Making them small, yeah, but how about making them small and sexy? This article kind of proves the point as the mini-cases there are ugly. They are nothing more than shrunken versions of big and ugly cases.
The point wasn't the style. The point was the form factor is nothing new. In this case, Apple can take no credit for innovation except for having an attractive plastic and aluminum molding process.
A theoretical G5 Mini, built for performance and features and not simplicity and price, could potentially look like hell too if one were released using a high-end chip like this system's at the time.
A theoretical G5 Mini, built for performance and features and not simplicity and price, could potentially look like hell too if one were released using a high-end chip like this system's at the time.
Sorry to nitpick, but the processor for this Intel concept PC would not be a top of the line desktop CPU, it would be a notebook chip.
The point wasn't the style. The point was the form factor is nothing new. In this case, Apple can take no credit for innovation except for having an attractive plastic and aluminum molding process.
Actually, the form factor is something new. It's much smaller than the Shuttle cases, and smaller than mini-ITX.
Miniaturization traditionally commands a premium, which makes the fact that it's Apple's entry-level model even more striking.
Quote:
A theoretical G5 Mini, built for performance and features and not simplicity and price, could potentially look like hell too if one were released using a high-end chip like this system's at the time.
Which system's? The HTPC Intel demonstrated was an empty plastic box.
Show me a tiny, quiet, 20-28W consuming $499 PC and I'll agree that Apple didn't do anything interesting here. As far as I can see, they did. The mini is an astonishing piece of engineering.
Show me a tiny, quiet, 20-28W consuming $499 PC and I'll agree that Apple didn't do anything interesting here. As far as I can see, they did. The mini is an astonishing piece of engineering.
Now, that's a point. See here (sorry, in french only). I find surprising that a PC desktop with an Athlon XP 1.7 GHz needs 7-8 times more power than a Mac mini with a G4 at 1.4 GHz.
Sorry to nitpick, but the processor for this Intel concept PC would not be a top of the line desktop CPU, it would be a notebook chip.
Well, my old Toshiba lappie runs a P4 2.8Ghz with HT.
But, regardless, this is Intel trying to point out to computer manufactures (since they don't actually manufacturer desktop PCs) that a Mac mini-styled computer is possible for the PC.
I bought my first Mac 6-months ago, and am glad I did. But, I hate these arguments of Windows vs. Apple... and now it is Intel vs. Apple. How bizarre. I like both of my laptops, and they both serve their purposes. And, btw, my WinXP system hasn't failed/crashed in a long time. After just a couple months of owning my powerbook, it crashed hard and required an OS re-install. But, again, I love my powerbook, and would recommend (and have recommended) it to others, but it is far from God's gift to computing.
It doesn't matter who came up first with what. It's interesting to see how Apple is still a trend-setter year in and year out. That's the importance of the intel-mini. It validates Apple as the spearhead of the industry.
You have nailed it monkeyastronaut, while few outside of geekdom will take note of this mock mini offered up by Intel as the "Livingroom PC of the future" the PC assemblers will be rushing to fill that empty case when the sales numbers for the Mac mini start to come in.
Interestingly, we have a slew of HP low-profile D530s at work, and have had several with heat-related issues. Oddly, we found there is a fan setting in the bios, which HP sets at its lowest speed by default. When cranked up, the PC generates an ungodly hot air flow out the top of the unit and is quite loud for a small computer. Not to mention the radiator type fins are actually horizontal on the CPU - impeding the amount of airflow that would naturally rise; now granted, the fan they have blowing over it is in the right place, but the air is actually ducted INTO the power supply. Stupid design.
Apple at least designs things to not melt after a couple of months.
Apple at least designs things to not melt after a couple of months.
Well, not according to all the reports about power-adapters melting (or catching fire). Oh... and my powerbook (which I love) gets REALLY hot. More hot than any PC laptop I have ever owned (more hot than my current P4 2.8HT Laptop). So hot that it gets really uncomfortable in my lap sometimes.
I love apple, but lets be real... They are far from infallible. In fact, my 6-month-old powerbook has had one major crash which required an OS reinstall. The battery has just failed, which means I need to have Apple replace it. And, it has consistent problems connecting to wireless networks (especially after waking from sleep).
Sorry to nitpick, but the processor for this Intel concept PC would not be a top of the line desktop CPU, it would be a notebook chip.
I wasn't referring to the Intel concept, but an actual product released, linked to in message 3, which at the time could use a top of the line CPU.
Quote:
Originally posted by Amorph
Actually, the form factor is something new. It's much smaller than the Shuttle cases, and smaller than mini-ITX.
Miniaturization traditionally commands a premium, which makes the fact that it's Apple's entry-level model even more striking.
The product I was referencing wasn't a Shuttle or mini ITX.
Quote:
Originally posted by Amorph
Which system's? The HTPC Intel demonstrated was an empty plastic box.
Show me a tiny, quiet, 20-28W consuming $499 PC and I'll agree that Apple didn't do anything interesting here. As far as I can see, they did. The mini is an astonishing piece of engineering.
See previous quotes for which system. I disagree over the miniaturization at this point. The contents of the Mini aren't too dissimilar to an updated headless eMac, which has always been low-end. I made the point that the 2400 Micro PC shows what was done 2.5 years ago for a high-end product. Apple's twist was to make a low-end product, using a similar form factor. A new invention as a form factor it is not. What's I find "interesting" about the Mini is the simplicity, which is Apple's trademark. Not so much the innards or size.
