or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Mac mini misses its target consumer
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Mac mini misses its target consumer - Page 7

post #241 of 290
Quote:
Originally posted by steve666

A $499 tower would fly off the shelves

When I first heard rumors about the mac mini, thats what I was hoping it would be. I would be content with G4 processor choices, I just don't like the video option. I still might buy one though, but it will be in place of getting an iBook and not to replace a PC.
post #242 of 290
Quote:
Boy, theres a lot of crying going on in that house!

But at least the screaming from using NT is absent.
post #243 of 290
Quote:
Originally posted by jsimmons
Man, you'd lose a lot on money making a bet like that. Even my laptop has 728mb. I don't know anyone that doesn't have at least 512mb. Windows 2K and XP need 256mb just to stand upright...

Yeah, but you're a C++ programmer surrounded by C++ programmers. My box has 1GB in it, but I don't claim to represent the general populace.

Look at the stock configurations of retail PCs, or Dell PCs, over the last few years. That's what most people buy and use. Tech-savvy people do tend to have nicer boxes, but that's hardly a surprise.

At any rate, no matter what you have in your PC, 512MB should turn the mini into a very able performer.
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
post #244 of 290
Quote:
Originally posted by steve666
Like i said my computer was using 300Mb RAM. Virtual Memory should not have to be used in such a light computer usage.
Every Mac site, every mac expert, suggest 512Mb RAM

Saying your computer is using VM as a reason you need more memory in OS X is pointless. My laptop has a Gig of ram. I'm running Safari, Mail and Activity Monitor right now and I'm using 820 MB or ram and 5.6 Gigs of VM. Does that mean I need more memory??? No, it mean's OS X is doing exactly what it is designed to do.

256 to 512 is going to be plenty for 95 % of what the people the Mini is intended for will use it for. For the other 5% you are going to need to buy more memory, just like you would in EVERY other mac!
post #245 of 290
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Tomahawk
Saying your computer is using VM as a reason you need more memory in OS X is pointless. My laptop has a Gig of ram. I'm running Safari, Mail and Activity Monitor right now and I'm using 820 MB or ram and 5.6 Gigs of VM. Does that mean I need more memory??? No, it mean's OS X is doing exactly what it is designed to do.

256 to 512 is going to be plenty for 95 % of what the people the Mini is intended for will use it for. For the other 5% you are going to need to buy more memory, just like you would in EVERY other mac!

512 is, 256 is not
post #246 of 290
Figured I'd do another pricing follow-up since Dell seemed to get a little scared and cut prices about 5 hours after my previous pricing report...

Here's the Mini:

512MB DDR333 SDRAM - 1 DIMM
40GB Ultra ATA drive
Combo Drive
Wired Keyboard & Mouse Set - U.S. English
56K v.92 Modem
Mac OS X - U.S. English
1.25GHz PowerPC G4
Free Shipping

Subtotal $632.00

Dell Dimension 3000 (lowest one I found a FireWire card available on):
2.40 GHz
XP Professional (you get the Professional versoin of OS X).
1 Yr Warranty
512 MB Ram
40 GB Drive
CD-RW/DVD-ROM
Record Now Deluxe (gotta try to make it almost as easy as a Mac)
No Monitor (saved $50) - already have two or three...
IEEE 1394 (FireWire)
Free Shipping over $599

Subtotal $685 - $50 mail in rebate + postage stamp = $635.37
If you add software on the next page so you can RIP CDs faster, work with pictures and do your finances it jumps to $773-50+.37=$723.37 and we won't even go into the account transfer software you would have to pay for...

Wait, you don't want an integrated Video Card (a lot of people's complaint around here). Similarly configured you are now up to $1016-150+.37=$865.37 and that is still before the Ripping software, pictures and financial...

There's more... You want it in a smaller case so it doesn't take up as much space or looks a little nicer??? $1166-150+.37=$1016.37, again before other software.

So, lets say you want the smaller computer, a 17" LCD Display, DVD burner and the software you need to do half way decent music, pictures, movies, etc... Well, I just hit $1625-150+.37=$1475.37.

Huh, a fairly similar iMac is within $100 of that and it takes up even less space... Or, I can get the following Mini:

512MB DDR333 SDRAM - 1 DIMM
80GB Ultra ATA drive
8x SuperDrive (DVD±RW/CD-RW)
Wired Keyboard & Mouse Set - U.S. English
56K v.92 Modem
Mac OS X - U.S. English
1.42GHz PowerPC G4
Estimated Ship:

Subtotal $832.00 + $275 ($245 white Acer monitor at MacMall and $30ish shipping) for a whopping total of $1107.

