[Zim]

Originally Posted by foo2

Because you're stuck with Apple's screen, attached to the computer itself, and if there's ever a problem with it, you've got a serious problem. It's just a hassle that one shouldn't need to deal with - Apple should sell a capable, serious computer, without a monitor, for a reasonable sum of money. A PCI slot or two, a PCIe slot (or two!), and a minitower case isn't too much to ask.

Also, unless I'm mistaken, no Apple with a built in screen has ever had a resolution higher than 1600x.... I run my 21" CRT at 1856x1392, and that's only b/c my CRT doesn't converge well at the 1920 resolution. (yes I have very good vision)

This CRT has lasted me thru several Mac's. Why force yourself to throw out a perfectly good screen every time you upgrade?? (or at least suffer the added cost of selling used screen and having to buy new screen).

Don't get me wrong, for all of you that love integrated screens, I'm happy Apple makes something you like. Wish that was the same for the others of us.

Mike

[Titom]

"There is no price hike from the G4 mini to the Intel mini. The model with Combo drive, Airport, Bluetooth, and 512MB RAM was $599, and still is $599." --mduell

I think most will get the airport anyway.

Graphics-80/512=.156 or less the 16 percent. I don't think most will have to upgrade to 1 GB.
Unless they do more then surf and email, or like to have 10 programs going at once.
Question? Does Rosetta use a lot of ram? I'd like to hear for someone who has a new mini mac. (Yes it sounds like it would, but how much more-a little 30megs or alot 100megs.)
------------------------------
I think the mini mac is a great value!

Unless u start adding all that stuff to it, in which maybie you should look into the iMac.

[lamewing]

Originally Posted by zubro

that s all folks... you wanna play, go to the dark side and don't waste our time in MACNN forums!

I am not "playing" I am making a valid point. I just don't understand what the problem is with the mini. Its a fine base model system. It doesn't need a high or mid-level graphics solution. What part of low-end is not understandable? Do folks really expect top performance from a $600.00 computer?

If I misunderstood you comment and you were agreeing with me versus tell me to not waste the MacNN forum's time, then my apologies.

[lamewing]

Originally Posted by foo2

Because you're stuck with Apple's screen, attached to the computer itself, and if there's ever a problem with it, you've got a serious problem. It's just a hassle that one shouldn't need to deal with - Apple should sell a capable, serious computer, without a monitor, for a reasonable sum of money. A PCI slot or two, a PCIe slot (or two!), and a minitower case isn't too much to ask.

How about a modern-day version of the Macintosh IIci? Or is that too much like the mini?

[WizOSX]

Originally posted by lamewing
How about a modern-day version of the Macintosh IIci? Or is that too much like the mini?

The IIci/IIcx form factor would be absolutely ideal. Because of the shape it could be used either horizontally with a monitor on top or vertically like a minitower. Either way it didn't take up much room. It was just thick enough that it wasn't topheavy when used vertically. It was relatively easy to open.

[foo2]

Originally Posted by lamewing

I am not "playing" I am making a valid point. I just don't understand what the problem is with the mini. Its a fine base model system. It doesn't need a high or mid-level graphics solution. What part of low-end is not understandable? Do folks really expect top performance from a $600.00 computer?

If I misunderstood you comment and you were agreeing with me versus tell me to not waste the MacNN forum's time, then my apologies.

RE: Top performance from a $600 computer, sure! Why wouldn't you?

Yes, I'm serious. It's high time people realized that one can easily get great computers for $400-$500 WITH PCIe expansion slots, and you can easily put PCIe cards in there for superfast gaming.

Why wouldn't one expect this in 2006, if this is important to them?

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Lateralus

Somebody already upgraded their Intel iMac using an off the shelf Core Duo (2.16, IIRC), so I suspect doing the same to a Mini wont prove to be a problem.

You are correct sir. There is now a 2.16 GHz Core Duo Mac mini in the wild:

Too bad even "just" a 2.0 GHz Core Duo costs US$425 (street).

[WizOSX]

Originally posted by foo2
RE: Top performance from a $600 computer, sure! Why wouldn't you?
Yes, I'm serious. It's high time people realized that one can easily get great computers for $400-$500 WITH PCIe expansion slots, and you can easily put PCIe cards in there for superfast gaming.
Why wouldn't one expect this in 2006, if this is important to them?

It would certainly be nice, but I don't think we can expect it, because Apple is virtually a monopoly. They will always charge quite a bit more than the competitive PC companies for similarly configured hardware. Apple is one of the most profitable companies around. I think, however, Apple could produce a headless iMac with an ATI x1600 card in a video card slot. But Apple would almost certainly charge the same price as the base iMac ($1300)--the cost of video card and separate slot would probably just about cancel the cost of the 17" LCD panel. If Apple added just one additional PCI slot then we would be looking at about $1650--about half way between the iMac and the base PowerMac. I think Apple would sell either machine quite well--but probably not well enough to make up for the lost iMac and mini sales, considering the cost of development. I'm sure Apple has turned this one over many times.

