[mhuie]

Originally Posted by smoke-tetsu

I expected that to happen. A person just grabs one bit of what I said and takes it out of context. *shakes head* That's weak, just weak. Did you stop reading there or what? One major reason why I chose to get my Mini 6-8 months ago was OS X. You are preaching to the quoir. At least attempt to undestand the whole post before you reply please.

Thanks, some advice that applies to most of the posters in this thread. Read the whole fricking post.

[andgarden]

A worthy edit. Now you're not making two inconsistent claims. Cheers!

Originally Posted by smoke-tetsu

You STILL didn't do what I suggested, Am I that complicated? That's not I repeat NOT the crux of what I said. Not even remotely. In fact, I'll try to make it easier for you by removing the first sentence because anyway it doesn't need to be said anymore.

GEESH!

[smoke-tetsu]

*edit* Whoops you understand now. False alarm, lol

[climber]

Originally Posted by foo2

The Dell 3000 is in fact $399 - the link you need to follow is found on www.gotapex.com, just as I posted. I'll grant most would add $30 for a 1 year warranty, so it's $429. If we need to add things, let's add $59 to the Mac for a mouse and keyboard, and let's add $260 or so for the monitor.... the Mac mini's overpricing is obvious.

Why do I need XP Pro? No Mac can fully participate in an XP domain as it is, nor do they ship with anything like Remote Desktop, so why would one need XP Pro?

AV software can be legally downloaded for free (avast), and malware software can be downloaded for free too (MS antispyware); it comes with a simple software suite already.

The mini is $820 or so for just the most basic (slowest) mini with k/m and with a 17" monitor (if we go with the 17" number above); the Dell is up to $429. Is it really worth wondering why Dell does so well? Half the price! For that, I suspect most folks can put up with having an expandable (3 PCI slots, IIRC, plus easy access to RAM & hard drive & such) box that's vastly faster than the G4-based mini.

Your math and comparisons are about as poorly done as I have ever seen.

I assume for 820 bucks you included a LCD display with the mini. Why does the Dell come with a crappy CRT? Andat those prices you can't even get a credit or upgrade it. If we forget about the software for a minute you still forgot the following:

1 year warranty vs 90 days
Combo drive vs CD (no CDR)
56k modem vs None
512 Ram vs 256
No KB/M vs KB/M

It was not that hard to configure the systems to be more equal. When I did to your Dell it really would cost $588.00 I think Dell charges more than the 15 bucks apple just did for the mini (two day shipping). The Education price for the mini is $479. True the Dell comes with a CRT, but I could not delete that. Most people either already have one or are looking for a nice LCD. Regardless I think for a hundred bucks a cheap CRT could be found.

But lets get back to the software. Many PC experts recommend XP pro over home. I could care less why, but it is common. I will let someone else explain it.

The software package that Apple ships is simply the best out there for the price. By the time you get remotely close on that Dell to iphoto, imovie, iDVD etc, you could double the cost of that Dell. The free software you suggest is not something anyone should recommend to a novice user wanting to jump into digital media.

One more consideration for the mini on the graphics card you seem to hate so much. At least on the mini you can fix the god awful color that the cheap crappy CRT can sometimes have. On the Dell and most any cheaper PC, you can't because they do not have a modifiable color look up table. You have to add a video card to the PC, and then pray that it works because Dell is going to blame it on ATI when it doesn't and ATI is going to blame MS, and the circus begins. On the mini you can run the calibration software that comes with the computer or even plug in a USB color calibrator. Then when you actually want to take a digital photo and make a nice print, what you see on the screen might resemble what is on the paper.

Getting back to my original point. Many people have suggested that apple develop a headless imac or emac. They want a something more powerful and expandable than a mini, but less expensive and simpler than the powermac. Perhaps we will see one, perhaps not. But, if we don't it is not because apple is stupid or because they don't like their customers. Most likely, like any good business, they are little greedy and want to make some money. They want and need the margins they have on their other models. How many customers would pay for an headless imac that was still cost 1200 bucks? Most would scream because instead of 100 less they would expect 500 less.

Do you as a customer expect apple or any other company to just give you the product YOU want at YOUR price regardless of profitability? Apple as a company is not about specs, they are about solutions. The mini coupled with a 20" apple LCD would make a much better (obviously not faster) photoshop station than most PC's at twice the price.

[foo2]

Originally Posted by climber

Your math and comparisons are about as poorly done as I have ever seen.

I assume for 820 bucks you included a LCD display with the mini. Why does the Dell come with a crappy CRT? Andat those prices you can't even get a credit or upgrade it. If we forget about the software for a minute you still forgot the following:

1 year warranty vs 90 days
Combo drive vs CD (no CDR)
56k modem vs None
512 Ram vs 256
No KB/M vs KB/M

It was not that hard to configure the systems to be more equal. When I did to your Dell it really would cost $588.00 I think Dell charges more than the 15 bucks apple just did for the mini (two day shipping). The Education price for the mini is $479. True the Dell comes with a CRT, but I could not delete that. Most people either already have one or are looking for a nice LCD. Regardless I think for a hundred bucks a cheap CRT could be found.

But lets get back to the software. Many PC experts recommend XP pro over home. I could care less why, but it is common. I will let someone else explain it.

The software package that Apple ships is simply the best out there for the price. By the time you get remotely close on that Dell to iphoto, imovie, iDVD etc, you could double the cost of that Dell. The free software you suggest is not something anyone should recommend to a novice user wanting to jump into digital media.

One more consideration for the mini on the graphics card you seem to hate so much. At least on the mini you can fix the god awful color that the cheap crappy CRT can sometimes have. On the Dell and most any cheaper PC, you can't because they do not have a modifiable color look up table. You have to add a video card to the PC, and then pray that it works because Dell is going to blame it on ATI when it doesn't and ATI is going to blame MS, and the circus begins. On the mini you can run the calibration software that comes with the computer or even plug in a USB color calibrator. Then when you actually want to take a digital photo and make a nice print, what you see on the screen might resemble what is on the paper.

Getting back to my original point. Many people have suggested that apple develop a headless imac or emac. They want a something more powerful and expandable than a mini, but less expensive and simpler than the powermac. Perhaps we will see one, perhaps not. But, if we don't it is not because apple is stupid or because they don't like their customers. Most likely, like any good business, they are little greedy and want to make some money. They want and need the margins they have on their other models. How many customers would pay for an headless imac that was still cost 1200 bucks? Most would scream because instead of 100 less they would expect 500 less.

Do you as a customer expect apple or any other company to just give you the product YOU want at YOUR price regardless of profitability? Apple as a company is not about specs, they are about solutions. The mini coupled with a 20" apple LCD would make a much better (obviously not faster) photoshop station than most PC's at twice the price.

Your argument is so flawed that a response to the entire thing is absurd. Here are the highlights of your flaws:

- You didn't even bother to go to and read GotApex.com's link to Dell's deals, which clearly (straight from Dell) include a 17" LCD, not a CRT.

- You "assume" I included the LCD with the mini? I *said* so. Did you not read my post either? If not, just what are you replying to?

- I suggest *you* explain why someone should use XP Pro over XP Home, since you raise the point. OS X can't join a domain, so why get a PC OS that can join a domain? Let me be the first to assure you that XP Home's networking (at least with respect to SMB) is far better than OS X's.

