Mini Mac misses the mark

Started Jan 12, 2005 | Discussions
Greg M
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,267
Like?
Mini Mac misses the mark
Jan 12, 2005

I thought maybe this would be a chance to give the Mac a test drive. I recently got an ipod and I've been using itunes. That program is wonderful. It's far superior then any other program I've tried. That makes me think that there may be something to the "Mac programs are better" talk that I've heard for years.

BUT they blew it!

First it's got a dog of a processor. Two years ago Rob tested a dual G4 1.25 against 2 PC's (1.8 & 3.06) and the mac barely beat the slower PC. Come on, did they find these things on a shelf someplace and decide to get some use out of them?

Second is making the thing so that we can't upgrade the RAM. Sure Apple's price for 512 might be reasonable but their price for 1gig is way out of line and it's only PC2700! PC2700 is going for half the price that Apple wants.

The rest of it is fine but I would rather have seen them put a little more effort into making it more flexible instead of small and "cute".

Apple you almost got me but you've missed the mark again. I guess I'll be stuck with microsoft for a while longer.

BTW, it's not a price thing. I can get one for $449 plus tax for the next week. So this is something that I wanted to get but it's way to slooow compared to the machines that I already have.

Then there's the software that I'd have to repurchase.

If Apple ever gets serious about taking market share from the PC market then I'll be one of the first in line.

BTW, what's with the shuffle? No display?

-- hide signature --

Greg M
http://www.dslrcameras.com/gallery/index.php
http://www.dslrcameras.com

Boston Red Sox World Series Champions!
Best of all was handing the Yankees the worst defeat in baseball history!

Bimthecat
Senior MemberPosts: 2,642
Like?
NEVER ending viruses !
In reply to Greg M, Jan 12, 2005

(Go Boston Red Sox!)

(with Windoz) good luck with the NEVER ending viruses !

Maybe the fastest PC's are faster than the dual G5's,

but I contend:

It's all about better, NOT faster.

OS 10.3.7 is FAR better than XP.

Tiger (10.4) will be outstanding.
Searchlight will search town names contained in .pdf maps !!
This kant be done in Windoz.

Longhorn (the next Windoz) is a dud,
and will be another 3 or 4 years away.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
David Jeffery
Regular MemberPosts: 157
Like?
Its a WINNER
In reply to Bimthecat, Jan 12, 2005

This is fab for surfing , email, photos, and runnin OSX.....of course its not a powerhouse in speed....just a powerhouse in design, use, and Operating System.....rather have one than the fastest PC anyday.....I confess I'm not a gamer......a photographer and 10 hr a day web user though....and no virus or spyware....and elegant software!!

And remember its job.......gettin the average cheap PC user to experience the mac OSX
--
Spiritman

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
daytontp
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,738
Like?
Re: Mini Mac misses the mark
In reply to Greg M, Jan 12, 2005

Umm, I think you are not realizing the market. Have you looked what you get from Dell and Gateway for $500. Granted you get a screen, keyboard and mouse, woo hoo. But, you get a 2.4GHz Celeron CPU and integrated video. This Mac mini has a 32MB Radeon 9200 video card. And, it also uses standard memory modules, so if you can get the case top off it, you can add your own memory. If you upgrade a $500 Dell 3000 with an actual GPU card, add a 80GB HDD, DVD-CD-RW, upgrade to 512MB memory and subtract the monitor, you are at $650. And, you have integrated video. You are also paying for size also. It is basically a PowerBook without the screen, keyboard and touchpad on it.

Greg M wrote:

I thought maybe this would be a chance to give the Mac a test
drive. I recently got an ipod and I've been using itunes. That
program is wonderful. It's far superior then any other program
I've tried. That makes me think that there may be something to the
"Mac programs are better" talk that I've heard for years.

BUT they blew it!

First it's got a dog of a processor. Two years ago Rob tested a
dual G4 1.25 against 2 PC's (1.8 & 3.06) and the mac barely beat
the slower PC. Come on, did they find these things on a shelf
someplace and decide to get some use out of them?

Second is making the thing so that we can't upgrade the RAM. Sure
Apple's price for 512 might be reasonable but their price for 1gig
is way out of line and it's only PC2700! PC2700 is going for half
the price that Apple wants.