[aristobrat]

Originally Posted by foo2

Yes, I'm serious. It's high time people realized that one can easily get great computers for $400-$500 WITH PCIe expansion slots, and you can easily put PCIe cards in there for superfast gaming.

Why wouldn't one expect this in 2006, if this is important to them?

Maybe Apple will consider making a low-end "full size" computer in the future.

Using full sized components (i.e. 3.5" drives, a regular sized mobo) would undoubtably cost them less than the components that they're using to fit in the mini's 6x6 case.

Until then, everyone will have to just deal with the fact that a fair chunk of the mini's $600 pricetag is because it's so damn small.

[zubro]

Originally Posted by lamewing

I am not "playing" I am making a valid point. I just don't understand what the problem is with the mini. Its a fine base model system. It doesn't need a high or mid-level graphics solution. What part of low-end is not understandable? Do folks really expect top performance from a $600.00 computer?

If I misunderstood you comment and you were agreeing with me versus tell me to not waste the MacNN forum's time, then my apologies.

You did! :o)
Excuse my native french attitude to put the things in the wrong way! ;o)
I quoted you to underline my/your point vs the game crackhead that can t stop winning about the low Video capabilities of the mini...

Now, I have done my part and don t want to waiste more bandwith with this! ;o)
Take care lamewing and sorry again for the confusion.

[lamewing]

Originally Posted by foo2

RE: Top performance from a $600 computer, sure! Why wouldn't you?

Yes, I'm serious. It's high time people realized that one can easily get great computers for $400-$500 WITH PCIe expansion slots, and you can easily put PCIe cards in there for superfast gaming.

Why wouldn't one expect this in 2006, if this is important to them?

Foo, I don't know what kind of machine you are building, but if you want a PC with SOLID performance, especially gaming performance, you cannot do it for $600.00

1. A good quality mobo - preferably SLI and dual core support - you did say gaming.
2. 1 GB RAM minimum - 2GB is really preferred.
3. A reliable PSU, no some fly-by-night-300watt-if-you-are-lucky PSU.
4. A fast cpu - use an AMD and save some money.
5. A quality video card - a Nvidia 6600 is really the low end at this point. A 6800 is a better choice and if you want real speed look at a 7800 or the ATI equivilant.
6. We will use on-board audio for the time being.
7. A hard drive of at least 100GB
8. At minimum a CD/DVD combo drive
9. The OS.
10. Decent mouse and keyboard.


I will use newegg and price quality componenets.
1. ASUS A8N-SLI Socket 939 $115.00
2. CORSAIR ValueSelect 1GB (2 x 512MB) 184-Pin DDR SDRAM DDR 400 $65.00
3. Antec NeoHE 430 ATX12V 430W $85.00
4. AMD Athlon 64 3700+ San Diego 1GHz HT Socket 939 Processor $213.00
5. ASUS EN6600/TD/128 Geforce 6600 128MB DDR PCI Express x16 (minimum) $95.00
6. FREE!
7. Seagate Barracuda 7200.9 SATA NCQ 3Gb/s ST3160812AS 160GB 7200 RPM SATA $83.00

8. LITE-ON Black ATAPI/E-IDE DVD Burner Model $45.00 on sale
9. OEM about $50 to $75.00
10. Pick your own, but around $50.00 to $75.00 for quality components.

Total - minimum $801.00

And I didn't even include a case. I don't see how you are going to get a great computer for $450 to $550. You may get an okay system, but the components will be low end and/or a generation behind.

[foo2]

Originally Posted by WizOSX

It would certainly be nice, but I don't think we can expect it, because Apple is virtually a monopoly. They will always charge quite a bit more than the competitive PC companies for similarly configured hardware. Apple is one of the most profitable companies around. I think, however, Apple could produce a headless iMac with an ATI x1600 card in a video card slot. But Apple would almost certainly charge the same price as the base iMac ($1300)--the cost of video card and separate slot would probably just about cancel the cost of the 17" LCD panel. If Apple added just one additional PCI slot then we would be looking at about $1650--about half way between the iMac and the base PowerMac. I think Apple would sell either machine quite well--but probably not well enough to make up for the lost iMac and mini sales, considering the cost of development. I'm sure Apple has turned this one over many times.

You wrote "cost" above (the cost of the video card and seperate slot...) and I think you meant the overcharging^H^H^H^H profit potential would be the same or similar.

There's nothing inherently expensive or inherently difficult in making a computer with a PCIe graphics port. Cheap PC vendors do it by the millions in $399 computers.

[foo2]

Originally Posted by lamewing

Foo, I don't know what kind of machine you are building, but if you want a PC with SOLID performance, especially gaming performance, you cannot do it for $600.00

On the contrary - you can do it for $600, but you'd get, as I wrote, a PCIe slot, rather than something in there, for that much (actually I said $400-$500).