- The mini has horrible video, all of your (silly) arguments to the contrary about CLUT mumbo-jumbo. And on the Dell, if you want even better video, it's just a simple upgrade with a PCI card. As the OP clearly has stated, he's stuck with his mini's slow video - there is no upgrade possible.

Honestly, the best posts so far are the ones that say "Because it runs OS X" as the reasoning for the higher price. Clearly, the hardware in the machine isn't the reason, hence Apple's upgrade to Intel hardware.

I'll be buying a "mini" when it has an Intel CPU in it and a reasonable graphics card or an AGP slot for a graphics card upgrade. I like the Mac GUI and OS experience, but I'm not blind to Intel's / Dell's / XP's advantages, either.

[climber]

Originally Posted by foo2

Your argument is so flawed that a response to the entire thing is absurd. Here are the highlights of your flaws:

- You didn't even bother to go to and read GotApex.com's link to Dell's deals, which clearly (straight from Dell) include a 17" LCD, not a CRT.

- You "assume" I included the LCD with the mini? I *said* so. Did you not read my post either? If not, just what are you replying to?

- I suggest *you* explain why someone should use XP Pro over XP Home, since you raise the point. OS X can't join a domain, so why get a PC OS that can join a domain? Let me be the first to assure you that XP Home's networking (at least with respect to SMB) is far better than OS X's.

- The mini has horrible video, all of your (silly) arguments to the contrary about CLUT mumbo-jumbo. And on the Dell, if you want even better video, it's just a simple upgrade with a PCI card. As the OP clearly has stated, he's stuck with his mini's slow video - there is no upgrade possible.

Honestly, the best posts so far are the ones that say "Because it runs OS X" as the reasoning for the higher price. Clearly, the hardware in the machine isn't the reason, hence Apple's upgrade to Intel hardware.

I'll be buying a "mini" when it has an Intel CPU in it and a reasonable graphics card or an AGP slot for a graphics card upgrade. I like the Mac GUI and OS experience, but I'm not blind to Intel's / Dell's / XP's advantages, either.

I did go the the web site you mentioned. At first glance it looked like they were using a CRT. It was in fact an analog LCD. My mistake. You still can not change the monitor, but you can change all the other items I listed. That is far from the twice the price you claimed. You can also add 17 bucks for ground shipping on the Dell, Apple has that included as well. It is a fact that you were two lazy to try and find a equivalent system to compare to the mini. You still are. Show me where a current Dell (WITH SIMILAR SPECS) for half of the 479.00 that apple charges and I will concede the point. Other wise it is you who is flawed.

The issue about the standard video card is mumbo jumbo to you because quite frankly you are ignorant. Being able to correctly set the gamma and white point etc on any monitor is critical to color work on any computer. I did not even mention the MS problem of cramming everything into the sRGB color space. You would rather bitch that the apple video card can not do quake at 500 fps and the ripple effect on the dashboard is missing. The fact remains that in some key areas the video card in the mini is far superior to the one in that Dell.

As far as upgrading the Dell video card. Show me any notebook sized computer that you can do this with. Like all notebooks the mini trades that capability for a much much smaller size. That may not appeal to you. Then do not buy one. But please stop the bitching that apple should do this and apple should do that, because quite frankly they should not. Unless it provides a way for them to make more money why should they? You still can't seem to understand this point. Have you ever taken an Economics or a Accounting course?

That is not the only differences between XP home and Pro. I am not going to discuss it for two reasons. 1: am not an expert in Windows, 2: I never want to be. If you are happy with the cheaper solution then fine. I would rather have the mini, that when I plug into my network at home will instantly find my laser printer, and I will have to configure absolutely nothing to print.

If you think that the move to Intel is going to somehow change Apple's current philosophy of NOT getting into the spec war with all the other low margin PC companies, you will be very disappointed. Apple will never (at least with Jobs in charge) offer the equivalent of the Dell package you pointed out. Everything on that computer including the monitor (except the CPU) is the lowest quality/price Dell could find.

[foo2]

Originally Posted by climber

I did go the the web site you mentioned. At first glance it looked like they were using a CRT. It was in fact an analog LCD. My mistake. You still can not change the monitor, but you can change all the other items I listed. That is far from the twice the price you claimed. You can also add 17 bucks for ground shipping on the Dell, Apple has that included as well. It is a fact that you were two lazy to try and find a equivalent system to compare to the mini. You still are. Show me where a current Dell (WITH SIMILAR SPECS) for half of the 479.00 that apple charges and I will concede the point. Other wise it is you who is flawed.

The issue about the standard video card is mumbo jumbo to you because quite frankly you are ignorant. Being able to correctly set the gamma and white point etc on any monitor is critical to color work on any computer. I did not even mention the MS problem of cramming everything into the sRGB color space. You would rather bitch that the apple video card can not do quake at 500 fps and the ripple effect on the dashboard is missing. The fact remains that in some key areas the video card in the mini is far superior to the one in that Dell.

As far as upgrading the Dell video card. Show me any notebook sized computer that you can do this with. Like all notebooks the mini trades that capability for a much much smaller size. That may not appeal to you. Then do not buy one. But please stop the bitching that apple should do this and apple should do that, because quite frankly they should not. Unless it provides a way for them to make more money why should they? You still can't seem to understand this point. Have you ever taken an Economics or a Accounting course?

That is not the only differences between XP home and Pro. I am not going to discuss it for two reasons. 1: am not an expert in Windows, 2: I never want to be. If you are happy with the cheaper solution then fine. I would rather have the mini, that when I plug into my network at home will instantly find my laser printer, and I will have to configure absolutely nothing to print.

If you think that the move to Intel is going to somehow change Apple's current philosophy of NOT getting into the spec war with all the other low margin PC companies, you will be very disappointed. Apple will never (at least with Jobs in charge) offer the equivalent of the Dell package you pointed out. Everything on that computer including the monitor (except the CPU) is the lowest quality/price Dell could find.

Since no Dell presently made is as slow as a Mac mini, the 'comparison' with exact features is beside the point; I was trying to get a rough idea of the price of each with a 17" monitor and mouse and keyboard - in other words, a simple usable configuration. At that, the Mac is substantially more than the Dell box, and you get less too. If you really wanted to compare systems, you'd have to conceed that the Mac mini is too slow to compare to a modern Dell, and you'd have to move up to a G5-based Mac. And the Mac would rapidly show even more of a price disparity.

No one claims the Dell is half the price of the Mac mini. It's when you take into account all you get with the Dell for $399 (or $479 if you want an AGP-equipped system) that the Mac mini looks so bad.

You really think someone with a mini is going to do critical color work on a computer? C'mon - be serious.

The mini isn't a notebook computer, in spite of its' underperforming video card and hard drive.

If you don't know anything about Windows XP Home & Pro, it would probably be best if you didn't bring the point up.

Please back up your statement that 'everything in the computer is the lowest price Dell could afford", because I find that statement laughable. It's a name brand motherboard (Intel), graphics chipset (Intel), NIC (Intel), sound (Intel), hard drive (Maxtor or WD, typically), and that's most of the computer right there. In fact, aside from being a generation older, that's for the most part exactly the system spec Apple is engineering OS X/Intel for. Compared to the Dell 4700, you give up AGP and DDR2, and the Dell 4700 is a 915-based system, just as the Apple development system is.