I'd still say Apple did pretty stinking good on the price (and I'm still not planning to buy one, I want a PowerBook but will hold out until something looks like it will be twice what my 1 GHz Ti is).
post #247 of 290
That's not a very fair comparison. Expiring today, dell offered

Dell Dimension 4700
3.2 GHz P4 800Mhz FSB
XP Professional
2 Yr Onsite Warranty
512 MB Ram
Radeon X300 128MB PCIe
40 GB 7200RPM Drive
CD-RW & DVD-ROM
Record Now Deluxe
No Monitor
IEEE 1394
Fax modem
Mouse & keyboard
Free shipping
$906 - 30% off coupon - $100 mail-in rebate. + stamp =
$541.57

The optical drive is twice as fast. The hard disk will blow away the laptop drive in the mini. The G4 is not comparable to the P4. Plus you get 6 more USB ports, surround sound and twice the warranty.

If you don't need to login to a domain or have any firewire devices (like most people), Dell gives you the option to take another $109 off the price. Like I said, this expired today, but Dell has sales all the time.

You added a bunch of software as well, which is fine, but not necessary. I can rip music & DVDs, manage & edit photos, burn VCDs, DVDs, music, etc. easily all with free apps, plus a $10 copy of Nero burning Rom.

The mini is a good little box and cheap for apple, but aside from size and OSX, it's not going to compete with a PC.
post #248 of 290
Quote:
Originally posted by xmoger
a $10 copy of Nero burning Rom.


Where do you get that?

Ahead Nero has it at $99.99 + $9.99 shipping cost.
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
post #249 of 290
Quote:
[i]Originally posted by xmogerThe mini is a good little box and cheap for apple, but aside from size and OSX, it's not going to compete with a PC. [/B]

Save the condescending tone until you can actually come up with an x86 box the average consumer can buy any day with the same amount and quality of software and of the same size.

'Peecees are cheaper' is not a religion, it is a factual proposition.

In the case of the mini, it is false.
post #250 of 290
Quote:
Originally posted by xmoger
The mini is a good little box and cheap for apple, but aside from size and OSX, it's not going to compete with a PC.

You had me at OSX.
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
post #251 of 290
Hi!

I think the usual consumer wants a pc to do his work with, and he doesn't like crashes and viruses.
Linux can do a lot, bot it is not yet very user friendly to an average workstation user. And windows, well, it crashes all the time on most pcs, and is quite annoying, because it has a lot of bugs, most of them are already known for years.
So the MacOS-X might as well be the killer application for the mini.

Also, the mini has a fair price. Most people already have monitors and accessories, so they won't want to spent extra money on emac or imac, for its included monitor.

I think the mini hits its target consumer.

David
post #252 of 290
Quote:
Originally posted by Incoming
And windows, well, it crashes all the time on most pcs, and is quite annoying, because it has a lot of bugs, most of them are already known for years.

Which year are you living in? Just wondering.

PCs don't crash 'all the time'. I could count the number of times my XP box at home has crashed on the fingers of one hand, and it's a 2 year old machine. Individual apps crash, but they don't take XP with them.

PCs are very stable now, and with a little care and attention (installing McAfee/Norton security suites and a spyware killer, such as Microsoft Anti-Spyware) they will run well day in day out without problems.

Windows is still rather clunky, and certainly not as elegant s OSX, but to say it's unreliable simply isn't true.

As for Mac Mini, it's a cute toy, although I'm personally holding out for a future iMac G5 revision (with a decent GPU). I do wish Apple would let users upgrade their GPUs, even through BTO options. (I know you can with a PowerMac, but I'm not *that* rich).

I run a Shuttle at home with a Radeon 9800 Pro 256mb. Running Doom 3 at my screen's native res (1680x1050) the GPU is really struggling, so an upgrade may be in order. That kind of puts Apple's GPU choices into perspective! A GeForce 5200 indeed. I hear an X800 or X850 calling.
post #253 of 290
Thread Starter 
I maintain 2 computers for a customer at his house. He has a new PC and a older G4 Mac.
I spend 3/4 to the entire time working on the PC and almost zero time maintaining the G4.
PCs are so prone to spyware and viruses (and he has both McAfee products) that the PC slows to a crawl quite often. Antispyware software doesnt do a complete job no matter which brand you use.
As far as the OS is concerned OSX is far superior to XP. Theres no comparison, IMHO.
PCs would be a better deal if it werent for these problems but all PCs automatically come with a $80 premium for antivirus and antispyware software. Mac's built in apps are also superior to a PCs.
With all that said, Apple could still put together a tower similar to a PC for just a little more money but Jobs is stubborn. I would still rather have a Mini or even a used Mac than a PC though.


Quote:
Originally posted by kotatsu
Which year are you living in? Just wondering.

PCs don't crash 'all the time'. I could count the number of times my XP box at home has crashed on the fingers of one hand, and it's a 2 year old machine. Individual apps crash, but they don't take XP with them.

PCs are very stable now, and with a little care and attention (installing McAfee/Norton security suites and a spyware killer, such as Microsoft Anti-Spyware) they will run well day in day out without problems.

Windows is still rather clunky, and certainly not as elegant s OSX, but to say it's unreliable simply isn't true.