Originally Posted by lamewing

1. A good quality mobo - preferably SLI and dual core support - you did say gaming.
2. 1 GB RAM minimum - 2GB is really preferred.
3. A reliable PSU, no some fly-by-night-300watt-if-you-are-lucky PSU.
4. A fast cpu - use an AMD and save some money.
5. A quality video card - a Nvidia 6600 is really the low end at this point. A 6800 is a better choice and if you want real speed look at a 7800 or the ATI equivilant.
6. We will use on-board audio for the time being.
7. A hard drive of at least 100GB
8. At minimum a CD/DVD combo drive
9. The OS.
10. Decent mouse and keyboard.

As I have said throughout this thread, a basic eMachines with a good CPU in there (AMD 64 3500 or so) and PCIe graphics slot (and MPEG2 tuner in hardware, and 200GB HDD, and 1GB RAM) is $460 or so at my local Circuit City, with MCE2005. Add a good graphics card, and game away - 6800GTs are now under $200, and 7800s are getting cheaper too; an ATI 1600 OEM from Compaq/HP is $67 if you check the bargain websites.

What you listed is if you want to custom build something without caring for cost in order to get that extra 3 frames per second of performance, or you want to overclock. You don't need SLI in order to have a great gamer machine.

[WizOSX]

Originally posted by foo2
You wrote "cost" above (the cost of the video card and seperate slot...) and I think you meant the overcharging^H^H^H^H profit potential would be the same or similar.

Yes, exactly. Apple obviously has a target profit on each type of unit sold and I would assume they would want to make at least as much profit per unit on this new machine as they do on the iMac.

Originally posted by foo2
There's nothing inherently expensive or inherently difficult in making a computer with a PCIe graphics port. Cheap PC vendors do it by the millions in $399 computers.

True. The cost would be mainly the video card which probably sells for about the same as an LCD flat panel (panel only, not a full monitor).

[aristobrat]

God, when did comparing eMachines to ANYTHING good become socially acceptable?

[foo2]

Originally Posted by aristobrat

God, when did comparing eMachines to ANYTHING good become socially acceptable?

I've owned one; a hard drive died, so they shipped me a box; within a week or so I had a new unit with a new hard drive. No issues...

If you read PC Magazine's annual (18th) reader reviews, they actually come out very well - a touch behind Apple's in some reports.

It will be interesting to see how Apple's moving of support from the USA to India impacts their satisfaction surveys.

[ghporter]

eMachines was pretty poor when they first started out, but they've gotten a LOT better over the last two or three years. Really. They don't have much of a margin, and don't expect much from their telephone support, but they make some solid, if not remarkable, machines.

[discotronic]

Originally Posted by ghporter

eMachines was pretty poor when they first started out, but they've gotten a LOT better over the last two or three years. Really. They don't have much of a margin, and don't expect much from their telephone support, but they make some solid, if not remarkable, machines.

I agree with you 100%. I have owned 2 of them and never had a problem. I have multiple friends that have purchased an eMachines without any problems.

I wish I could say the same for the Dell systems that I have to deal with. I have more problems with Dell machines than any other brand. The company I work for is all Dell and having to support the hardware is a nightmare. My consulting on the side is the same.

I would recommend an eMachines over a Dell any day of the week. The price can't be beat.

[foo2]

Originally Posted by Titom

"There is no price hike from the G4 mini to the Intel mini. The model with Combo drive, Airport, Bluetooth, and 512MB RAM was $599, and still is $599." --mduell

I think most will get the airport anyway.

Graphics-80/512=.156 or less the 16 percent. I don't think most will have to upgrade to 1 GB.
Unless they do more then surf and email, or like to have 10 programs going at once.
Question? Does Rosetta use a lot of ram? I'd like to hear for someone who has a new mini mac. (Yes it sounds like it would, but how much more-a little 30megs or alot 100megs.)

Rosetta eats RAM for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. You'll want more RAM. The fact that the Mini eats 80MB more of it isn't a positive thing.

[lamewing]

Originally Posted by foo2

On the contrary - you can do it for $600, but you'd get, as I wrote, a PCIe slot, rather than something in there, for that much (actually I said $400-$500).



As I have said throughout this thread, a basic eMachines with a good CPU in there (AMD 64 3500 or so) and PCIe graphics slot (and MPEG2 tuner in hardware, and 200GB HDD, and 1GB RAM) is $460 or so at my local Circuit City, with MCE2005. Add a good graphics card, and game away - 6800GTs are now under $200, and 7800s are getting cheaper too; an ATI 1600 OEM from Compaq/HP is $67 if you check the bargain websites.

What you listed is if you want to custom build something without caring for cost in order to get that extra 3 frames per second of performance, or you want to overclock. You don't need SLI in order to have a great gamer machine.