But the question on most buyers minds is:
Can you put together a Mac mini + 17" LCD monitor for $399?

[hudson1]

Originally Posted by climber

Getting back to my original point. Many people have suggested that apple develop a headless imac or emac. They want a something more powerful and expandable than a mini, but less expensive and simpler than the powermac. Perhaps we will see one, perhaps not. But, if we don't it is not because apple is stupid or because they don't like their customers. Most likely, like any good business, they are little greedy and want to make some money. They want and need the margins they have on their other models. How many customers would pay for an headless imac that was still cost 1200 bucks? Most would scream because instead of 100 less they would expect 500 less.

Do you as a customer expect apple or any other company to just give you the product YOU want at YOUR price regardless of profitability? Apple as a company is not about specs, they are about solutions. The mini coupled with a 20" apple LCD would make a much better (obviously not faster) photoshop station than most PC's at twice the price.

Your price of the headless iMac makes no sense to me. Removing the LCD, which also simplifies the design, only knocks $100 off of the list price? That would mean that it probably only removes $70 - $75 of manufacturing cost. That just can't be, IMHO. Further, a headless iMac doesn't need as many ports as an iMac because most monitors now have USB 2 and sometimes Firewire hubs built into them. Lastl, it could hardly take an additional $500 over the price of the top mini to turn the mini into a "low to midrange" machine instead of the low range machine that it is today.

[climber]

Originally Posted by hudson1

Your price of the headless iMac makes no sense to me. Removing the LCD, which also simplifies the design, only knocks $100 off of the list price? That would mean that it probably only removes $70 - $75 of manufacturing cost. That just can't be, IMHO. Further, a headless iMac doesn't need as many ports as an iMac because most monitors now have USB 2 and sometimes Firewire hubs built into them. Lastl, it could hardly take an additional $500 over the price of the top mini to turn the mini into a "low to midrange" machine instead of the low range machine that it is today.

I will try and explain the concept. Considering the final prices of the mini vs the power mac and the imac I think it is safe to assume that the percent gross margins on the more expensive units are much much higher. But even if they were the same percent this logic still applies.

Assuming a 25 percent gross margin on all their computers, a mini would generate $125 gross profit, imac $350, powermac $500. Each computer sold has to help pay for the bundled OS and software (imovie, etc). Why would apple want to sell a computer that directly competes with the imac at margins and profits more like the mini? In other words Apple needs the built-in monitor in an imac to raise gross revenues and thus its margins.

Apple like any company tries its best to look into the future and predict what customers will be willing to pay for a product. For a headless imac how much would you pay? If the apple thinks it is closer to $1000 than $1200 then maybe the margins are just not high enough to justify it.

It is purely my own speculation that apple has most of its consumer line in an all in one package with a good quality monitor because the profit margins are higher that way. That's the best anyone could do without the detailed cost analysis used by Jobs and his management team. But given their ongoing success in making money and maintaining high margins in a business where most of the competition is not, I will give them the benefit of the doubt.

[WOPR]

I like Macs.

[climber]

Originally Posted by foo2

Since no Dell presently made is as slow as a Mac mini, the 'comparison' with exact features is beside the point; I was trying to get a rough idea of the price of each with a 17" monitor and mouse and keyboard - in other words, a simple usable configuration. At that, the Mac is substantially more than the Dell box, and you get less too. If you really wanted to compare systems, you'd have to conceed that the Mac mini is too slow to compare to a modern Dell, and you'd have to move up to a G5-based Mac. And the Mac would rapidly show even more of a price disparity.

No one claims the Dell is half the price of the Mac mini. It's when you take into account all you get with the Dell for $399 (or $479 if you want an AGP-equipped system) that the Mac mini looks so bad.

You really think someone with a mini is going to do critical color work on a computer? C'mon - be serious.

The mini isn't a notebook computer, in spite of its' underperforming video card and hard drive.

If you don't know anything about Windows XP Home & Pro, it would probably be best if you didn't bring the point up.

Please back up your statement that 'everything in the computer is the lowest price Dell could afford", because I find that statement laughable. It's a name brand motherboard (Intel), graphics chipset (Intel), NIC (Intel), sound (Intel), hard drive (Maxtor or WD, typically), and that's most of the computer right there. In fact, aside from being a generation older, that's for the most part exactly the system spec Apple is engineering OS X/Intel for. Compared to the Dell 4700, you give up AGP and DDR2, and the Dell 4700 is a 915-based system, just as the Apple development system is.

But the question on most buyers minds is:
Can you put together a Mac mini + 17" LCD monitor for $399?

Go ahead and dance around the issue of trying to configure the systems the same. You never even tried. At least you could have evened up the RAM and CD drive. And why include a monitor when the point was to compare the computer?

You were the one that claimed "Is it really worth wondering why Dell does so well? Half the price" Please show me where you can by a Dell CPU for half the price of the mini CPU.

I don't expect anyone to do critical color work on a mini. But they could if they wanted. It would be just as accurate as if I did it on my brand new powermac. I have done lots of photoshop work on systems much slower (an older ibook). So have a lot of experienced users on this forum. On the other hand most people that just want to use iphoto and a point and shoot digital camera consider their photos to be critical. They get upset when they have to print five times to get it to look right.

Uh, the mini is based off notebook computer parts TO MAKE IT SMALLER. While you would prefer a better graphics system and a faster processor, Apple wanted it to look really cool. They can probably make it look really cool for less money than it would to put in the faster stuff you want. That means they make more money. That is the point of being in business.

Are you trying to suggest that the Dell is not stripped to sell under $500.00 ? Can your average consumer live with the 256ram, no modem, 90 day warranty, CD only drive, and a very small software package?

The specifications of a developer only computer that is not designed to be sold at a profit is irrelevant.

A lot of people can get pretty close to that dollar amount with the mini. They just connect the mini to the monitor that came with that crappy Dell they bought two years ago that keeps crashing and getting infected with god only knows what this week.

[hudson1]

Originally Posted by climber

Assuming a 25 percent gross margin on all their computers, a mini would generate $125 gross profit, imac $350, powermac $500. Each computer sold has to help pay for the bundled OS and software (imovie, etc). Why would apple want to sell a computer that directly competes with the imac at margins and profits more like the mini? In other words Apple needs the built-in monitor in an imac to raise gross revenues and thus its margins.

Apple like any company tries its best to look into the future and predict what customers will be willing to pay for a product. For a headless imac how much would you pay? If the apple thinks it is closer to $1000 than $1200 then maybe the margins are just not high enough to justify it.

Oh, I understand the numbers but should have gone through my math in the previous post. Let's say that the iMac generates $325 gross profit ($1300 X 25%). The real number is probably less but we don't know the wholesale price so let's not worry about it. That leaves a cost of $975. Now take out the monitor and it's associated larger overall case and we drop that cost to something like $800. The price needed for the same margin is now $1067, certainly not $1200. It sound like there are a few here who would pay that for an "xMac".

The cannibalizing effect cuts both ways and, I think, has a real chance of increasing Apple's overall sales and profit instead of decreasing them. By reading this board, you'd think that this mythical xMac would cannibalize more low-profit minis than high-profit iMacs. I'm not saying that would happen but the opposite case is just as difficult to presume.