The rest of it is fine but I would rather have seen them put a
little more effort into making it more flexible instead of small
and "cute".

Apple you almost got me but you've missed the mark again. I guess
I'll be stuck with microsoft for a while longer.

BTW, it's not a price thing. I can get one for $449 plus tax for
the next week. So this is something that I wanted to get but it's
way to slooow compared to the machines that I already have.

Then there's the software that I'd have to repurchase.

If Apple ever gets serious about taking market share from the PC
market then I'll be one of the first in line.

BTW, what's with the shuffle? No display?

-- hide signature --

Greg M
http://www.dslrcameras.com/gallery/index.php
http://www.dslrcameras.com

Boston Red Sox World Series Champions!
Best of all was handing the Yankees the worst defeat in baseball
history!

-- hide signature --

Dayton in SC USA - PBase Supporter
http://www.pbase.com/daytontp/ -- More Than 234,277 Views

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Greg M
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,267
Like?
yea but
In reply to Bimthecat, Jan 12, 2005

Bimthecat wrote:

(Go Boston Red Sox!)

(with Windoz) good luck with the NEVER ending viruses !

I don't use virus software and I've got no problems with viruses. A little common sense protects me.

Maybe the fastest PC's are faster than the dual G5's,

At a fraction of the cost.

but I contend:

It's all about better, NOT faster.

Good point but I certainly don't want to take a big step backwards in speed especially since programs and files keep getting bigger. I'm processing 20+meg files now. Speed does matter.

OS 10.3.7 is FAR better than XP.

Only because there is tight control on hardware and drivers. I don't have any problems with my PC's because I've used quality parts to make them. Most of XP's problems have nothing to do with the OS. It's usually sub-par parts or drives that create the problems.

Why do you think that Apple will never release a windows version of their OS? It's because the conception that it's better then XP would be wiped out. It's easier to make a stable OS when there is tight control on the hardware and drivers.

I am not knocking the Mac. I hate microsoft and would love to change to the Mac but IMO the value isn't there yet. I've got a lot of money and years invested in the PC. Hopefully someday someone else will take over Apple with a vision that puts less in "cute" and more in gaining market share.

I can always hope

Tiger (10.4) will be outstanding.
Searchlight will search town names contained in .pdf maps !!
This kant be done in Windoz.

Longhorn (the next Windoz) is a dud,
and will be another 3 or 4 years away.

-- hide signature --

Greg M
http://www.dslrcameras.com/gallery/index.php
http://www.dslrcameras.com

Boston Red Sox World Series Champions!
Best of all was handing the Yankees the worst defeat in baseball history!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Greg M
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,267
Like?
I don't disagree
In reply to daytontp, Jan 12, 2005

There's no reason that they couldn't have used a more up to date processor and made the RAM user upgradeable. They went after "cute". I'd like to have one but it's a dog for processing pics and therefore useless to me.

I make my own computers so I have computers that are right on par with Apple's quality. My XP and win2k are very stable because they are running on quality computers. I would never get a store bought computer. Mine cost more then the mini but less then other Mac's.

daytontp wrote:
Umm, I think you are not realizing the market. Have you looked
what you get from Dell and Gateway for $500. Granted you get a
screen, keyboard and mouse, woo hoo. But, you get a 2.4GHz Celeron
CPU and integrated video. This Mac mini has a 32MB Radeon 9200
video card. And, it also uses standard memory modules, so if you
can get the case top off it, you can add your own memory. If you
upgrade a $500 Dell 3000 with an actual GPU card, add a 80GB HDD,
DVD-CD-RW, upgrade to 512MB memory and subtract the monitor, you
are at $650. And, you have integrated video. You are also paying
for size also. It is basically a PowerBook without the screen,
keyboard and touchpad on it.

Greg M wrote:

I thought maybe this would be a chance to give the Mac a test
drive. I recently got an ipod and I've been using itunes. That
program is wonderful. It's far superior then any other program
I've tried. That makes me think that there may be something to the
"Mac programs are better" talk that I've heard for years.

BUT they blew it!

First it's got a dog of a processor. Two years ago Rob tested a
dual G4 1.25 against 2 PC's (1.8 & 3.06) and the mac barely beat
the slower PC. Come on, did they find these things on a shelf
someplace and decide to get some use out of them?