Pardon? THIS system is NOT a "get a few extra frames a second". IF YOU WILL NOTICE that I only included ONE video card ...and a low-end at that....

If you went with a SINGLE PCI -express slot mobo, you might save $30.00. And eMachines is NOT worth that money you would spend. It is much better to build yourself....Also, an SLI-based mobo ISN'T a sign you want to overclock, but instead you are simply spending a extra $30.00, to future-proof your system.

[foo2]

Originally Posted by lamewing

Pardon? THIS system is NOT a "get a few extra frames a second". IF YOU WILL NOTICE that I only included ONE video card ...and a low-end at that....

If you went with a SINGLE PCI -express slot mobo, you might save $30.00. And eMachines is NOT worth that money you would spend. It is much better to build yourself....Also, an SLI-based mobo ISN'T a sign you want to overclock, but instead you are simply spending a extra $30.00, to future-proof your system.

How is it better to build it myself? Imagine I want a MPEG2-tuner, MCE2005, 200GB HDD, 1GH RAM, AMD 64 3500+ CPU, in a minitower case, with the normal stuff too, and PCIe, and I want it for $500 or so. And I want support and someone to call if it breaks. And, naturally, a legal copy of MCE2005, with a TV tuner, with a remote control. Now that the AMD chip itself controls memory function, there's not a lot of difference between most of the motherboard's speed, so different brands and chipsets' performance is minimized from what it was years ago.

I don't think there's a way you're going to beat that well enough to justify actually doing it yourself. Once you throw the OS in there ($125-ish) and then TV tuner & remote ($125), you can quickly see how fast the money is spent. I freely agree that at the very high end you can save some money by doing it yourself sometimes; at the low end, particularly if you want to stay legal in buying the OS, it's almost impossible to do that nowadays.

SLI is overrated. The people that SLI'd and got 6800s, thinking they'd then upgrade to another 6800 when the time came, are pretty upset now - they could get a 7800 (and sell the 6800) and save money AND get better compatibility and performance, or they could buy another 6800. Not that great of a choice. A single PCIe slot is fine for the vast majority. But I'll grant for a tiny segment of the gaming market, it's a nice feature for some people.

For the sake of argument, imagine my time has no value. It's a gimme for ya that doesn't happen in the real world.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by lamewing

1. A good quality mobo - preferably SLI and dual core support - you did say gaming.

<offtopic>Why even care about dual core support when most games are single threaded and you're buying a single core CPU for a soon-to-be-deprecated platform?</offtopic>

[Dumbo]

Originally Posted by mduell

I'd like to see a $800-1000 Shuttle XPC sized Mac

Certainly not going to happen anytime soon. Here's why:

you can get everything the PowerMacs have less 6 RAM slots and 1 CPU slot (which is unused on two thirds of the models anyway) in a box one third the size.

And Apple will make (let's guess) about $150 instead of the (let's guess again) roughly $400 they make with the Power Mac. So where is Apple's incentive to do what you suggest? Nowhere.

In four words: When hell freezes over.

[JKT]

Their incentive could be that a $150 profit is better than zero profit because the person who was going to buy that box will not buy a Mac at all otherwise. Given that the headless mid-range box (Cube notwithstanding - though it didn't have a midrange price, it was still a mid-range box) has yet to appear in Apple's line-up in the past 7 to 8 years I wouldn't be holding my breath for one either, but it doesn't mean that it is impossible.

[Dumbo]

Umm, no. The person that just wants to try a Mac, will not invest $1000 in a shuttle - that's your mini buyer. The person that knows he wants a Mac, but wants a shuttle, will take whatever else Apple offers and go for either the mini or the iMac/Power Mac. The latter will rake in even more profit for Apple. We Mac lovers are a bunch of suckers.

[Dumbo]

Btw, I think this is just another basic example of confusing what we want vs. what's good for Apple's business. Steve will definitely go with the latter.

[foo2]

Originally Posted by mduell

<offtopic>Why even care about dual core support when most games are single threaded and you're buying a single core CPU for a soon-to-be-deprecated platform?</offtopic>

Deprecated platform? What in the world do you mean by that?

Anyway, most games are currently singlethreaded, but that's changing, and many get benefits from dual core CPUs now (see Quake4 and anything built on it).

Time will tell of the implementation, but the benefit is there.

[foo2]

Originally Posted by Dumbo

Btw, I think this is just another basic example of confusing what we want vs. what's good for Apple's business. Steve will definitely go with the latter.

And people as customers should want the former, but to look and read on here...

[Macpilot]

My friend is interested in streaming his iTunes and iPhoto from his iMac G5 to his Plasma/stereo in the other room.

What will be the performance difference between the Solo and the Duo? I am guessing there will be no difference, but that is only a guess.

He won't need a Superdrive or the bigger HDD, so I am assuming the $599 model will suffice.