Let's also consider that even if iMac sales are cannibalized, it's not necessarily less revenue and profit for Apple... even if we ignore the potential upsales from mini buyers. How many iMac buyers who instead opt for an xMac would also buy an Apple Cinema Display? The margins on those have to be higher than just about anything else Apple sells. Even if just one out of every 3.5 xMac buyers also buys an ACD, it comes out to the same overall sales figure from iMacs and presumably greater profit (it would be very hard to say that the gross margin on an ACD is only 25%). Make sense?

[foo2]

Originally Posted by climber

Go ahead and dance around the issue of trying to configure the systems the same. You never even tried. At least you could have evened up the RAM and CD drive. And why include a monitor when the point was to compare the computer?

You were the one that claimed "Is it really worth wondering why Dell does so well? Half the price" Please show me where you can by a Dell CPU for half the price of the mini CPU.

I don't expect anyone to do critical color work on a mini. But they could if they wanted. It would be just as accurate as if I did it on my brand new powermac. I have done lots of photoshop work on systems much slower (an older ibook). So have a lot of experienced users on this forum. On the other hand most people that just want to use iphoto and a point and shoot digital camera consider their photos to be critical. They get upset when they have to print five times to get it to look right.

Uh, the mini is based off notebook computer parts TO MAKE IT SMALLER. While you would prefer a better graphics system and a faster processor, Apple wanted it to look really cool. They can probably make it look really cool for less money than it would to put in the faster stuff you want. That means they make more money. That is the point of being in business.

Are you trying to suggest that the Dell is not stripped to sell under $500.00 ? Can your average consumer live with the 256ram, no modem, 90 day warranty, CD only drive, and a very small software package?

The specifications of a developer only computer that is not designed to be sold at a profit is irrelevant.

A lot of people can get pretty close to that dollar amount with the mini. They just connect the mini to the monitor that came with that crappy Dell they bought two years ago that keeps crashing and getting infected with god only knows what this week.

To make a fair comparison, the Mac mini would need to be significantly faster, so that we were comparing likes and likes. Since that's impossible, it's impossible to compare likes and likes with a Mac mini. Therefore, I was trying to get a rough estimate for similar configurations, and I've already agreed the price should be increased (to $429) for the warranty, if that's important to you. It could also be increased to a 3 year warranty, and then AppleCare's 3 year warranty could be revealed for the ripoff it is. How far shall we really take this?

Who uses a modem these days? DSL is $15/month and far better than a modem; adding a modem when most people will never use it is absurd. The CD drive and such is certainly an option you could configure if you wanted to - just like a really good graphics card could be added to the PC (but not the Mac mini). Both platforms have choices and tradeoffs.

You cannot get "pretty close" to $399 (or $429) for the Mac mini with a 17" LCD monitor; it's impossible. And that's what a surprising number of people compare against.

I'd also do a comparison against the Dell 4700 - what kind of Mac can you get for $479 or so that includes a 19" LCD monitor and is similar in speed to the P4/2.8, with an available AGP port? Answer: None. That's one reason why people correctly state Macs are expensive and slow.

Oh, and the Dell 3000 is $329, if you're OK with a Celeron D (which still runs rings around the older G4 in the Mac mini.) I added a 16X DL DVD burner (unavailable for the Mac mini at any price) and 1 year warranty and 80G drive, and I'm at $478.

A Mac mini, but at only 1.42 ghz, with a Superdrive (but at only 4X speed) is $757 with keyboard and mouse...and no 17" LCD. Add $250 or so for the LCD, and you're at around $1000. $478 vs. $1000 is a substantial difference to most people.

Yes, you can add some RAM to the Dell (buy it on sale at CompUSA for $30 or so for 512M, and you'll have 768M; "upgrade" your mini and you lose the RAM due to the poorly designed one-ram-slot; another problem is poor customer accessibility, adding $75 install fee for most users); you can add USB bluetooth and USB 802.11g wireless for perhaps $10 to $20 per adapter; either way, the PC is far less expensive - and still faster and more flexible.

[OogaBooga]

Originally Posted by foo2

...the PC is far less expensive - and still faster and more flexible.

There isn't really an advantage to this, since in the end you're still running Windows.

[hudson1]

Originally Posted by OogaBooga

There isn't really an advantage to this, since in the end you're still running Windows.

True, and it brings up a critical point in any comparison of Dell (or whatever Windows box) vs. Apple (and the mini in particular):

What's the value of Mac OS X, iLife and, specific to the mini, form factor and and ultra low noise, opposite their Windows counterparts?

Everyone has their own answer to that question. That figure certainly isn't infinite for anyone but for me, like most other Mac users, sufficiently high enough to cause us to choose a Mac.

[smoke-tetsu]

It was for me too but when there is a possibility of an update I don't expect to be offered the same thing you know? My deal is not whether the mini is viable in the first place which seems to me what everyone else is arguing about but whether this revision warrants me spending what it takes to get what I already have again. Unless I just wanted a second box which is not what I am going for. It isn't feasible or wise for me to get the same thing to replace what I have or to get a second box. That Is the bigger deal for me than whether dollar for dollar it compares to computers from other companies. Thankfully as I said before there is light at the end of the tunnel for this situation.

[climber]

Originally Posted by hudson1

Oh, I understand the numbers but should have gone through my math in the previous post. Let's say that the iMac generates $325 gross profit ($1300 X 25%). The real number is probably less but we don't know the wholesale price so let's not worry about it. That leaves a cost of $975. Now take out the monitor and it's associated larger overall case and we drop that cost to something like $800. The price needed for the same margin is now $1067, certainly not $1200. It sound like there are a few here who would pay that for an "xMac".

The cannibalizing effect cuts both ways and, I think, has a real chance of increasing Apple's overall sales and profit instead of decreasing them. By reading this board, you'd think that this mythical xMac would cannibalize more low-profit minis than high-profit iMacs. I'm not saying that would happen but the opposite case is just as difficult to presume.

Let's also consider that even if iMac sales are cannibalized, it's not necessarily less revenue and profit for Apple... even if we ignore the potential upsales from mini buyers. How many iMac buyers who instead opt for an xMac would also buy an Apple Cinema Display? The margins on those have to be higher than just about anything else Apple sells. Even if just one out of every 3.5 xMac buyers also buys an ACD, it comes out to the same overall sales figure from iMacs and presumably greater profit (it would be very hard to say that the gross margin on an ACD is only 25%). Make sense?

Yes what you are saying makes perfect sense. But, without the real numbers from Apple it will always be conjecture. It is also in some respects hindsight, because decisions about what is being released today have to be made months ago. My main point is that it is an economic decision made by Apple.

In most ways Apple is a niche computer builder. They have always combined computer hardware in an highly stylized and unique way. The get paid a premium for that and it shows in their quarterly profits.

[hudson1]

Originally Posted by smoke-tetsu

It was for me too but when there is a possibility of an update I don't expect to be offered the same thing you know? My deal is not whether the mini is viable in the first place which seems to me what everyone else is arguing about but whether this revision warrants me spending what it takes to get what I already have again.

Yep, I'm as disappointed as anyone about the non-update of the GPU. In your case, it could be good news in that the non-update could mean that an all-new mini with an Intel CPU could be one of the first out of the gate, if not the first.