Second is making the thing so that we can't upgrade the RAM. Sure
Apple's price for 512 might be reasonable but their price for 1gig
is way out of line and it's only PC2700! PC2700 is going for half
the price that Apple wants.

The rest of it is fine but I would rather have seen them put a
little more effort into making it more flexible instead of small
and "cute".

Apple you almost got me but you've missed the mark again. I guess
I'll be stuck with microsoft for a while longer.

BTW, it's not a price thing. I can get one for $449 plus tax for
the next week. So this is something that I wanted to get but it's
way to slooow compared to the machines that I already have.

Then there's the software that I'd have to repurchase.

If Apple ever gets serious about taking market share from the PC
market then I'll be one of the first in line.

BTW, what's with the shuffle? No display?

-- hide signature --

Greg M
http://www.dslrcameras.com/gallery/index.php
http://www.dslrcameras.com

Boston Red Sox World Series Champions!
Best of all was handing the Yankees the worst defeat in baseball
history!

-- hide signature --

Dayton in SC USA - PBase Supporter
http://www.pbase.com/daytontp/ -- More Than 234,277 Views

-- hide signature --

Greg M
http://www.dslrcameras.com/gallery/index.php
http://www.dslrcameras.com

Boston Red Sox World Series Champions!
Best of all was handing the Yankees the worst defeat in baseball history!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
ekohn
Regular MemberPosts: 155
Like?
Re: yea but
In reply to Greg M, Jan 12, 2005

You know, I read the your first post and kinda agreed, because of the price. I have a 15" PB 1.25 I wanted to replace, but when i add the memory, wireless and DVD-RW it was to close to what i could get on ebay for the PB.

But thats my case. haveing a 23" monitor, I would absolutly love this machine if i was upgrading from a slower or lesser machine.

Then i read your other posts. I must say your acting like a troll with very little understanding. I especially will remember the quote "Why do you think that Apple will never release a windows version of their OS", which has got to be one of the most confused statements in history.

By the way....I have a P4/2.4 with as much memory as my PB 1.25. Guess what, the PB is quicker on a number of apps that matter (ie RAW conversion in PS).

Greg M wrote:

Bimthecat wrote:

(Go Boston Red Sox!)

(with Windoz) good luck with the NEVER ending viruses !

I don't use virus software and I've got no problems with viruses.
A little common sense protects me.

Maybe the fastest PC's are faster than the dual G5's,

At a fraction of the cost.

but I contend:

It's all about better, NOT faster.

Good point but I certainly don't want to take a big step backwards
in speed especially since programs and files keep getting bigger.
I'm processing 20+meg files now. Speed does matter.

OS 10.3.7 is FAR better than XP.

Only because there is tight control on hardware and drivers. I
don't have any problems with my PC's because I've used quality
parts to make them. Most of XP's problems have nothing to do with
the OS. It's usually sub-par parts or drives that create the
problems.

Why do you think that Apple will never release a windows version of
their OS? It's because the conception that it's better then XP
would be wiped out. It's easier to make a stable OS when there is
tight control on the hardware and drivers.

I am not knocking the Mac. I hate microsoft and would love to
change to the Mac but IMO the value isn't there yet. I've got a
lot of money and years invested in the PC. Hopefully someday
someone else will take over Apple with a vision that puts less in
"cute" and more in gaining market share.

I can always hope

Tiger (10.4) will be outstanding.
Searchlight will search town names contained in .pdf maps !!
This kant be done in Windoz.

Longhorn (the next Windoz) is a dud,
and will be another 3 or 4 years away.

-- hide signature --

Greg M
http://www.dslrcameras.com/gallery/index.php
http://www.dslrcameras.com

Boston Red Sox World Series Champions!
Best of all was handing the Yankees the worst defeat in baseball
history!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
JLK
JLK
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,311
Like?
Re: Mini Mac misses the mark
In reply to Greg M, Jan 12, 2005

Greg M wrote:

I thought maybe this would be a chance to give the Mac a test
drive. I recently got an ipod and I've been using itunes. That
program is wonderful. It's far superior then any other program
I've tried. That makes me think that there may be something to the
"Mac programs are better" talk that I've heard for years.

BUT they blew it!

First it's got a dog of a processor. Two years ago Rob tested a
dual G4 1.25 against 2 PC's (1.8 & 3.06) and the mac barely beat
the slower PC. Come on, did they find these things on a shelf
someplace and decide to get some use out of them?