As for Mac Mini, it's a cute toy, although I'm personally holding out for a future iMac G5 revision (with a decent GPU). I do wish Apple would let users upgrade their GPUs, even through BTO options. (I know you can with a PowerMac, but I'm not *that* rich).

I run a Shuttle at home with a Radeon 9800 Pro 256mb. Running Doom 3 at my screen's native res (1680x1050) the GPU is really struggling, so an upgrade may be in order. That kind of puts Apple's GPU choices into perspective! A GeForce 5200 indeed. I hear an X800 or X850 calling.
post #254 of 290
Thread Starter 
MacCentral review basically confirms everything I have brought up here, at least about its shortcomings:

One surprise in our testing appeared when we tested the hard-drive access speed by duplicating 500MB of data. The 1.25GHz Mac mini beat the faster 1.42GHz model by 10 seconds. Upon further investigation, we found that the 1.25GHz model actually contains a 5,400RPM drive, despite Apples claim that it contains a 4,200RPM drive. The 1.42GHz model, does contain the slower 4,200RPM drive.


The other components worked as expected, with good AirPort reception and quiet operation, except for the somewhat loud robotic whir of the optical drive as it was accessing a disc. Not surprisingly, the Mac minis built-in speaker is weak, so youll want to connect external speakers or headphones to listen to music or watch movies. In our many hours of testing, the Mac mini did not heat up our desk much at all, probably due to its well-designed venting system and power supply located outside the case.


We have three words about the 256MB of RAM included with the Mac mini: its not enough. (Unfortunately, most of the standard consumer-level Macs only come with 256MB.) We used the mini with 512MB of RAM for hours, and were very happy with its speed and responsiveness, but once we removed that DIMM and put in the stock 256MB DIMM, it seemed a bit sluggish, and wasnt such a pleasure to use anymore. As weve noted in other Mac reviews, 256MB RAM simply isnt enough memory for OS X, especially if you are planning to use the iLife 05 applications, which require a moderate amount of horsepower. At least its possible to upgrade the mini. But theres only one DIMM slot, so if you get the standard mini with 256MB of RAM, youll need to buy a 512MB DIMM and replace the 256MB one.
post #255 of 290
Quote:
Originally posted by steve666
MacCentral review basically confirms everything I have brought up here, at least about its shortcomings:

<snip>
We have three words about the 256MB of RAM included with the Mac mini: its not enough. (Unfortunately, most of the standard consumer-level Macs only come with 256MB.) We used the mini with 512MB of RAM for hours, and were very happy with its speed and responsiveness, but once we removed that DIMM and put in the stock 256MB DIMM, it seemed a bit sluggish, and wasnt such a pleasure to use anymore...

After using my mini for about a week, I'd even go so far as to say 512MB isn't enough, depending on what you do. Moving from a 1.33Ghz PowerBook with a gigabyte of memory to this 1.42Ghz mini with 512MB, I have to keep watch on open applications or face a very noticeable slowdown. My gigabyte stick is already on order. It's amazing how much memory the OS and just a few applications use these days.
post #256 of 290
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by iDave
After using my mini for about a week, I'd even go so far as to say 512MB isn't enough, depending on what you do. Moving from a 1.33Ghz PowerBook with a gigabyte of memory to this 1.42Ghz mini with 512MB, I have to keep watch on open applications or face a very noticeable slowdown. My gigabyte stick is already on order. It's amazing how much memory the OS and just a few applications use these days.

I have a little more than 512 and I find myself restarting the computer after a while. 256 Mb is a joke
post #257 of 290
Quote:
Originally posted by kotatsu
[B]Which year are you living in? Just wondering.

PCs don't crash 'all the time'. I could count the number of times my XP box at home has crashed on the fingers of one hand, and it's a 2 year old machine. Individual apps crash, but they don't take XP with them.

PCs don't, but Windows does. I have experience with windows since 1992, and it crashes all the time. Over the years, I just managed to get one XP Box and one ME box to run smoothly for a few days.
Also, I got some linux pcs and some windows pcs, I spent almost all time of maintainance on the windows pcs.

My notebook crashes about 2 to 3 times a day, when working the hole time (XP Home), which is Windows' fault because it runs smoothly on SuSE Linux.

Also, my workstation at my office crashes about 3 to 5 times a day (W2k).

WinXP is an improvement against Win9x, but it still can't be considered stable. At least not, if you are used to work with Linux, Epoc, etc..

Also, you need a virus scanner and a firewall and an adware scanner, all of which are obsolete when using windows.

While Linux replaced virtually all my server apps, it is now time for MacOS-X to replace my desktop apps. Since it is based on bsd I have high hopes.

Also, Windows window-manager is quite annoying sometimes (switches application windows without user command, has annoying popups to remind to clean up desktop, install updates etc.), the console hasn't been really much improved since DOS (ok, the TAB function is new in XP, and it also has an nslookup and a route tool finally), and memory management is quite stupid. It worked better on DOS because the user had more control.