Also, will playing DVDs on the Mini be the same quality experience as using his current DVD player hooked up to this plasma?

[lamewing]

Originally Posted by foo2

How is it better to build it myself? Imagine I want a MPEG2-tuner, MCE2005, 200GB HDD, 1GH RAM, AMD 64 3500+ CPU, in a minitower case, with the normal stuff too, and PCIe, and I want it for $500 or so. And I want support and someone to call if it breaks. And, naturally, a legal copy of MCE2005, with a TV tuner, with a remote control. Now that the AMD chip itself controls memory function, there's not a lot of difference between most of the motherboard's speed, so different brands and chipsets' performance is minimized from what it was years ago.

I don't think there's a way you're going to beat that well enough to justify actually doing it yourself. Once you throw the OS in there ($125-ish) and then TV tuner & remote ($125), you can quickly see how fast the money is spent. I freely agree that at the very high end you can save some money by doing it yourself sometimes; at the low end, particularly if you want to stay legal in buying the OS, it's almost impossible to do that nowadays.

SLI is overrated. The people that SLI'd and got 6800s, thinking they'd then upgrade to another 6800 when the time came, are pretty upset now - they could get a 7800 (and sell the 6800) and save money AND get better compatibility and performance, or they could buy another 6800. Not that great of a choice. A single PCIe slot is fine for the vast majority. But I'll grant for a tiny segment of the gaming market, it's a nice feature for some people.

For the sake of argument, imagine my time has no value. It's a gimme for ya that doesn't happen in the real world.

The MAIN reason that a person will build their computer themselves versus buying a system has to do with control. The hobbyist (for lack of a better term) has complete control on the components that are added to their system. You buy an eMachine, Dell, HP, etc. you have no control over what components go into your system.

In regards to SLI, this is to future-proof (didn't I say this before?) the system. It costs only an extra $30 or so to buy a mobo that has this feature. If you don't use it, no big loss. More importantly the SLI boards are usually the higher end boards and very often have RAID capabilities built in, in addition to more controller chips.

You are right, SLI is for the upper crust gamers. But the market is there and it isn't a bad idea either. You say it would be cheaper. I cannot agree. You will pretty much break even. For instance, a person buys a $225.00 6600gt (I did when they were new). I have SLI and I can either sell the 6600 for $75.00 (at best since new 6600 run about $115.00) and buy a 6800gt for $225.00 (round numbers). This costs me $365.00. Or I can just buy another 6600gt for about $115.00. This comes to $340.00.

So there is an actual loss of money (I didn't include the costs to list on ebay..listing fees, final value fees, etc) buy selling and buying a new card. In regards to compatibility, SLI compatibility is MUCH better now than when it first came out. This isn't suprising, and as time passes, more and more games will take advantage of it.

Also, you keep mentioning PCIe..I assume you mean PCI express? All new PC mobos have this. AGP is pretty much dead in the water on the PC side. So continually mentioning that your eMachine has PCI express is nothing special.

Also, you mentioned twice that a person will pay more for a legal piece of software. That is a no-brainer. All of my software is legal and I have no desire to pirate anyones work.

High end? You don't have to go high end to save money. Also, my system isn't anywhere near high-end. A high-end gaming system will run around 2500 to 3000 dollars.I built my computer for 900 dollars and it will runs circles around a $600.00 eMachine. That $300.00 was WELL invested. This is also the case if someone wants to buy a mini versus a eMachine, etc. The extra money paid for the mini can be justified by solid support (usually) and a nice OS. I like Windows, but I would be a fool to deny OSX isn't a solid OS.

One thing a person needs to consider is the future. Buying an eMachine a ????? is the equivilant of buying outdated technology. Heck, my system has an outdated video card (6600gt) and I just built is last fall. You cannot stop obselesence, but you can buy with wisdom and get the most for your dollars.

[lamewing]

Originally Posted by mduell

<offtopic>Why even care about dual core support when most games are single threaded and you're buying a single core CPU for a soon-to-be-deprecated platform?</offtopic>

Dual core has more value use than just in games. MOST of its CURRENT value has to do with day-to-day computing. It is nice to run a proc. intensive program and still be able to use your system. This is much easier on a dual-core system. BUT, once again "future-proofing" is a wise decision, and in the next year more games will be dual-core aware.

[lamewing]

Originally Posted by Macpilot

My friend is interested in streaming his iTunes and iPhoto from his iMac G5 to his Plasma/stereo in the other room.

What will be the performance difference between the Solo and the Duo? I am guessing there will be no difference, but that is only a guess.

He won't need a Superdrive or the bigger HDD, so I am assuming the $599 model will suffice.

Also, will playing DVDs on the Mini be the same quality experience as using his current DVD player hooked up to this plasma?

This might not be the exact comparison you want, but here goes.
I have a single core AMD64 3700+ and I can stream music and photos to my TV, via my Tivo, and still use my PC without any noticeable difference.