Second is making the thing so that we can't upgrade the RAM. Sure
Apple's price for 512 might be reasonable but their price for 1gig
is way out of line and it's only PC2700! PC2700 is going for half
the price that Apple wants.

The rest of it is fine but I would rather have seen them put a
little more effort into making it more flexible instead of small
and "cute".

Apple you almost got me but you've missed the mark again. I guess
I'll be stuck with microsoft for a while longer.

BTW, it's not a price thing. I can get one for $449 plus tax for
the next week. So this is something that I wanted to get but it's
way to slooow compared to the machines that I already have.

Then there's the software that I'd have to repurchase.

If Apple ever gets serious about taking market share from the PC
market then I'll be one of the first in line.

BTW, what's with the shuffle? No display?

-- hide signature --

Greg M
http://www.dslrcameras.com/gallery/index.php
http://www.dslrcameras.com

Boston Red Sox World Series Champions!
Best of all was handing the Yankees the worst defeat in baseball
history!

Greg,

I'd tell you to shut up and try one---and then complain. I still use an iMac G3 (600 MHz), with a gig of RAM. I do photoshop, RAW conversion with SPP, media management with iView Pro, graphics with Canvas---and they can all be open at once (with a browser and iTunes too). My system in comparison to the mini Mac is a "dog"---it's certainly slow at the RAW work (fine for photoshop, because I rarely do anything funky there), and iMovie transitions take patience.

This processor is not a dog. Rob likes to sit and number crunch top of the line systems---and this isn't. A low power G4 processor doesn't run much faster than 1.42 GHz (to my knowledge). A G5 would have been impossible without a fan. And you've got lots of flexibility through Firewire and USB ports here---external drives and gadgets are pretty well supported in Mac OSX. The software---as you allude to---doesn't suck. This system is certainly powerful enough to do what most people want to do. Email, web, photoshop, iTunes, iMovie---all will run great on this. You don't worry about viruses.

You will be able to upgrade the RAM yourself---they won't guarantee the computer if you kill it. And for $50, you can bring your cpu and your own stick of 1 GB (or perhaps 2 GB) RAM into your local AppleStore (or certified tech) and have them do it for you. Apple's RAM prices are always on the high side---and it is too bad that they didn't make the 1 GB a $150-200 option.

When you think of what you've said:

1. Apple is far superior an OS, and the iLife and other software is really slick...

2. You love the iPod and the integration that iTunes provides...

3. You don't want to be "stuck" with MS windows...

To whine about this not being the "not powerful enough", "not flexible enough", and having "too high RAM costs". I'd encourage you to walk into an Apple Store and try one out (with Photoshop, for example). I'd be pretty sure that it would fit your needs---especially from a productivity standpoint. I have two top-line PC's here at work (for doing cheminformatics and other stuff)---and even these PC's at times frustrate the heck out of me, because they don't multitask as well as my iMac at home.

I have hope for you, Greg. You showed flashes of brilliance with your SD10 purchase!

-- hide signature --

Jim--

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Tom May
Senior MemberPosts: 1,676
Like?
Re: Mini Mac misses the mark
In reply to Greg M, Jan 12, 2005

Greg,

The macmini obviously isn't marketed towards powerusers. That said, what a fine little RIP server this would(will?) make for my newly acquired Epson 4000.

One would also have to venture that many of those inexpensive PC boxen will shortly be observed to be fundamentally out of fashion.

Apple didn't hit a grand slam yesterday, but a two run homer isn't a bad thing.

tom

Greg M wrote:

I thought maybe this would be a chance to give the Mac a test
drive. I recently got an ipod and I've been using itunes. That
program is wonderful. It's far superior then any other program
I've tried. That makes me think that there may be something to the
"Mac programs are better" talk that I've heard for years.

BUT they blew it!

First it's got a dog of a processor. Two years ago Rob tested a
dual G4 1.25 against 2 PC's (1.8 & 3.06) and the mac barely beat
the slower PC. Come on, did they find these things on a shelf
someplace and decide to get some use out of them?

Second is making the thing so that we can't upgrade the RAM. Sure
Apple's price for 512 might be reasonable but their price for 1gig
is way out of line and it's only PC2700! PC2700 is going for half
the price that Apple wants.