I still didn't figure out how to disable swapping in XP, limit Cache size etc.

David
post #258 of 290
First off, the Mac mini is not intended for power users.
Second, the Mac mini is not intended to last the user 5yrs like a PowerMac would (average user upgrade cycle...).

The Mac mini IS intended to lure curious people to start playing with OS X and iLife.

By looking at the specs, it's obvious that a power user wont be satisfied, but Grandma Jones will be. In a year or two when she has a bunch of little Jimmys photos and a few videos packed into iPhoto and iMovie, she'll start thinking about how her experiance with OS X and iLife has been so great. Then she may decide to buy a new iMac or replace her mini with a new one.

The argument that OS X is supperior to XP is debatable. I work in IT and deal with users Windows problems all day long. For me, at the end of the day, I dont want to go home to a computer that had problems... I want to go home to my PowerMac, it just works
nothing here, move along...
Reply
nothing here, move along...
Reply
post #259 of 290
I really don't know what you guys do to Windows boxes to make them crash so much. I use on all day at work with 3DS Max and I can't remember the last time it crashed. Months if not years ago.

My home XP system I push more (it's my gaming rig), but even then it virtually never crashes.

Maybe you're running dodgy software on them? I dunno.

I'm not arguing Windows is better than OSX, as of course it isn't, but when I read people claiming that Windows crashes daily, in my experience at least, that's far from the truth.

I also have no problems with spyware now. Since moving to Firefox I haven't had any at all.
post #260 of 290
Quote:
Originally posted by Incoming
PCs don't, but Windows does. I have experience with windows since 1992, and it crashes all the time. Over the years, I just managed to get one XP Box and one ME box to run smoothly for a few days.
Also, I got some linux pcs and some windows pcs, I spent almost all time of maintainance on the windows pcs.

blah blah blah

David

It sounds more like operator error than anything else. I am not a big fan of Windows myself, but it certainly isn't as unreliable as you make it out to be. You're spouting FUD more than anything else.
post #261 of 290
Quote:
Originally posted by jsimmons
It sounds more like operator error than anything else. I am not a big fan of Windows myself, but it certainly isn't as unreliable as you make it out to be. You're spouting FUD more than anything else.

Yes, the average home user is sooooooo prone to not have operator errors.
post #262 of 290
Quote:
Originally posted by jsimmons
It sounds more like operator error than anything else. I am not a big fan of Windows myself, but it certainly isn't as unreliable as you make it out to be. You're spouting FUD more than anything else.

I see that you have no experience with windows at all.

Well, since I don't write Microsoft Windows Kernels and drivers, it is cleary not my fault.

I also counted out my faults, which do happen, as I am a human like anyone else.

I also find it har to believe that you really think that someone who is experienced enough to run a lot of different linux boxes is to stupid to configure a linux box.

If you bother to take a look at Windows, you realize it has a lot of obvious flaws, which it already has for years, and they still haven't been fixed, like the memory management.

A lot of crashes come from Windows itself (Bluescreen says "win32k.sys"), and some crashes from buggy drivers, which come from bad programmers in the hardware companies. Thats why some boxes run smoothly (which is not the average box) and most boxes tend to crash once or more a day when used heavily.
Drivers in Windows are run in kernel mode (Linux does that, too, but OS-programmers do better work), so that means, that if the driver crashes, the OS will crash too, instead of killing the driver and restarting it (like QNX does for example). There are also a lot of software or pseudo drivers (Driver for CD-Images, UDF, etc.), which can also be faulty.
There is also no "kill -s 9" equivalent in windows, it is not possible to just end a program without its cooperation.
This also applies to the file system. Once, a file is locked, and the process which uses it, has hung up or crashed, it might not be possible to erase or overwrite the file, even with administrator rights.

Other flaws include:
- bad floppy disk driver (it slows down a pc a lot, which is not the case in linux and os/2)
- bad caching: If a lot of data is processed linear (like when editing videos), it is still cached. If the machine is idle apart from that, programs are swapped out to the disk to make room for the useless cached data. So, when you return to the machine a few minutes later and, e.g. open a new browser window, it might take 30s or so to do that, because the application has to be loaded out of the swap, while the movie app might still be writing to the harddisk. This has not been a problem on DOS, Win3.11 and Win9x, since the cache size was user manageable.
- XP can't do without a swapfile, even if enough ram is present. This slows down a lot, since swapping is always used.
- Documentation is pretty bad (compared to linux, or the old DOS)

So, before you say "Windows is cool and never crashes", you should think about that. There are Microft programs I like, though, e.g. "Age of Empires".

Apart from that I like(d) Linux, QNX, BeOS, Symbian OS, because they work.