I don't see any reason an iMac couldn't accomplish the same (not using a Tivo - that just is a simple solution for me).

[Tuoder]

I'd like to see either a PCMCIA card slot or Expresscard slot for those who would like to upgrade from the integrated video. That way, their costs couldn't go up too much, and as a result, the price wouldn't go up much either. This is not to mention that this would "add" compatibility with any peripheral interfaces that come along.

[foo2]

Originally Posted by Macpilot

My friend is interested in streaming his iTunes and iPhoto from his iMac G5 to his Plasma/stereo in the other room.

What will be the performance difference between the Solo and the Duo? I am guessing there will be no difference, but that is only a guess.

He won't need a Superdrive or the bigger HDD, so I am assuming the $599 model will suffice.

Also, will playing DVDs on the Mini be the same quality experience as using his current DVD player hooked up to this plasma?

If he just wants to stream iTunes (ie music) and iPhoto (ie photographs) from Mac to Mac, the only holdup will be wireless networking, and for those two simple tasks, that's not going to be an issue. Marginally more complicated would be streaming iTunes _videos_, but at the low resolutions that Apple's sold them at(*), even on older Macs it shouldn't be an issue.

* This could change. Wouldn't surprise me a bit if they upped resolution quite a bit and sold the video in larger format. Even then, though, I don't think a solo-based Mini would have an issue.

[foo2]

Originally Posted by lamewing

The MAIN reason that a person will build their computer themselves versus buying a system has to do with control. The hobbyist (for lack of a better term) has complete control on the components that are added to their system. You buy an eMachine, Dell, HP, etc. you have no control over what components go into your system.

In regards to SLI, this is to future-proof (didn't I say this before?) the system. It costs only an extra $30 or so to buy a mobo that has this feature. If you don't use it, no big loss. More importantly the SLI boards are usually the higher end boards and very often have RAID capabilities built in, in addition to more controller chips.

You are right, SLI is for the upper crust gamers. But the market is there and it isn't a bad idea either. You say it would be cheaper. I cannot agree. You will pretty much break even. For instance, a person buys a $225.00 6600gt (I did when they were new). I have SLI and I can either sell the 6600 for $75.00 (at best since new 6600 run about $115.00) and buy a 6800gt for $225.00 (round numbers). This costs me $365.00. Or I can just buy another 6600gt for about $115.00. This comes to $340.00.

So there is an actual loss of money (I didn't include the costs to list on ebay..listing fees, final value fees, etc) buy selling and buying a new card. In regards to compatibility, SLI compatibility is MUCH better now than when it first came out. This isn't suprising, and as time passes, more and more games will take advantage of it.

Also, you keep mentioning PCIe..I assume you mean PCI express? All new PC mobos have this. AGP is pretty much dead in the water on the PC side. So continually mentioning that your eMachine has PCI express is nothing special.

Also, you mentioned twice that a person will pay more for a legal piece of software. That is a no-brainer. All of my software is legal and I have no desire to pirate anyones work.

High end? You don't have to go high end to save money. Also, my system isn't anywhere near high-end. A high-end gaming system will run around 2500 to 3000 dollars.I built my computer for 900 dollars and it will runs circles around a $600.00 eMachine. That $300.00 was WELL invested. This is also the case if someone wants to buy a mini versus a eMachine, etc. The extra money paid for the mini can be justified by solid support (usually) and a nice OS. I like Windows, but I would be a fool to deny OSX isn't a solid OS.

One thing a person needs to consider is the future. Buying an eMachine a ????? is the equivilant of buying outdated technology. Heck, my system has an outdated video card (6600gt) and I just built is last fall. You cannot stop obselesence, but you can buy with wisdom and get the most for your dollars.

Most buyers (and gamers) don't care about control. You're, again, talking about the top tiny percentage of gamers that actually care whether their RAM is 1T or 2T, and wrongly think (particularly on an AMD system) that there's a significant difference once the rest of the system is taken into account.

Can you address my point? How would you build a cheaper, better system compared to what is listed? Your price point is $500.

I'm stating PCIe (PCIe is the accepted naming standard for PCI Express) is included because many believe no video upgrades are capable on low-end hardware. At one point that was true; that is no longer the case.

I'd call $900 getting towards the higher-end of the PC range, these days. When $500-$600 gets you what I've listed, there's just not the impetus there once was to upgrade to snazzier components.

[Stolfi1]

Here is my issue with the mini. Its got all high end features minus the gpu. Whats the point of having intels best cpu in a machine if its limited by the gpu. I would have been happier seeing a celeron cpu with the i950 gpu for 499.99 that machine at least mentally makes sense to me. Its low end all the way around, or a similar specced mini with a 9550 and a kb+ mouse for 799.99

[fhoubi]

For all those whiners Apple will consider a Mac Fgemini soon, where fge stands for f* game edition...