The rest of it is fine but I would rather have seen them put a
little more effort into making it more flexible instead of small
and "cute".

Apple you almost got me but you've missed the mark again. I guess
I'll be stuck with microsoft for a while longer.

BTW, it's not a price thing. I can get one for $449 plus tax for
the next week. So this is something that I wanted to get but it's
way to slooow compared to the machines that I already have.

Then there's the software that I'd have to repurchase.

If Apple ever gets serious about taking market share from the PC
market then I'll be one of the first in line.

BTW, what's with the shuffle? No display?

-- hide signature --

Greg M
http://www.dslrcameras.com/gallery/index.php
http://www.dslrcameras.com

Boston Red Sox World Series Champions!
Best of all was handing the Yankees the worst defeat in baseball
history!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Mark Dobossy
Regular MemberPosts: 473
Like?
Re: I don't disagree
In reply to Greg M, Jan 12, 2005

Again- you are not the market that apple is looking for. They are going after 1) Kids who loved the iPod, and beg their parents for a Mac, 2) People who have little or no experience with a computer and want to "Try that internet thing", 3) Normal users, who do web work, word processing, etc.. and are just plain fed up with windows, and all the spyware/virus stuff that is going on now.

For those who want to edit photos, do video, etc.. etc.. Get an iMac, or even a PowerMac.

Apple's cost for making these machines is much higher than a typical PC manufacturer. First off, they use all top shelf components for reliability. Second, the PPC processors are simply more expensive, because there are fewer made (Apple's market share is what?? 4%?? And seeing as Apple is the only company using PC class PPC processors, they are MUCH more expensive). They had to cut cost on something to make it this cheap, and rather than giving unreliable, cheap components (RAM, drives, etc..), they bumped the processor down to a level that is VERY acceptable for the typical home user.

As for the non-user upgradable RAM, we are talking about a machine that is 6"x6"x2". When was the last time you crammed all of the components of one of your PCs into something that small? Now, look at it from a business perspective- lets spend an extra XXX$ to engineer this thing, user upgradable.. or, look at the market we are targeting (Kids and old ladies that want to shop online).. and figure, hey, those kind of people wont want to upgrade their RAM themselves anyway.

Besides, all you need to do is take the thing into an Apple store, and they will put in the RAM for you.

Greg M wrote:

There's no reason that they couldn't have used a more up to date
processor and made the RAM user upgradeable. They went after
"cute". I'd like to have one but it's a dog for processing pics
and therefore useless to me.

I make my own computers so I have computers that are right on par
with Apple's quality. My XP and win2k are very stable because they
are running on quality computers. I would never get a store bought
computer. Mine cost more then the mini but less then other Mac's.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
nalax
Regular MemberPosts: 396
Like?
Re: Mini Mac misses the market for you
In reply to Greg M, Jan 12, 2005

Kind of like saying point and shoots miss the mark because they don't have interchangeable lenses.

Got to leave now to diagnose a 'plug in and do not play" problem on a pc here in the office.

Greg M wrote:

I thought maybe this would be a chance to give the Mac a test
drive. I recently got an ipod and I've been using itunes. That
program is wonderful. It's far superior then any other program
I've tried. That makes me think that there may be something to the
"Mac programs are better" talk that I've heard for years.

BUT they blew it!

First it's got a dog of a processor. Two years ago Rob tested a
dual G4 1.25 against 2 PC's (1.8 & 3.06) and the mac barely beat
the slower PC. Come on, did they find these things on a shelf
someplace and decide to get some use out of them?

Second is making the thing so that we can't upgrade the RAM. Sure
Apple's price for 512 might be reasonable but their price for 1gig
is way out of line and it's only PC2700! PC2700 is going for half
the price that Apple wants.

The rest of it is fine but I would rather have seen them put a
little more effort into making it more flexible instead of small
and "cute".

Apple you almost got me but you've missed the mark again. I guess
I'll be stuck with microsoft for a while longer.

BTW, it's not a price thing. I can get one for $449 plus tax for
the next week. So this is something that I wanted to get but it's
way to slooow compared to the machines that I already have.

Then there's the software that I'd have to repurchase.

If Apple ever gets serious about taking market share from the PC
market then I'll be one of the first in line.