David

PS: I forgot: A lot of crashes come from a faulty tcp/ip stack in windows, the probability of a random crash is a lot higher when network data is processed.
post #263 of 290
Quote:
Originally posted by xmoger
That's not a very fair comparison. Expiring today, dell offered

Dell Dimension 4700
3.2 GHz P4 800Mhz FSB
XP Professional
2 Yr Onsite Warranty
512 MB Ram
Radeon X300 128MB PCIe
40 GB 7200RPM Drive
CD-RW & DVD-ROM
Record Now Deluxe
No Monitor
IEEE 1394
Fax modem
Mouse & keyboard
Free shipping
$906 - 30% off coupon - $100 mail-in rebate. + stamp =
$541.57

The optical drive is twice as fast. The hard disk will blow away the laptop drive in the mini. The G4 is not comparable to the P4. Plus you get 6 more USB ports, surround sound and twice the warranty.

If you don't need to login to a domain or have any firewire devices (like most people), Dell gives you the option to take another $109 off the price. Like I said, this expired today, but Dell has sales all the time.

You added a bunch of software as well, which is fine, but not necessary. I can rip music & DVDs, manage & edit photos, burn VCDs, DVDs, music, etc. easily all with free apps, plus a $10 copy of Nero burning Rom.

The mini is a good little box and cheap for apple, but aside from size and OSX, it's not going to compete with a PC.

the gains from the faster hdd will be offset by the constant cacheing to disk that windows does, I always have a 180-400mb swap file, we usualy have just as big a swap file at work on a workstation with a gig of ram.

What the hell is recordnow delux - wheres iLife ?

also, you are getting UNIX with the mini, go anywhere else and try to get a unix terminal with support like apple provides for the pricepoint...

Unless you use all of the freebees, the av and antispyware tools will set you back ~$100 + yearly subscriptions not to mention time spent scanning, and ram/cpu being hogged by said resources...

Ram: well you are right there, but everyone knows apple is run bu cheap ass fuckheads when it comes to ram - for their pricepoints, nothing apple sells should come with under 512...but the mac is soooo much better than windows...and good luck getting the most out of that vid card in linux, for anything on x86 besides windows, nvidia is the king.
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
post #264 of 290
I just helped a friend set up a Mini while casually reading this thread. Synchronicity in action, I must say. Instead of upgrading his G4 tower, we decided this would be the best move. Plus he can still use the older machine on the network for storage, etc. My Dad did the exact same thing a week before and his friend picked up two around launch as well. Now to the point...

Some of the BTO/CTO prices for the mini have dropped a bit this week, probably in reaction to sales figures , consumer concerns and what not. The Mini is now a bit more price competitive than they were at launch.

There's also been a link to an article floating around from Macworld (I believe it was from them, though I can't be arsed to check the fora for it) that stated, from Apple, that the warranty will be void upon damage of a unit when it is upgraded. Not if RAM is user installed without an issue. Another problem out of the way.

So, some concerns that were buggin' people are getting better. I think that the perceived value of Apple products is finally having people listen. The Mini will be very attractive at the current price point and set-up for most people considering the known hassles and costs of maintaining a PC or comparable system. I'm sure if Apple captured 10 million sales with a music player that approaches the price point of a computer they now sell, they've already done most of the convincing they needed to.
2.66ghz Mac Pro - 5gb / 830gb / 7300gt 256mb
1ghz Tibook - 1gb / 60gb / 9000 64mb
iPhone - 8gb

netbanshee.com
Reply
2.66ghz Mac Pro - 5gb / 830gb / 7300gt 256mb
1ghz Tibook - 1gb / 60gb / 9000 64mb
iPhone - 8gb

netbanshee.com
Reply
post #265 of 290
Quote:
Originally posted by Incoming
I see that you have no experience with windows at all.

I've been involved with computers in one way or anouther since about 1974. I've been a programmer since 1979 (likely long before you were even born). I've been building my own PC's since 1987. I've been using Windows since 2.0 came out. I'd say with over 15 years of experience using Windows-based PC's, to say I'm somewhat familiar with the OS would be a gross understatement.

Quote:
Originally posted by Incoming
Well, since I don't write Microsoft Windows Kernels and drivers, it is cleary not my fault.

I don't either, but I do write Windows apps for a living (and have been for about 15 years).

Quote:
Originally posted by Incoming
I also find it har to believe that you really think that someone who is experienced enough to run a lot of different linux boxes is to stupid to configure a linux box.

An ability to successfully setup and use Linux does not imply an ability to have the same talent under Windows (and vice-versa).

Quote:
Originally posted by Incoming
If you bother to take a look at Windows, you realize it has a lot of obvious flaws, which it already has for years, and they still haven't been fixed, like the memory management.

Did I ever once say that Windows didn't have flaws? (I checked my post, and there wasn't anything in ther about Windows being flawless, so you don't have to go back and look if you don't want to.)

Quote:
Originally posted by Incoming
A lot of crashes come from Windows itself (Bluescreen says "win32k.sys"), and some crashes from buggy drivers, which come from bad programmers in the hardware companies. Thats why some boxes run smoothly (which is not the average box) and most boxes tend to crash once or more a day when used heavily.