[climber]

Originally Posted by foo2

To make a fair comparison, the Mac mini would need to be significantly faster, so that we were comparing likes and likes. Since that's impossible, it's impossible to compare likes and likes with a Mac mini. Therefore, I was trying to get a rough estimate for similar configurations, and I've already agreed the price should be increased (to $429) for the warranty, if that's important to you. It could also be increased to a 3 year warranty, and then AppleCare's 3 year warranty could be revealed for the ripoff it is. How far shall we really take this?........

I am being a masochist today for trying this one last time, but I guess I am bored this weekend.

It is not impossible to compare computers. It is done everyday by consumers and writers. You seem to be having a hard time with it though.

It sounds like ILO of the mini you would prefer to see the same spec computer you could get from Dell only sold by Apple with OSX. (I think this is your hope for the switch to intel.) Instead of the unique highly stylized mini, you would rather see a standard intel motherboard stuck in a box running OSX.

As a customer are you willing to pay the same price premium for that generic apple computer that customers are today for the imac and mini? If Apple stopped making hardware today, and only sold OSX and the iApps to run on generic PC's how much more would you pay for that? My guess is you and the market would expect to pay the same $129 that Apple charges today for tiger.

Apple gets paid a premium for unique and original products like the mini and the imac. They combine those products with the best OS on the planet. In my opinion, they combine to create a much better work environment that more than offsets the added price. It also makes up for hardware that is not always the best or fastest. I think most of Apple's customers feel the same way.

As a customer I can understand wanting more generic hardware at lower prices. But if Apple can not maintain the same profitability, it is naive to suggest they should.

[foo2]

Originally Posted by climber

I am being a masochist today for trying this one last time, but I guess I am bored this weekend.

It is not impossible to compare computers. It is done everyday by consumers and writers. You seem to be having a hard time with it though.

It sounds like ILO of the mini you would prefer to see the same spec computer you could get from Dell only sold by Apple with OSX. (I think this is your hope for the switch to intel.) Instead of the unique highly stylized mini, you would rather see a standard intel motherboard stuck in a box running OSX.

As a customer are you willing to pay the same price premium for that generic apple computer that customers are today for the imac and mini? If Apple stopped making hardware today, and only sold OSX and the iApps to run on generic PC's how much more would you pay for that? My guess is you and the market would expect to pay the same $129 that Apple charges today for tiger.

Apple gets paid a premium for unique and original products like the mini and the imac. They combine those products with the best OS on the planet. In my opinion, they combine to create a much better work environment that more than offsets the added price. It also makes up for hardware that is not always the best or fastest. I think most of Apple's customers feel the same way.

As a customer I can understand wanting more generic hardware at lower prices. But if Apple can not maintain the same profitability, it is naive to suggest they should.

If that's what you believe (in a nutshell, Apple charges more because they can) then there's really no debate; that's obvious.

I was actually under the belief that there was someone left in today's world that thought Apple had competitive price/performance, particularly in the low end. I'd thought you were debating that.

[Hash]

Foo2, different hardware/software combinations bring different experience of computing. You compare only hardware part and seem to ignore software part. Yes, Dell is cheap. Self-assembled generic PCs can be even cheaper. Heck, I have assembled two PC myself, one is Athlon and another is Pentium 4 based, I also use AMD-based Sharp notebook and Pentium M Acer notebook (at office). I also have G4 BW (modified). I have used OS 7.5, Windows 98-XP pro, OS X and OS 9. Any of these combinations give different computing experiences, even if the final result is the same. Now, you try to compare them using only hardware prices.

Is it justified? I don't think so. For example, using Windows with all its spyware/virus problems can be so painful, that users will prefer other systems, even if they are more expensive such as Mac solutions, including mini. This means, that for end user in the end mini presents a cheaper total solution, even if its hardware is more expensive than Windows PC. What is happening is that either software adds more value to hardware like UNIX security and iLife make Mac solution more viable, while Windows viruses add costs to Windows solutions - in terms of lost files, lost time or lost privacy. And that can cost a lot!

If you do not understand the concept of value of total computing experience, or its importance, I am afraid you never can be a good businessman.

Dell was able to prosper because they understood that [their] Windows solutions makes sense only with high volumes of shipping, thats why they HAVE to make their hardware very cheap and have only very thin margins. It means that actually Dell discounts software part of their combinations, that is, it understand that Windows PC experience is not a benefit for them. Yes, they are able to present cheaper hardware solution. But their software value is thus very low.

Once Mac goes Intel and will be able to present even better computing experience (ig higher clock Intel CPU and graphic cards) with their secure OS with more standard and lower prices, I bet you will see very significant erosion of Windows share. Heck, even now, being slower and more expensive, Macs present such a viable alternative to Windows PC that Apple computer sales are rising faster than PC segment in general. And that means that market largely ignores what you say. Even then Macs could be more expensive than Dell and still have higher total value and hence price. And still their share will expand.

[mhuie]

[QUOTE=climber]I will try and explain the concept. Considering the final prices of the mini vs the power mac and the imac I think it is safe to assume that the percent gross margins on the more expensive units are much much higher. But even if they were the same percent this logic still applies.

Assuming a 25 percent gross margin on all their computers, a mini would generate $125 gross profit, imac $350, powermac $500. Each computer sold has to help pay for the bundled OS and software (imovie, etc). Why would apple want to sell a computer that directly competes with the imac at margins and profits more like the mini? In other words Apple needs the built-in monitor in an imac to raise gross revenues and thus its margins.

Apple like any company tries its best to look into the future and predict what customers will be willing to pay for a product. For a headless imac how much would you pay? If the apple thinks it is closer to $1000 than $1200 then maybe the margins are just not high enough to justify it.
QUOTE]

There is more to a product than the computer and display. I'm sure a mid priced headless Mac would sell well next to an iMac, even it if was similarly priced. Expandability would be a great feature, allowing add-in cards, using standard CDRW/DVDRW and the most important, the freedom to use whatever monitor you like.

[foo2]

Originally Posted by Hash

Foo2, different hardware/software combinations bring different experience of computing. You compare only hardware part and seem to ignore software part. Yes, Dell is cheap. Self-assembled generic PCs can be even cheaper. Heck, I have assembled two PC myself, one is Athlon and another is Pentium 4 based, I also use AMD-based Sharp notebook and Pentium M Acer notebook (at office). I also have G4 BW (modified). I have used OS 7.5, Windows 98-XP pro, OS X and OS 9. Any of these combinations give different computing experiences, even if the final result is the same. Now, you try to compare them using only hardware prices.

Is it justified? I don't think so. For example, using Windows with all its spyware/virus problems can be so painful, that users will prefer other systems, even if they are more expensive such as Mac solutions, including mini. This means, that for end user in the end mini presents a cheaper total solution, even if its hardware is more expensive than Windows PC. What is happening is that either software adds more value to hardware like UNIX security and iLife make Mac solution more viable, while Windows viruses add costs to Windows solutions - in terms of lost files, lost time or lost privacy. And that can cost a lot!

If you do not understand the concept of value of total computing experience, or its importance, I am afraid you never can be a good businessman.