BTW, what's with the shuffle? No display?

-- hide signature --

Greg M
http://www.dslrcameras.com/gallery/index.php
http://www.dslrcameras.com

Boston Red Sox World Series Champions!
Best of all was handing the Yankees the worst defeat in baseball
history!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
daytontp
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,738
Like?
I still do not see your point....
In reply to Greg M, Jan 12, 2005

Greg M wrote:

There's no reason that they couldn't have used a more up to date
processor and made the RAM user upgradeable. They went after
"cute". I'd like to have one but it's a dog for processing pics
and therefore useless to me.

What is more up-to-date than a 1.45GHz G4??? The fastest G4 they are selling is 1.5GHz.

How do you know the RAM is not user upgradeable??? Did you see the photo on Apple's website, it uses standard looking desktop DDR ram. All you have to to is get the top off it.

I make my own computers so I have computers that are right on par
with Apple's quality. My XP and win2k are very stable because they
are running on quality computers. I would never get a store bought
computer. Mine cost more then the mini but less then other Mac's.

-- hide signature --

Dayton in SC USA - PBase Supporter
http://www.pbase.com/daytontp/ -- More Than 236,892 Views

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Hariette
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,092
Like?
Agree. Buy an old LCD iMac instead if you want a g4
In reply to Greg M, Jan 12, 2005

and donate your old monitor, keyboard, mouse.. if what you really want is find some use for them. The old 15inch iMac is way better and makes more sense.

Greg M wrote:

I thought maybe this would be a chance to give the Mac a test
drive. I recently got an ipod and I've been using itunes. That
program is wonderful. It's far superior then any other program
I've tried. That makes me think that there may be something to the
"Mac programs are better" talk that I've heard for years.

BUT they blew it!

First it's got a dog of a processor. Two years ago Rob tested a
dual G4 1.25 against 2 PC's (1.8 & 3.06) and the mac barely beat
the slower PC. Come on, did they find these things on a shelf
someplace and decide to get some use out of them?

Second is making the thing so that we can't upgrade the RAM. Sure
Apple's price for 512 might be reasonable but their price for 1gig
is way out of line and it's only PC2700! PC2700 is going for half
the price that Apple wants.

The rest of it is fine but I would rather have seen them put a
little more effort into making it more flexible instead of small
and "cute".

Apple you almost got me but you've missed the mark again. I guess
I'll be stuck with microsoft for a while longer.

BTW, it's not a price thing. I can get one for $449 plus tax for
the next week. So this is something that I wanted to get but it's
way to slooow compared to the machines that I already have.

Then there's the software that I'd have to repurchase.

If Apple ever gets serious about taking market share from the PC
market then I'll be one of the first in line.

BTW, what's with the shuffle? No display?

-- hide signature --

Greg M
http://www.dslrcameras.com/gallery/index.php
http://www.dslrcameras.com

Boston Red Sox World Series Champions!
Best of all was handing the Yankees the worst defeat in baseball
history!

-- hide signature --

............

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Dave Beaman
Senior MemberPosts: 2,356
Like?
this is not for you
In reply to Greg M, Jan 12, 2005

The Mini was not meant for you. It was meant for the folks that have a P of S Dell who can, for $500 plug it into their existing keyboard and monitor and off to the races or internet.

With it they can handle their photos, burn music on their CDs, do the internet thing. All of this on a very nice looking snazzy Mac. It even looks like iPhoto, free with the new Mac will have much more capabilities.

In fact if I had and extra $3000, I would get one of these to replace the windaze PCs that the 6 of my siblings have.

dave

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Mark Dobossy
Regular MemberPosts: 473
Like?
Re: Agree. Buy an old LCD iMac instead if you want a g4
In reply to Hariette, Jan 12, 2005

??? Lets see- old 700mhz 15" iMac, 256megs of ram, 60 gig hard drive, CD-R drive, are going for $700-$800 right now (no airport card mind you).

I have a nice 17" monitor, keyboard and mouse lying around. I can get a 1.45ghz mini, with 256 megs of RAM, CD-R, and 80 gig hard drive, for $600. Add an airport card, and some RAM, and I am in the $700-$800 range, with a machine with more than double the RAM, more HD, and over 2x the processor speed. I fail to see how the old iMac is way better?