Hmmm, this reminds me of the old joke about the guy that walks into the doctors office, waves his arm in a circle and says, "Hey doc, it hurts when I do this."

I can't recall the last time I installed a driver that crashed Windows. On the other hand, I've experienced incompatibilites between my motherboard's drivers (provided by the manufacturer of the motherboard) and ATI video card drivers that would freeze a game or cause a crash-to-desktop, but I solved that problem by not installing the motherboard drivers and using the ones provided with the OS (Win2K) instead. Everything works fine, and the system is on 24/7 with "heavy use" every day.

Quote:
Originally posted by Incoming
Drivers in Windows are run in kernel mode (Linux does that, too, but OS-programmers do better work), so that means, that if the driver crashes, the OS will crash too, instead of killing the driver and restarting it (like QNX does for example).

Oh, you mean like when the Linux ATI driver is applied against an unsupported version of XFree, fiorcing you to restart your system?

Quote:
Originally posted by Incoming
There is also no "kill -s 9" equivalent in windows, it is not possible to just end a program without its cooperation.
This also applies to the file system. Once, a file is locked, and the process which uses it, has hung up or crashed, it might not be possible to erase or overwrite the file, even with administrator rights.

Oh I see now, you are one of those Linuz zealots that likes to compare Linux to Windows, regardless of the topic at hand. Reminder: We are talking about "reliability", not "flaws in design".

However, I'll address your concern - I've had APPLICATIONS use files and not close them, or crash in a less than elegant fashion, leaving files open, or even had DLLs remain loaded (the fault of an APPLICATION) thus leaving a file open. Simply restarting the system is enough to fix it.

Quote:
Originally posted by Incoming
Other flaws include:
- bad floppy disk driver (it slows down a pc a lot, which is not the case in linux and os/2)

You still use floppy drives? And please, let's not re-hash that tired (and pointless) argument about being able to format a floppy while being able to simultaneously pee in a cup.

Quote:
Originally posted by Incoming
- bad caching: If a lot of data is processed linear (like when editing videos), it is still cached. If the machine is idle apart from that, programs are swapped out to the disk to make room for the useless cached data. So, when you return to the machine a few minutes later and, e.g. open a new browser window, it might take 30s or so to do that, because the application has to be loaded out of the swap, while the movie app might still be writing to the harddisk. This has not been a problem on DOS, Win3.11 and Win9x, since the cache size was user manageable.

I can't recall ever being asked by a Windows user why he couldn't manage his own cache. Most of them don't even know what it is or what it's for. They actually just want their systems to "just work", and my entire point is that for about 99% of them, Windows just works. You'll find the same trait among Apple users, by the way.

Quote:
Originally posted by Incoming
- XP can't do without a swapfile, even if enough ram is present. This slows down a lot, since swapping is always used.

You mean like like OS-X, a popular variant of Unix?

Quote:
Originally posted by Incoming
- Documentation is pretty bad (compared to linux, or the old DOS)

Are you running out of things to talk about?

Quote:
Originally posted by Incoming
So, before you say "Windows is cool and never crashes", you should think about that.

You must have ridden the short bus to school, because your reading comprehension skills are seriously deficient. I SAID that Windows isn't nearly as unreliable as the original poster implied.

Quote:
Originally posted by Incoming
PS: I forgot: A lot of crashes come from a faulty tcp/ip stack in windows, the probability of a random crash is a lot higher when network data is processed.

Man that's news to me. I've seen Windows crash before, but it has never been because of a "faulty tcp/ip stack".

For the last time, I was speaking of reliability, not flaws YOU think a given OS has.
post #266 of 290
Quote:
Originally posted by jsimmons
[B]I've been involved with computers in one way or anouther since about 1974. I've been a programmer since 1979 (likely long before you were even born). I've been building my own PC's since 1987. I've been using Windows since 2.0 came out. I'd say with over 15 years of experience using Windows-based PC's, to say I'm somewhat familiar with the OS would be a gross understatement.

If that is true, then you should really know a lot about Windows crashes. Something doesn't add up here.

Anyway, I don't want to argue anymore. I am happy that my mac mini just arrived today, and that the memory upgrade went good (it worked with DDR-400 ram, not with DDR-333 ram for some reason, the shipped ram was also DDR-400). The GUI looks better than windows, and unix tools are also included. Seems pretty nice, except itune has problems with mp3s, and quicktime player won't play avi/divx.
Also, it opened right like in the movie, took me less than five minutes.

It seams like its a good machine for switchers (just hook it to your kvm and push the button), and I think it doesn't miss the target consumer.