My god, played today with a Mini 1.6DC. The beauty still is, small, fast and silent. They kept it running number crushing the whole day, and other than a quite warm (but less than a laptop's) base, it was still cool and silent...

It kepts me now hesitating between a 17", 20" iMac or a Mini + 20" ACD.

[iREZ]

who's to say that apple isn't working on a mini-tower already? all i know is that you're purchasing a computer, not a do-all machine. apple hasnt been competitive in the gaming market since i started using macs (roughly 7 years now) so why start complaining now?...if you want a gaming machine get an iMac, console, or just build yourself a pc and do me (along with others here) a favor and stop the whining.

the mac mini is what it is...if you dont like it...dont purchase it. im no apple zealot either, i prefer using OS X and waited 2 years for a computer with everything that I needed was released. i am now happy to say that i own a 17" iMac CD that does EVERYTHING I NEED.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Dumbo

Umm, no. The person that just wants to try a Mac, will not invest $1000 in a shuttle - that's your mini buyer. The person that knows he wants a Mac, but wants a shuttle, will take whatever else Apple offers and go for either the mini or the iMac/Power Mac. The latter will rake in even more profit for Apple. We Mac lovers are a bunch of suckers.

The person who wants a Shuttle XPC (me) is not going to buy a mini. The mini is a full size optical drive, 2 3.5" hard drives, and 2 PCIe slots short of what I want.

Originally Posted by foo2

Deprecated platform? What in the world do you mean by that?

"Soon-to-be deprecated" since the DDR2 AMD64 chips come out this year (with their new and different socket).

Originally Posted by lamewing

Dual core has more value use than just in games. MOST of its CURRENT value has to do with day-to-day computing. It is nice to run a proc. intensive program and still be able to use your system. This is much easier on a dual-core system. BUT, once again "future-proofing" is a wise decision, and in the next year more games will be dual-core aware.

The context was for a gaming machine, but I realize that even gaming machines are used for other things.
There's no future proofing in buying a dual-core capable mobo and a single-core CPU for a platform that will be deprecated by the end of the year.

[foo2]

Originally Posted by mduell

"Soon-to-be deprecated" since the DDR2 AMD64 chips come out this year (with their new and different socket).

There's no future proofing in buying a dual-core capable mobo and a single-core CPU for a platform that will be deprecated by the end of the year.

That's silly logic. The Mac Mini GPU was obsolete the moment it was shipped, yet somehow you raise the point about a "soon to be deprecated" AMD 939 platform? That's silly. The old AMD platforms are similarly "deprecated", and yet it's easy to buy CPUs for them....and GPU upgrades too.

[krillbee]

Originally Posted by Stolfi1

Here is my issue with the mini. Its got all high end features minus the gpu. Whats the point of having intels best cpu in a machine if its limited by the gpu. I would have been happier seeing a celeron cpu with the i950 gpu for 499.99 that machine at least mentally makes sense to me. Its low end all the way around, or a similar specced mini with a 9550 and a kb+ mouse for 799.99

exactly!

I dont understand how others fail to see this.

I mean with a fast processor and a weak video card, you really cant do a whole lot.
I remember back in the day when my friend had a p2 350 computer (back when that was considered fast) and an isa video card. I laughed my butt off at him, and the reason he only had an isa video card was because he couldnt afford a better one.
but it basically crippled his entire system until he could afford a better video card.

ok, maybe you can watch 720p or 1080p videos on a mac mini, YAY! maybe finder is fast. or email/internet is quick. who cares! if thats all your going to be doing with that computer, then you've wasted $600-800 dollars.

[WizOSX]

I don't think anyone means "deprecated" here. Deprecated=express strong disapproval which makes no sense in the context of this discussion.

[foo2]

Originally Posted by WizOSX

I don't think anyone means "deprecated" here. Deprecated=express strong disapproval which makes no sense in the context of this discussion.

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

deprecated

adj. Said of a program or feature that is
considered obsolescent and in the process of being phased out,
usually in favor of a specified replacement. Deprecated features
can, unfortunately, linger on for many years. This term appears
with distressing frequency in standards documents when the
committees writing the documents realize that large amounts of
extant (and presumably happily working) code depend on the
feature(s) that have passed out of favor. See also dusty deck.

[iREZ]

sure you can...how about design work with adobe apps, which will run fine with the gpu supplied with the mac mini's. fact is the machine is a lot faster, and the crap gpu is only a hit towards people who want:

a) a gaming machine as a computer/and a computer
b) running an lcd display larger than the apple 20" display with no lag.

the mini has gotten upgrades across the board (fsb, two proc, faster proc, more ram, more usb, optical out, front row, and a remote...im sure im forgetting something). bottom line is that this is a fine machine/upgrade vs. what was offered before in the mini line.

[WizOSX]

Originally posted by foo2

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

deprecated

Thank you, foo2, for backing up my point that the word is being misused in this discussion. The reference takes great pains to point out that using "deprecate" to mean something like "depreciated" is a wrong use of the word and becoming distressingly more frequently misused in this way today.