Dell was able to prosper because they understood that [their] Windows solutions makes sense only with high volumes of shipping, thats why they HAVE to make their hardware very cheap and have only very thin margins. It means that actually Dell discounts software part of their combinations, that is, it understand that Windows PC experience is not a benefit for them. Yes, they are able to present cheaper hardware solution. But their software value is thus very low.

Once Mac goes Intel and will be able to present even better computing experience (ig higher clock Intel CPU and graphic cards) with their secure OS with more standard and lower prices, I bet you will see very significant erosion of Windows share. Heck, even now, being slower and more expensive, Macs present such a viable alternative to Windows PC that Apple computer sales are rising faster than PC segment in general. And that means that market largely ignores what you say. Even then Macs could be more expensive than Dell and still have higher total value and hence price. And still their share will expand.

You've now moved completely away from your previous cost argument, so I have no quarrel with your opinions about Mac profitability / Dell's margins / etc.

Unix security? Let's just say NTFS + share permissions are considerably more granular and advanced than typical Unix security. Perhaps you mean resiliance against virus/malware, in which case you'd have a point - Apple's model of requiring a password for OS changes is smart, and hopefully Vista will move people out of the 'run everything as admin' mode they're typically in on an XP box.

I understand value very well. I also realize that in spite of Mac folks stating "value! value!" that the PCs constantly are the machines that people buy - because people believe them to be the best value for their particular purpose.

[kellmore]

I have a house full of AMD machines and just bought the $599 version of the mini. So far I am pretty happy with it and knew what I was getting when I bought it. I did not wantt o spend more than that on a machine I had no idea how to use yet.

[ibugv4]

wait, wait, wait wait wait....

Please define to me who is to use what type of Mac. Because, as I recall, the Mac mini was the "bait" for the iPod crowd. Why? They'll throw $500 into an MP3 player but <i>not</i>the entire computer .... and as such you have a cheap iTunesable Mac. That connects to your existing PC hardware. It's about as much as your iPod. It's Apple. Come on, you see the connection here.

iBook. Students. Done deal.
eMac. Schools.

iMac. Home user, semi-pros.

PowerBook/PowerMac. Professionals. Same with PowerMacs.

Who else does Mac Mini work for? Well, my father uses a 333Mhz PowerBook. It's just fine for his lite lite lite Spreadsheet (he uses AppleWorks BY CHOICE OMG!) and to check his ebay auctions. It'll do these tasks until he goes blind.

I work with a teacher who still has a Grape iMac with OS X (512MB). She works in a few little apps, including AOL, and volia she's happy. She's still using it, and has no need to upgrade.

My grandmother still runs OS 9, for pete's sake.

Are these not Mac users? I think they are. They just don't *upgrade,* which should be pointed out has only become the sport of those who have to compensate (like fast cars for a reference cliche). The Mac Mini is a cheap computer that'll last more than 5 years in some homes. My last boyfriend had the same 64MB RAM in his Pentium 120Mhz Windows 98 box, but he managed to install a larger hard disk and CD-RW into it. But not RAM. He made it work.

People, most people, people who have to go out on a limb to get Mac Mini... are not going to care. I gave an iMac 350Mhz to my friends, florists and customer service professionals. Neither had used a Mac in ages, and neither could tell you what Windows 95 or XP looked like. They love the iMac, filled the 7GB hard disk in a week using iTunes, a 20GB hard disk and 40GB USB upgrade later, they are still ripping discs using that little thing. Perfectly content.

"You pay for what you get..." comes to my mind. Those who would spend the $ on this Mac will get at least their college's year worth out of it, the rest of their retirement, or the rest of their car's life. It's small, it's versatile, and if you KNOW about how CRAPPY the parts in it ARE then you are SAVY enough to UPGRADE IT YOURSELF and stop whining about it.... I didn't spend another $5000 to get a "GLS" for the Foglights when I got my car.... I spent about $75 and did them up myself, to the OEM switches. Catch my dift? No? That's ok, I just wanted to rant to someone else's rant

[eswinson]

the ford focus they came out with for '06 doesn't out perform a '69 mustang cobra.. what a shame.

[razortotherosary]

I have had a mac mini since about 2 months after they came out and well DUH it is no Dual 2.5GHz PowerMac G5 but it is a great little machine easy to move if you need to do something out great machine to have if you dont have an extra display around that you can use remote desktop to get into because you can stick it into a hole and hide it. you cant really easily do that with a G5 i like most of the other people here love the machine and it is well worth the money i paid

yours truly

[radii_22]

I just wanted to say that I would like to have a 1000-1300 dolars desktop computer (Mac), "headless", with a 3,5inch HD, decent graphics card (changeable), a decent architecture and a "pro" processor (G5, not necessarily the last G5...). An "use your own monitor, mouse and keyboard" machine, but bigger than the Mac mini, with basic but configureable specs (memory and GPU).

I got to say that I love the iMac G5, but I would like to have the opportunity of having one of those beautiful 20 inch Apple displays, without buying the expensive 1800 Power Mac G5.

I hope that with a richer offer of processors like Intel's one, that would be possible.

[pharmacopoeia]

Got my mini today and put in 1G RAM. I Love it! I easily hid it in the stereo shelf, hooked to the plasma, and it powers it fine, fills 42 inches with iTunes visualizer beautifully, picks up tunes off one of the macs upstairs over the ethernet without a hiccup, surfs the web, checks my email no sweat. I gotta get another one to stick in my truck so i can listen to tunes with the visualizer on for road trips. Only complaint, I'll have to pair it with a newertech ministack 200G cause 20,000 tunes won't fit on the 80G drive. But hey, it'll still fit under the back seat no problem. What's to complain about when an invention like this is so fun to mess around with, so many unusual applications to explore. Now, what about grandpa's boat...

[JackNN]

Originally Posted by Luca Rescigno

Getting extras for the mini is a waste of money, because once you add up the cost of the extras, you may as well just get an iMac or something.

I think that's the whole purpose of the mini - it's a "gateway" product. The sub-$500 price tag gets the customers in the door, then after doing the sums they walk out with an eMac or iMac. Hopefully the low mini sales are because it's driving sales of the higher-margin Macs.

[vickys_box]

I'll back up pharmacopoeia's post: I have a 1.42G Mac mini with 768MB RAM, BT and AE. It's connected to two external 250GB disks (one for music and the other for automated backup of my music). It too lives in on my hi-fi table and is connected to my plasma display via DVI. A friend of mine who wasn't sure of the usability of the Mac mini as a entertainment hub is now bowled over by the performance and sheer coolness of being able to play music, have slideshows, browse the web, rip internet streams, show DVDs all from one box. I also have one of those Harmony Remotes to switch between the components of my hi-fi, and it's all seamless. Quite brilliant.

[buggsuperstar]

Originally Posted by vickys_box

I'll back up pharmacopoeia's post: I have a 1.42G Mac mini with 768MB RAM, BT and AE.

How did you get 768MB of RAM?

I thought the Mini only has 1 RAM slot....

[hudson1]

Originally Posted by ibugv4

It's small, it's versatile, and if you KNOW about how CRAPPY the parts in it ARE then you are SAVY enough to UPGRADE IT YOURSELF and stop whining about it.... I didn't spend another $5000 to get a "GLS" for the Foglights when I got my car.... I spent about $75 and did them up myself, to the OEM switches. Catch my dift? No? That's ok, I just wanted to rant to someone else's rant

I haven't come across anyone who's SAVY enough to figure out how to upgrade their mini with a pair of Radeon 9600 foglights for $75. So if you want the foglights, you'll have to buy the $5000 PowerMac "GLS" after all.

[David Esrati]

a ton of excuses for Apple here. Why shouldn't they offer a $500 machine with industry standard parts-
accessible components- and let the software prove the value.
Does anyone remember the si? It was small- but not stupid small-
If Apple just put together a G4 Mac with a 7200rpm HD, a decent standard video card, accessible RAM slots for conventional sticks, a modem, one PCI slot, slots for airport and bluetooth, a combo drive with an option for a superdrive- they could sell a lot more of them than the *cute* mini.
Are they worried about canibalization of other machines sales- yep.
Should they be? Nope.
They should be thinking- let's sell the most damn computers we can- while we can- because they are still asking for people to pay a $300 premium for this....
when you can buy a computer with monitor, keyboard and mouse for $200 less.

[ibugv4]

hudson1 - again, 90% of the people that the unit is intended for... aren't going to care or notice about that video card. it's like not knowing my car had a 4-speed automatic vs a 5-speed automatic transmission. It's minimal impact. The average user is going to go through a round of BeJeweled and some flash, which that card is really more than capable of doing. Anyone who inends to do any type of gaming on a $500 "computer" (reads: not a console) isn't a gamer to begin with. Sorry... just don't buy it. This unit suits a host of needs for many people, and while I understand you want the most for your money you forget you're buying a BRAND NAME device here, and as such you pay a bit for that nice shiney bitten out logo we all love and have tattooed to us.

[Link]

Apple put together a very small computer, smaller than a Mini-ITX motherboard.. and they named it the.. get this..

Mac Mini

Where in that name does it say "Mac Cheap and Gaudy" or "Mac that wants to be a Dell"...

DO YOU PEOPLE NOT HAVE BRAINS?

It's 6.5 square by 2" high.. for $700 you get a 1.42ghz G4, 512mb ram, 80gb hard drive, DVD BURNER, DVI and VGA on a DEDICATED VIDEO CHIP ---AND--- built in 802.11g and bluetooth!

For $100 less you still get everything but the superdrive..

And it's about the size of a small napkin holder or a cable modem or something..

Do you know how much PC users pay for those sorts of machines but BIGGER at that? A Mini-ITX barebone can cost as much as $300, and it won't look ANYWHERE NEAR AS NICE.

Nor will it have *dedicated* video!

Shuttle XPC? Set a mini on its side, put 7 more next to it also standing on their sides, and you have a shuttle XPC. People have no idea how HUGE those things are for "small machines" -- in fact the cube fans couldn't even call it a G4 cube ripoff because the XPC is HUGE even compared to a cube.

Just so you can appreciate the scale:
http://www.live4.it/in.php?main=albe...50224_mac_mini


-----

I notice this now -- "Why build a mini instead of an upgradable tower?"

SIMPLE! It's $500, sits in a little box on the shelf in the store -- accompanied by keyboards, mice, and monitors..

Ever shop at walmart for a computer? All you'll find are HPs bundled with ugly cheap monitors, and the machines tend to cost $800+ unless it's christmas!

Except the $500 compaq special.. and the mini puts that damn thing to shame!!

Dell shmell. They're "popular" but believe it or not, the vast majority of people are not willing to go call a number to buy a computer sight unseen -- Dell's biggest market is the business one, and they DO get a lot of sales.. but that's not a market the mini is aimed for.

The mini is aimed for People that want a computer that:

1. Is small and doesn't require a "computer table"
2. Don't give a #*(&@ about ram, PCI cards, or AGP cards -- not that any cheap machine comes with an AGP slot anyway
3. Want CHOICES on keyboards, mice, and monitors. (speakers too!)
4. Want something different than a boring minitower PC -- again the mini is as different as can be -- it's silver and white -- not just plastic silver but METAL.. it's tiny, comes in a really cool box, advertises to use a neat looking OS that isn't so "nerdy", and well. doesn't cost much more than that cheap boring ass box.
5. Want a cheap small computer (which as I've proven, the mini is VERY cheap compared to other small machines).

You get the idea -- I think the next step would be something more akin to the G4 cube -- not necessarily that form factor, but in between a mini and a tower (more like the shuttle XPC, but just to **** all over that stupid company.. STILL smaller and neater)..

The cube had a removable processor and an AGP slot, because of that you can have a dual 1.6ghz or 2ghz single cube with all sorts of video chips and all sorts of sizes in hard drive -- not to mention a top end slot loader superdrive. If apple could recreate that AGAIN to fill in the gap between low end and high/fully expandable, we'd be good to go.

[Hash]

They will, but it will not be the mini, it will be another computer, like Shuttle, which is fine, and BTW, mini is fine too, and since mini sells, it means people need it. You may not, but others do and pay money for it and are happy. And thats what counts, not size of hard drive inside that little box. Who cares? If you mind, dont buy it.

[foo2]

Originally Posted by ibugv4

hudson1 - again, 90% of the people that the unit is intended for... aren't going to care or notice about that video card. it's like not knowing my car had a 4-speed automatic vs a 5-speed automatic transmission. It's minimal impact. The average user is going to go through a round of BeJeweled and some flash, which that card is really more than capable of doing. Anyone who inends to do any type of gaming on a $500 "computer" (reads: not a console) isn't a gamer to begin with. Sorry... just don't buy it. This unit suits a host of needs for many people, and while I understand you want the most for your money you forget you're buying a BRAND NAME device here, and as such you pay a bit for that nice shiney bitten out logo we all love and have tattooed to us.

One can easily do high-end gaming on an Intel $500 PC. Buy a PC, and slap a graphics card in there.... all done!

[Hash]

The beauty of market economy is that no one can dictate tastes.. if you like Dell, buy Dell, you like mini, you can buy mini.. and it means both have their value at least equal to their prices, since people pay money for both.. Different values for different people. You dont like it, you dont buy it.

[GORDYmac]

I assisted a switcher in replacing his 3 year old PC with a Mac. He bought a Mac mini. He loves it.

That's the mini's core audience, not us. When I look at it, all I think about is what I can't do. It's a great machine--for its intended audience.

[itguy05]

Originally Posted by Goldfinger

90 days ? Is that even legal ? Or are you talking about phone support ?

Yes, it's legal. There's nothing stopping them from offering NO Warranty. Just another example of the lack of quality by Dell.

[itguy05]

Show me a $500 PC that can run that resolution at anything remotely resembling an acceptable speed.

I often run my Duron 700 Linux machine with a 2x AGP TNT2 (32MB) @ 1280x1024 and it's fine. Could do more, but my monitor won't. I don't game, but it runs fine.

VRAM is way overrated for most non gamer users.

[blidd]

I am very satisfied with my Mac mini 1,42 with 1GB Kingston memory. It is quiet and runs very well. It does not hold a candle to A PowerMac G5 if you are videoediting og photoshopping for a living, but I am only videoediting as an hobby. Regarding the less than great numbers of sales made by the Mac mini. I don´t think So In Denmark the Danish Apple Dealers had to waite 5-10 weeks to get new supplies of mac mini. Please remember that the Mac mini is with out keyboard and mouse. Making the don´t have enough keyboards a non issue. Don´t you think Apple would have made some of those surpluse Mac mini avalable for the Danish and other Apple dealers.