David
post #267 of 290
Quote:
Originally posted by Incoming
Seems pretty nice, except itune has problems with mp3s, and quicktime player won't play avi/divx.

iTunes should handle your MP3s without any problem. (?) There's a free media player called VLC you can find at versiontracker.com which will handle the AVIs. Glad you like the mini.
post #268 of 290
Quote:
Originally posted by Incoming
If that is true, then you should really know a lot about Windows crashes. Something doesn't add up here.


oh, dear God, shut up already
post #269 of 290
My wife just helped her friend order a Mac Mini. I strongly suggested the 512MB version but for her it wasn't interesting. The reason she needed the new computer was that her windows computer was costing her too much to maintain. More than once she has paid a couple hundred dollars to have all the viruses and stuff cleaned out.

They ordered this from a reseller and got a free keyboard and mouse. The Macally keyboard has two USB ports. Along with this they also ordered free headphones and a printer.

I've tested the Mac Mini at the Apple store and MWSF. I think 256MB is usable. Personally, I'd want more (I have 1GB in my PB) but I wouldn't say that 256MB is unusable. It is a little slow at switching applications. It is a little slow when running multiple applications. However, that is the user's choice.

For my wife's friend this won't be a problem. She is an occasional user who mostly needs this for communicating (email and browsing) for which the stock Mac Mini will work fine. They have several other friends who have had PC problems who will be watching this experiment. If it works well there will be orders for a few more Mac Minis.
Unofficial AppleScript Studio Lobbyist
Reply
Unofficial AppleScript Studio Lobbyist
Reply
post #270 of 290
Quote:
Originally posted by iDave
iTunes should handle your MP3s without any problem. (?) There's a free media player called VLC you can find at versiontracker.com which will handle the AVIs. Glad you like the mini.

Thx, got that already, and I installed the divx video codec. I also installed Audion from download.com.

MacOS-X runs very stable, and I am able to use standard software (OpenOffice, Eclipse etc.), so I think it's just the right thing.

@applenut
Shut up yourself, if you can't contribute to the topic.

David
post #271 of 290
Incoming...despite the fact that there is a marvelous range of old school style products that still use RS232, the Macintosh has NEVER had a port for such devices since the second one I believe ever made and that was reserved for the mouse. The mac was for the rest of us...that means it wasn't for crappy PDAs, oddball firewalls and dinky mobile phones.

Whatever the case may be it would be a total failure to have included such an outdated technology in the world's foremost computer innovation company.
970 pork chop sandwiches
Reply
970 pork chop sandwiches
Reply
post #272 of 290
Quote:
Originally posted by Incoming

@applenut
Shut up yourself, if you can't contribute to the topic.

David

i've contributed something that was much needed. you contribute nothing but senseless dribble.
post #273 of 290
Quote:
Originally posted by applenut
i've contributed something that was much needed.

You mean junk?
Yes, you've done that..
I don't know if this is "needed" in a forum, though..

Well, I miss the old times, when people were helping each other instead of breaking off a fight..

@DigitalMonkeyBoy
The UART chip and a connector cost only a few cents, with the benefit of people buying it for that reason. So I think it is a mistake not to include it. It is certainly more important than ps/2 and parallel ports, since it is industry standard. It is not only used by "cheap" cellphones and pdas, but by expensive routers, firewalls, switches, even sun servers, and modems (not everyone has isdn or dsl nowadays, and some want to use their cellphone, which needs extra, windows only, drivers, when rs232 is not supported). Even pc notebooks don't have that anymore, so people have to buy an overpriced usb2rs232 converters. They only have drivers for windows, so people end up buying windows pc-notebooks, even though they might have preferred a linux or a mac machine.

David
post #274 of 290
Quote:
Originally posted by applenut
i've contributed something that was much needed. you contribute nothing but senseless dribble.

Thank you.
post #275 of 290
Quote:
Originally posted by Incoming
The UART chip and a connector cost only a few cents, with the benefit of people buying it for that reason. So I think it is a mistake not to include it. It is certainly more important than ps/2 and parallel ports, since it is industry standard. It is not only used by "cheap" cellphones and pdas, but by expensive routers, firewalls, switches, even sun servers, and modems (not everyone has isdn or dsl nowadays, and some want to use their cellphone, which needs extra, windows only, drivers, when rs232 is not supported). Even pc notebooks don't have that anymore, so people have to buy an overpriced usb2rs232 converters. They only have drivers for windows, so people end up buying windows pc-notebooks, even though they might have preferred a linux or a mac machine.
David

WTF are you talking about? You can't blame Windows or Microsoft for the lack of hardware drivers for other OS's, but you *can* blame the hardware manufacturers and/or the programmers for those OS's that don't have the necessary drivers.
post #276 of 290
Quote:
Originally posted by jsimmons
WTF are you talking about? You can't blame Windows or Microsoft for the lack of hardware drivers for other OS's



I didn't write that.

Quote:
, but you *can* blame the hardware manufacturers and/or the programmers for those OS's that don't have the necessary drivers.