Hariette wrote:

and donate your old monitor, keyboard, mouse.. if what you really
want is find some use for them. The old 15inch iMac is way better
and makes more sense.

-- hide signature --

-Mark

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
daytontp
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,738
Like?
Ummm, you need to ....
In reply to Greg M, Jan 12, 2005

.. go watch the Keynote from Apple's website.

Link is on the main page:
http://www.apple.com/

-- hide signature --

Dayton in SC USA - PBase Supporter
http://www.pbase.com/daytontp/ -- More Than 236,892 Views

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Hariette
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,092
Like?
Hummm... I'll tell you how :-)
In reply to Mark Dobossy, Jan 12, 2005

The aim of the Mac mini is to attract loads of web surfers and ipod users who have around their house spare Monitors, keyboards and mice, these are NOT power users craving speed... reason why Apple didn't bother putting a g5 inside that cute case... instead they are adding another AC power adapter "brick style" with no possibility to upgrade yourself to airport or RAM without voiding the warranty, making many squeamish people buy from the Apple store with premium prices on RAM and skipping the "tax-free-stores". So let's see you can add airport, extra RAM, perhaps you want a cute keyboard and mouse to match your "web-ipod-surfer" box so add bluetooth (wireless keyboard won't work without it) heehee it's adding up, isn't it?

But let's say instead you want to add your ugly beige monitor, keyboard, mouse, etc. NOW you have some ugly setup Sire and cute is gone!

The old LCD iMac doesn't look so bad anymore, does it? and to make it work you just need ONE outlet! (PS even eMac looks like a better deal http://www.expercom.com/product_detail.html?PRODUCT_ID=304266 )

Mark Dobossy wrote:
??? Lets see- old 700mhz 15" iMac, 256megs of ram, 60 gig hard
drive, CD-R drive, are going for $700-$800 right now (no airport
card mind you).

I have a nice 17" monitor, keyboard and mouse lying around. I can
get a 1.45ghz mini, with 256 megs of RAM, CD-R, and 80 gig hard
drive, for $600. Add an airport card, and some RAM, and I am in
the $700-$800 range, with a machine with more than double the RAM,
more HD, and over 2x the processor speed. I fail to see how the
old iMac is way better?

Hariette wrote:

and donate your old monitor, keyboard, mouse.. if what you really
want is find some use for them. The old 15inch iMac is way better
and makes more sense.

-- hide signature --

-Mark

-- hide signature --

............

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Greg M
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,267
Like?
How can you say that?
In reply to ekohn, Jan 12, 2005

ekohn wrote:

You know, I read the your first post and kinda agreed, because of
the price. I have a 15" PB 1.25 I wanted to replace, but when i
add the memory, wireless and DVD-RW it was to close to what i could
get on ebay for the PB.

But thats my case. haveing a 23" monitor, I would absolutly love
this machine if i was upgrading from a slower or lesser machine.

Then i read your other posts. I must say your acting like a troll
with very little understanding. I especially will remember the
quote "Why do you think that Apple will never release a windows
version of their OS", which has got to be one of the most confused
statements in history.

I mentioned this because I remember someone dreaming of Apple releasing there OS for the PC. At first thought I said that would be awesome, a real choice vs microsoft. However, after thinking about it I realized that what makes Apple's OS so good is the strick control they have on the hardware and drivers. If Microsoft had that kind of control then there would be less problems with XP.

By the way....I have a P4/2.4 with as much memory as my PB 1.25.
Guess what, the PB is quicker on a number of apps that matter (ie
RAW conversion in PS).

There can't be much difference. Rob's results prove that.

Greg M wrote:

Bimthecat wrote:

(Go Boston Red Sox!)

(with Windoz) good luck with the NEVER ending viruses !

I don't use virus software and I've got no problems with viruses.
A little common sense protects me.

Maybe the fastest PC's are faster than the dual G5's,

At a fraction of the cost.

but I contend:

It's all about better, NOT faster.

Good point but I certainly don't want to take a big step backwards
in speed especially since programs and files keep getting bigger.
I'm processing 20+meg files now. Speed does matter.

OS 10.3.7 is FAR better than XP.

Only because there is tight control on hardware and drivers. I
don't have any problems with my PC's because I've used quality
parts to make them. Most of XP's problems have nothing to do with
the OS. It's usually sub-par parts or drives that create the
problems.