[itguy05]

Originally Posted by foo2

The Dell 3000 is in fact $399 - the link you need to follow is found on www.gotapex.com, just as I posted. I'll grant most would add $30 for a 1 year warranty, so it's $429. If we need to add things, let's add $59 to the Mac for a mouse and keyboard, and let's add $260 or so for the monitor.... the Mac mini's overpricing is obvious.

NOT. If you don't want to jump through hoops to get that price and possibly wait on a rebate you may or may not get. Then the fact that Dell quality is worse than a turd in summer.

Don't forget the De-Celeron and integrated VRAM.

But you cought the 90 day warranty. And you probably want to add $10 for recovery CD's.

Why do I need XP Pro? No Mac can fully participate in an XP domain as it is, nor do they ship with anything like Remote Desktop, so why would one need XP Pro?

Hmm, I can join my Mac to out Windows network, access shares and even have my password and files/profile stored on an AD domain. You can do 0 of those things with XP Home.

AV software can be legally downloaded for free (avast), and malware software can be downloaded for free too (MS antispyware); it comes with a simple software suite already.

Yeah, those Free AV programs are GREAT [sarcasm off]. I want to trust a vital part of the Windows Experience to a free program.... PLEASE.

The mini is $820 or so for just the most basic (slowest) mini with k/m and with a 17" monitor (if we go with the 17" number above); the Dell is up to $429.

Mini $499
17" $299
KB $59
Total $857

Dell 3000 with 17", 1 year warranty $778

Yeah, real overpriced.....

Is it really worth wondering why Dell does so well? Half the price!

Dell does so well because of advertising. Not because they are cheap. Most people who buy computers do NOT buy a Dell. Dell is not a value nor do they build quality machines. They are the GM of the computer world - build it as cheap as possible, quality be damned.

[hudson1]

Originally Posted by ibugv4

hudson1 - again, 90% of the people that the unit is intended for... aren't going to care or notice about that video card. it's like not knowing my car had a 4-speed automatic vs a 5-speed automatic transmission. It's minimal impact. The average user is going to go through a round of BeJeweled and some flash, which that card is really more than capable of doing. Anyone who inends to do any type of gaming on a $500 "computer" (reads: not a console) isn't a gamer to begin with. Sorry... just don't buy it. This unit suits a host of needs for many people, and while I understand you want the most for your money you forget you're buying a BRAND NAME device here, and as such you pay a bit for that nice shiney bitten out logo we all love and have tattooed to us.

First of all, I'd go with the five-speed transmission any day before I bothered with foglights. I know, I've had them (put them on myself).

Secondly, where did you get this "90% of the people that the unit is intended for" figure? I've never seen anything from Apple about that. It's been asked several times but never answered: Who's the intended market for the eMac that dictated an upgrade to a R9600 while the mini's inteded market doesn't need one? Is it those geek kindergarteners who I see playing with eMacs at Apple stores? Seriously, it's a valid question that gets ignored every time someone brings up the mini's "intended market".

Lastly, no discussion about the adequacy of a 32MB R9200 GPU can be made without identifying the monitor that the mini is hooked up to. Every one I've seen in an Apple store has been paired with a 1680 X 1050 ACD (the minimum that Apple makes) yet most who say that the R9200 is fine are basing that viewpoint, I think, on using it with a much smaller monitor.

What brand of foglights did you go with?

[smoke-tetsu]

Originally Posted by itguy05

I often run my Duron 700 Linux machine with a 2x AGP TNT2 (32MB) @ 1280x1024 and it's fine. Could do more, but my monitor won't. I don't game, but it runs fine.

VRAM is way overrated for most non gamer users.

Not when you have a modern display system like apple does, 32mb is pushing it. You can't compare it to systems like that (x11) except maybe longho... errr Vista or maybe if you are using a server that supports compositing and have it enabled. Add in core image and quartz 2d extreme and vram gets more and more important. To say it's overrated is being shortsighted.

[pls7868]

Mac hear you and made upgrade to the mini
Live the digital life in stylish simplicity. Just 6.5 inches square and 2 inches tall, Mac mini provides what you need to have more fun with your music, photos and movies — right out of the box. Mac mini now boasts 512MB memory as well as models with built-in wireless and SuperDrive. The most affordable Mac ever still starts at $499.
To make an upgrade like youcan say that Mac understand what Mac user want

[foo2]

Originally Posted by itguy05

Yes, it's legal. There's nothing stopping them from offering NO Warranty. Just another example of the lack of quality by Dell.

Why is it a lack of quality by Dell? If you don't need it, you don't buy it. What's the problem? Is the fact that Apple only offers a 1-year warranty (I'll do what you did and ignore the fact you can buy a 3 year warranty) evidence of the lack of quality by Apple when some vendors offer a 3 year warranty?

That's absurd.

[foo2]

Originally Posted by itguy05

NOT. If you don't want to jump through hoops to get that price and possibly wait on a rebate you may or may not get. Then the fact that Dell quality is worse than a turd in summer.
Don't forget the De-Celeron and integrated VRAM.
But you cought the 90 day warranty. And you probably want to add $10 for recovery CD's.
Hmm, I can join my Mac to out Windows network, access shares and even have my password and files/profile stored on an AD domain. You can do 0 of those things with XP Home.
Yeah, those Free AV programs are GREAT [sarcasm off]. I want to trust a vital part of the Windows Experience to a free program.... PLEASE.
Mini $499
17" $299
KB $59
Total $857
Dell 3000 with 17", 1 year warranty $778
Yeah, real overpriced.....
Dell does so well because of advertising. Not because they are cheap. Most people who buy computers do NOT buy a Dell. Dell is not a value nor do they build quality machines. They are the GM of the computer world - build it as cheap as possible, quality be damned.

We've already been over how, factually, your points are wrong. Here's a quick recap:

$429 with Pentium 4/2.8 and 17" LCD, Dell 3000, 1 year warranty, in stark contrast to your $778 figure. And no Mac mini comes close, performancewise, so comparisons really aren't fair. A better comparison would be a G5 vs. the Dell with an upgraded video card.

Dell quality is quite good; Apple and Dell both ship fairly reliable machines. Consumer Reports puts them at pretty similar levels.

Integrated VRAM is bad, but so is a Radeon 9200LE (SE?) with slow 64-bit memory and only 32M of VRAM. In fact, given the Dell's far faster CPU, for many things the Intel graphics are very competitive, and in some things faster. In any case, if that's an issue, you can easily upgrade the PC's graphics card. You cannot upgrade the Mac mini's graphics for any price.

You are factually incorrect in everything you posted about XP Home. You can easily access AD resources with an XP Home machine. The only thing you cannot do is join the PC to the domain. It will network flawlessly on the AD network - something I cannot say for Macs.

Free programs are an issue only if they're an issue for you; for millions they work great.

[Greenrobotics]

Originally Posted by Scotttheking

*waits for mini to arrive*
Specs:
1.25GHz
512MB ram
60GB 7200RPM drive
DVD/CDRW

It's possible to correct it's greatest shortcoming

Can you upgrade the disk to 7200 or is the interface not up to it?
Thanks, Harry