The hardware manufacturers are small taiwan companies that produce these converters because mainboard manufacturers kick out important interfaces. And they haven't got linux or mac os drivers, so if apple would sell their computers with an onboard RS232-connector, or a usb plugin, which would cost them not even a dollar per machine, it would be an important argument for buying an apple over a windows pc. Thats what I meant.

David
post #277 of 290
Quote:
Originally posted by Incoming
I didn't write that.

The stuff I quoted was something you typed to digitalmonkeyboy. Deny it all you want, but you most certainly DID say that.

Quote:
Originally posted by Incoming
The hardware manufacturers are small taiwan companies that produce these converters because mainboard manufacturers kick out important interfaces. And they haven't got linux or mac os drivers, so if apple would sell their computers with an onboard RS232-connector, or a usb plugin, which would cost them not even a dollar per machine, it would be an important argument for buying an apple over a windows pc. Thats what I meant.

David

Are you stupid, or just a little slow? Apple has never and will never put a RS232 port on the Mac. Cost per machine is completely irrelevant. Mac users don't miss it, and most PC users wouldn't either (I haven't used/needed a serial port in at least eight years).

The only important argument for buying a Mac instead of a PC is the one involving adware and viruses (Windows is more vulnerable and is more widely exploited).

Before you go off on some rant about Linux, don't. Linux isn't even in the running because it's viability as a desktop OS for the *typical* end user is laughable.
post #278 of 290
Working in a retail environment I thought it would be an interesting experiment to check how many of our desktop/notebooks feature serial ports.

Out of twenty eight desktops - three
Out of twenty notebooks - none

Hmm. So I decided to check to see if we sell some sort of PCI plug in card for RS232. It's available via special order from our tech division for $30.

We carry the USB to RS232 cable for $39.

That's Canadian.

In short, focusing on RS232 as a deficiency of the Mac mini or any of the above computers that are missing it - well it's utter bollocks. Frankly, you want it? Go buy an adapter. It seems very much like picking at non-existent nits otherwise.
Modding for Great Justice
Reply
Modding for Great Justice
Reply
post #279 of 290
Quite an interesting thread, I must say.
Here is the what I'm wondering:

My background:
I maintain many computers at a major research University. This includes Intel cluster running RedHat, PCs running XP/2k both pro and a couple of servers as well as Macs G3/G4/G5s. I consider myself to be much more familiar with Linux/PCs than with Mac OSX.
I, myself prefer to use a PC at home.

From my experience with Macs and PCs, I would say that the $499 Mini is not a good choice if one wants to make a good first Mac impression on a PC user.
Here is the reason. A person who has enough disposable income to splurge on an extra computer already has at least a mainstream PC. He/she/it will buy a mac mini to try it out... because it's not a big investment and they AREADY have something than works well.
So this person gets a mini, sets it up and then... that person finds that this Apple is DOG slow compared to his/her/its PC.
An average PC these days has DVD burner, 7200RPM high data density drive, much higher access to memory, multi-task optimizations such as HT...
I maintain a few late model PBs which have very similar specs and I can tell you that in everyday office apps/ web surfing the mainstream PCs are noticably snappier.

If I was to recommend a PC user a MAC to get his/her feet wet in, it would the G5 iMAC. It's feel and apparent performance is a lot more similar to an average PC these days.
post #280 of 290
Quote:
Originally posted by skatman
From my experience with Macs and PCs, I would say that the $499 Mini is not a good choice if one wants to make a good first Mac impression on a PC user.
Here is the reason. A person who has enough disposable income to splurge on an extra computer already has at least a mainstream PC. He/she/it will buy a mac mini to try it out... because it's not a big investment and they AREADY have something than works well.
So this person gets a mini, sets it up and then... that person finds that this Apple is DOG slow compared to his/her/its PC.
An average PC these days has DVD burner, 7200RPM high data density drive, much higher access to memory, multi-task optimizations such as HT...
I maintain a few late model PBs which have very similar specs and I can tell you that in everyday office apps/ web surfing the mainstream PCs are noticably snappier.

If I was to recommend a PC user a MAC to get his/her feet wet in, it would the G5 iMAC. It's feel and apparent performance is a lot more similar to an average PC these days.

You make a pretty good point, but the Mac mini is not really "dog slow." You say that you "maintain" a lot of PCs. Well, the average PC user has trouble even using one, much less maintaining it. After the adware and spyware takes over, then you really have a computer that's "dog slow." Lots of people either buy a new "faster" computer or take it to Computa World and have it cleaned out, for a fee.

Problem with your suggestion about buying an iMac G5 is that iMacs are just too expensive for people to take a risk, when they're not sure about switching platforms.

I'm a long time Mac user and I'm quite satisfied with the performance of a 1.2 or 1.4 Ghz G4, although I think I will pop a faster hard drive in my mini one of these days.

edit, one more comment: Does an average PC as you describe with DVD burner, fast hard disk, etc. really cost $499 or $599? Perhaps they do; I haven't looked.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Mac mini misses its target consumer