Why do you think that Apple will never release a windows version of
their OS? It's because the conception that it's better then XP
would be wiped out. It's easier to make a stable OS when there is
tight control on the hardware and drivers.

I am not knocking the Mac. I hate microsoft and would love to
change to the Mac but IMO the value isn't there yet. I've got a
lot of money and years invested in the PC. Hopefully someday
someone else will take over Apple with a vision that puts less in
"cute" and more in gaining market share.

I can always hope

Tiger (10.4) will be outstanding.
Searchlight will search town names contained in .pdf maps !!
This kant be done in Windoz.

Longhorn (the next Windoz) is a dud,
and will be another 3 or 4 years away.

-- hide signature --

Greg M
http://www.dslrcameras.com/gallery/index.php
http://www.dslrcameras.com

Boston Red Sox World Series Champions!
Best of all was handing the Yankees the worst defeat in baseball
history!

-- hide signature --

Greg M
http://www.dslrcameras.com/gallery/index.php
http://www.dslrcameras.com

Boston Red Sox World Series Champions!
Best of all was handing the Yankees the worst defeat in baseball history!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Wyatt Galen Houtz
Regular MemberPosts: 136
Like?
MiniMac+23" display!
In reply to Greg M, Jan 12, 2005

I have a powerbook g4 1.25ghz processor 15" and I love it.
It does everything I need, and even if it lags, the options
and software available on a mac are so much nicer than
windows alternatives. I've been considering getting one
of these myself, just because they are so small. I should
have bought one for my family too!

It looks sweet sitting underneath a huge cinematic
display. Gives me goosebumps.

-- hide signature --

Wyatt Galen Houtz
wyatt@havenofbliss.com
http://www.havenofbliss.com

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Greg M
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,267
Like?
Re: I don't disagree
In reply to Mark Dobossy, Jan 12, 2005

Mark Dobossy wrote:

Again- you are not the market that apple is looking for. They are

But I want them to target me with a lower price option to get my foot in the door When I first saw the mini I thought maybe? They came close to making me get one. Maybe if the mini works then they might try for people like me.

going after 1) Kids who loved the iPod, and beg their parents for a
Mac, 2) People who have little or no experience with a computer and
want to "Try that internet thing", 3) Normal users, who do web
work, word processing, etc.. and are just plain fed up with
windows, and all the spyware/virus stuff that is going on now.

For those who want to edit photos, do video, etc.. etc.. Get an
iMac, or even a PowerMac.

That option is too expensive to make the switch for something that is slower. When making the switch it's not just the cost of the computer.

Apple's cost for making these machines is much higher than a
typical PC manufacturer. First off, they use all top shelf
components for reliability. Second, the PPC processors are simply
more expensive, because there are fewer made (Apple's market share
is what?? 4%?? And seeing as Apple is the only company using PC
class PPC processors, they are MUCH more expensive). They had to
cut cost on something to make it this cheap, and rather than giving
unreliable, cheap components (RAM, drives, etc..), they bumped the
processor down to a level that is VERY acceptable for the typical
home user.

As for the non-user upgradable RAM, we are talking about a machine
that is 6"x6"x2". When was the last time you crammed all of the
components of one of your PCs into something that small? Now, look
at it from a business perspective- lets spend an extra XXX$ to
engineer this thing, user upgradable.. or, look at the market we
are targeting (Kids and old ladies that want to shop online).. and
figure, hey, those kind of people wont want to upgrade their RAM
themselves anyway.

Besides, all you need to do is take the thing into an Apple store,
and they will put in the RAM for you.

To put 1gig in it costs almost as much as the computer costs!!!

Greg M wrote:

There's no reason that they couldn't have used a more up to date
processor and made the RAM user upgradeable. They went after
"cute". I'd like to have one but it's a dog for processing pics
and therefore useless to me.

I make my own computers so I have computers that are right on par
with Apple's quality. My XP and win2k are very stable because they
are running on quality computers. I would never get a store bought
computer. Mine cost more then the mini but less then other Mac's.

-- hide signature --

Greg M
http://www.dslrcameras.com/gallery/index.php
http://www.dslrcameras.com

Boston Red Sox World Series Champions!
Best of all was handing the Yankees the worst defeat in baseball history!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads