joke at 1024x768 or 1280x1024 (I know, I use it at 1280x1024, works great.) And the mini's VGA output is not disturbing to the average user. I don't care and I use VGA constantly. Pros? Maybe a problem there.
BOTTOM LINE 2: This thread, especially its title, is a joke.
Bottom line 3: I bought my mini for ~$930. If I bought a $1,299 iMac it would still not have 1GB RAM or a SuperDrive.

[foo2]

Originally Posted by Link

That's due to the design of the OS and its efficiency with caching. Windows can't hold a candle to OS X in caching!

OS X requires double the memory for that application, and you're talking about caching benefits? Erm...huh?

[foo2]

Originally Posted by pliny

It's posts like this that make you a source of ridicule.

Yes - after all, who cares about performance on a Mac? If your point is to be believed, no one does.

[foo2]

Originally Posted by Link

What the hell for do you want to run a $900+ monitor on a $500 computer? That computer isn't even intended for people who want to drive anything higher than 1280x1024 (or maybe a 20"er) -- which it can handle fine.

Besides, what about all the cheap machines that don't even have dedicated VRAM? They don't usually have AGP slots, I don't care if you show me dells till you're blue in the face.

Don't make yourself blue in the face - just go look for yourself - PCI-Express equipped Dells WITH 19" LCD monitors - $479. 9100s with 20" LCD for $836.

http://www.gotapex.com/

[foo2]

Originally Posted by Lateralus

I'm sorry, but you're very confused. The Celeron has never, ever been a rebadged version of any Pentium. Yes, the Celeron has always had its design based off of the Pentium to make manufacturing more simple. But the Celeron has always been cache crippled, and always performs more weakly in the multimedia arena.

What do you want me to explain about the G5? How with a bus speed of 900MHz, a 1.8GHz G5 can barely outperform a 1.8GHz G4 on a 133MHz bus because of latency and less efficient use of cache?

No, it hasn't come a long way. Because the Celeron isn't a design, it's a continuously recycled name.

Please spend some time reading a few articles on processor architecture before you try playing teacher to a group of people, many of whom know a great deal more than you seem to.

Here are a few stats so all can see what the performance is like:

Celeron D 2.8 faster than P4/2.4, MPEG Encoding: http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/2004...charts-18.html (last-gen P4 in all examples, but nonetheless....)

Celeron D 2.8 faster than P4/2.4, DIVX Encoding (same page, second chart)

Celeron D 2.8 essentially similar to P4/2.8, XVID encoding: http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/2004...charts-19.html

Celeron D 2.8 faster than P4/2.4, Studio 3D (same page, second chart)

Celeron D 2.8 faster than P4/3.0 (RDRAM), many others: http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/2004...ml#application

Looks to me like that chart says the "high-end" $125 Celeron of today is about as fast as the middle P4 of last year or so.

Overall, it is about 25% slower than the same clockspeed P4 with today's current (PC3200) memory bus, and only 10% slower than the same clockspeed P4 with an older memory bus, give or take a few percents here and there for different applications.

For the typical savings in cost, that's not bad at all. I wouldn't call that crippled.

[hldan]

Hmm, amazing, I can't believe how these threads start out on one subject and end up debating about something entirely different. What happened to the discussion about the Mac Mini topic?

[pliny]

Originally Posted by foo2

Yes - after all, who cares about performance on a Mac? If your point is to be believed, no one does.

Your posts are frequently ignorant and always at near hysteria pitch, therefore the are more than justified! Get a life man!

[broxy5]

...and I can't believe how long a thread about a low priced, entry level switch-box has become. it is what it is, buy it, or don't.

[Tarcat]

The Mini is a joke for a poweruser. It isn't power users who buy them though. As a web/email/iTunes/word proccessing machine the Mini is more than adequte. I think it important that Apple have an offering in this price range for people with low-end computing needs.

[WOPR]

Originally Posted by Tarcat

The Mini is a joke for a poweruser. It isn't power users who buy them though. As a web/email/iTunes/word proccessing machine the Mini is more than adequte. I think it important that Apple have an offering in this price range for people with low-end computing needs.

See now you've ruined this thread by saying something sensible!!

[hudson1]

Originally Posted by Tarcat

The Mini is a joke for a poweruser. It isn't power users who buy them though. As a web/email/iTunes/word proccessing machine the Mini is more than adequte. I think it important that Apple have an offering in this price range for people with low-end computing needs.

Maybe the real question is whether the mini is a joke or not compared to a two year or so old iMac.

[bembol]

Originally Posted by Tarcat

The Mini is a joke for a poweruser. It isn't power users who buy them though. As a web/email/iTunes/word proccessing machine the Mini is more than adequte. I think it important that Apple have an offering in this price range for people with low-end computing needs.

Amen!

It's over, the thread is done right?

[buggsuperstar]

Originally Posted by bembol

Amen!

It's over, the thread is done right?

Don't be too sure, it's come back to life many a time before.

[ChasingApple]

Lets talk about silverware for a moment, YES SILVERWARE!

John Doe has himself a simple set of silverware, it works just fine and serves its purpose, but John over the years has used and used his silverware and would like to get something new. So John heads out to the store to shop new silverware, lone and behold he sees this silverware with a design style he falls in love with, it comes with more then his old set of silverware came with, but it is double the price. Now John knows he can go to the dollar store and get another set of the old simple silverware he has had for years, but John wants something nicer, something fancier. He wants some style and since the silverware has a great design, more functionality then his old silverware (maybe more people can come to eat since he has more now then the last set came with), and he really loves it, he buys it.

Is John happy with his new silverware that cost him more? Yes, why? Because it fits his needs and he thinks it looks great.

There is a moral here, find it mini haters.

[hudson1]

Originally Posted by ChasingApple

There is a moral here, find it mini haters.

Ummm, let me guess.

John's silverware came in a box that could only be openned with a putty knife after which John discovered his shiny silverware is made of plastic?


(BTW, call me a mini-hater if you want but I did just buy one)

[Zubir]

Originally Posted by ryaxnb

Something is **cking wrong with the celeron, XP, or your software, internet connection, or whatever because for browsing the web, my 1Gig Athlon is speedy! It runs Office instantly, and plays Sims 2 just fine. And if I run OS 9 the old iMac 366 runs fast at the web and is sprightly at e-mail.
Edit: You guys complaining about HD speed must be doing HD intensive stuff like movies, 'cause my HD works fine.

You know how it is, at first it's fast, then a week later it's slow. Only having 256MB running XP doesn't help, or being on an old network that still has some 10MBS machines doesn't help either.