[lamewing]

Originally Posted by foo2

Most buyers (and gamers) don't care about control. You're, again, talking about the top tiny percentage of gamers that actually care whether their RAM is 1T or 2T, and wrongly think (particularly on an AMD system) that there's a significant difference once the rest of the system is taken into account.

Can you address my point? How would you build a cheaper, better system compared to what is listed? Your price point is $500.

I'm stating PCIe (PCIe is the accepted naming standard for PCI Express) is included because many believe no video upgrades are capable on low-end hardware. At one point that was true; that is no longer the case.

I'd call $900 getting towards the higher-end of the PC range, these days. When $500-$600 gets you what I've listed, there's just not the impetus there once was to upgrade to snazzier components.

I said that for $600.00, a person is getting a bargin basement computer. The mac mini is just that, but nonetheless, a nice machine for the very average home user.

Also, you mentioned earlier it didn't make sense to buy a dual-core aware mobo and a single core cpu. Wrong. When I am ready to buy a dual core AMD 939 pin cpu for my PC , I will take my old 3700 out and put it in my wife's system. Poof my system has just been upgraded along with my wife's for a nice price.

I said you cannot build a better system for the cost of an eMachine. But you are not going to get a quality system from eMachines at that price. I think that Apple is really the only company that can make a quality machine at that price point. The REASON is because of that very control I mentioned earlier. Apple uses very standardized parts across their lines. This removes the question of variation of parts that is common among budget PC builders.

Most users may not care about control of components at the outset, but when their systems start having issues due to poor component choice, then it does become an issue. They simply don't know that this is the problem, but instead only that their computer isn't working correctly.

Also, most gamers do care about the quality of the compents in their machines. When I say gamers, I mean folks who build or buy a computer expressly for playing games, not a person who buys a system for more serious use and plays games on the side. Big difference. You use memory as an example. Okay that is fine. Real gamers will care if their memory is 2nd hand quality. They want a CAS of 2.5 or 2.0, nothing less. So it does matter.

No. No. and No again. 900 dollars is not getting to the high end of the PC range these days. Try checking out Hypersonic, Voodoo, or some of the other boutique compter companies. Now THOSE are true high-end gaming PCs.

Having said that, I will reiterate that for the $600.00 price you can get a nice computer from Apple (the mini) and you can even build one that cheap, but it will not be a gaming system in any manner. And anyone who buys it and complains that the system isn't up to snuff is misinformed.

[lamewing]

Originally Posted by krillbee

exactly!

I dont understand how others fail to see this.

I mean with a fast processor and a weak video card, you really cant do a whole lot.
I remember back in the day when my friend had a p2 350 computer (back when that was considered fast) and an isa video card. I laughed my butt off at him, and the reason he only had an isa video card was because he couldnt afford a better one.
but it basically crippled his entire system until he could afford a better video card.

ok, maybe you can watch 720p or 1080p videos on a mac mini, YAY! maybe finder is fast. or email/internet is quick. who cares! if thats all your going to be doing with that computer, then you've wasted $600-800 dollars.

Wasting the money? So what other solution does a family have for buying a low-end Mac if the mini is a waste of money? Especially if they want something to take up as little space as possible. Buying used isn't necessarily a good choice for many folks since they want a warranty and not all used systems come with them.

[lamewing]

Originally Posted by WizOSX

Thank you, foo2, for backing up my point that the word is being misused in this discussion. The reference takes great pains to point out that using "deprecate" to mean something like "depreciated" is a wrong use of the word and becoming distressingly more frequently misused in this way today.

Thanks Wiz. I appreciate you pointing this out! I knew that his choice of language just didn't sit "right"

[mduell]

Originally Posted by WizOSX

Thank you, foo2, for backing up my point that the word is being misused in this discussion. The reference takes great pains to point out that using "deprecate" to mean something like "depreciated" is a wrong use of the word and becoming distressingly more frequently misused in this way today.

foo2's defintion is exactly what I meant when I used the word deprecated. I did not mean depreciated.

[Dumbo]

Originally Posted by mduell

The person who wants a Shuttle XPC (me) is not going to buy a mini. The mini is a full size optical drive, 2 3.5" hard drives, and 2 PCIe slots short of what I want.

Power Mac or bust it is then.

You are a windows user. Apple doesn't cater to you. The current mini will get them more switchers than their supply can handle. Their business will do just fine - even w/o you.

IMHO the shuttle is crappy compromise. If it's gonna be as big as a shuttle (and use all the space the shuttle's taking), I might as well get a real computer like a Power Mac. If it has to be small, well, the smaller the better, i.e. the mini is just fine (minus the GPU) for what it's intended. Apple offers more than enough diversity. Last time they offered more, they were on the verge of filing Chapter 11.