Well, not according to all the reports about power-adapters melting (or catching fire). Oh... and my powerbook (which I love) gets REALLY hot. More hot than any PC laptop I have ever owned (more hot than my current P4 2.8HT Laptop). So hot that it gets really uncomfortable in my lap sometimes.
I love apple, but lets be real... They are far from infallible. In fact, my 6-month-old powerbook has had one major crash which required an OS reinstall. The battery has just failed, which means I need to have Apple replace it. And, it has consistent problems connecting to wireless networks (especially after waking from sleep).
Lemons are one thing (and it sure sounds like you got one) but just plain, bad design is another. That was the point I was trying to make.
Show me a tiny, quiet, 20-28W consuming $499 PC and I'll agree that Apple didn't do anything interesting here. As far as I can see, they did. The mini is an astonishing piece of engineering.
VIA's C3 is still around and available up to 1.4ghz these days. They run a bit cooler than the PPC7447A. Ironically IBM will be making the next generations C3s for VIA at Fishkill.
See previous quotes for which system. I disagree over the miniaturization at this point. The contents of the Mini aren't too dissimilar to an updated headless eMac, which has always been low-end.
Irrelevant. As I stated, miniaturization itself is the luxury. Look at the specs on Sony subnotebooks.
Again: Show me a cheap and quiet and extremely power-efficient and general-purpose PC and I'll concede the point. To hit any one of those goals is no great accomplishment. To hit all of them is a significant accomplishment. If you don't believe me, go see what Tom's Hardware thought of the Mac mini. They considered the price of a loaded mini to be reasonable in light of the size, quiet and elegance of the design.
Quote:
I made the point that the 2400 Micro PC shows what was done 2.5 years ago for a high-end product. Apple's twist was to make a low-end product, using a similar form factor.
That's not a twist, it's a feat of engineering. Miniaturization commands a premium because it's both difficult to achieve and highly desirable. Designing it to be cheaply mass-produced is no small feat either.
It doesn't matter whether someone, somewhere, came up with something more or less the same size. What matters is whether they were able to hit size and power and power consumption and features and price.
VIA's C3 is still around and available up to 1.4ghz these days. They run a bit cooler than the PPC7447A.
However, I have yet to see a computer the size of 5 stacked CDs running WinXP on a C3. I happen to own a Mac mini and I am positively amazed how small and silent it is.
Yes, it would be possible to build a similar machine using a C3. Yes, it would be possible to do so using a Pentium M. No, noone has ever done so.
However, I have yet to see a computer the size of 5 stacked CDs running WinXP on a C3. I happen to own a Mac mini and I am positively amazed how small and silent it is.
Yes, it would be possible to build a similar machine using a C3. Yes, it would be possible to do so using a Pentium M. No, noone has ever done so.
Well, the Cappuccino PC has been out for 5 years. Those run Via C3s, p3s, celerons, p4s. Putting notebook parts into a little "desktop" computer isn't new. It's just that no big company has made it such a big part of their lineup. The mac-mini is filling a big hole and will sell a proportionate number of units.
Irrelevant. As I stated, miniaturization itself is the luxury. Look at the specs on Sony subnotebooks.
Again: Show me a cheap and quiet and extremely power-efficient and general-purpose PC and I'll concede the point. To hit any one of those goals is no great accomplishment. To hit all of them is a significant accomplishment. If you don't believe me, go see what Tom's Hardware thought of the Mac mini. They considered the price of a loaded mini to be reasonable in light of the size, quiet and elegance of the design.
That's not a twist, it's a feat of engineering. Miniaturization commands a premium because it's both difficult to achieve and highly desirable. Designing it to be cheaply mass-produced is no small feat either.
It doesn't matter whether someone, somewhere, came up with something more or less the same size. What matters is whether they were able to hit size and power and power consumption and features and price.
It's not irrelevant, or else the eMac would've been "luxury" priced too. And again knowing what was done 2 and a half years ago makes the Mini no miraculous feat, but simply natural. Apple is using matured (older) and portable equipment to achieve the price, size, and energy efficiency. The technology is old hat, and obviously priced accordingly. Apple's success is in the simplicity, as it always has been.
Comments
Too bad it runs Windows.
Too bad it runs Windows.
It doesnt run anything, it's a piece of plastic!
Originally posted by D.J. Adequate
Making them small, yeah, but how about making them small and sexy? This article kind of proves the point as the mini-cases there are ugly. They are nothing more than shrunken versions of big and ugly cases.
The point wasn't the style. The point was the form factor is nothing new. In this case, Apple can take no credit for innovation except for having an attractive plastic and aluminum molding process.
A theoretical G5 Mini, built for performance and features and not simplicity and price, could potentially look like hell too if one were released using a high-end chip like this system's at the time.
Originally posted by nowayout11
A theoretical G5 Mini, built for performance and features and not simplicity and price, could potentially look like hell too if one were released using a high-end chip like this system's at the time.
Sorry to nitpick, but the processor for this Intel concept PC would not be a top of the line desktop CPU, it would be a notebook chip.
Originally posted by nowayout11
The point wasn't the style. The point was the form factor is nothing new. In this case, Apple can take no credit for innovation except for having an attractive plastic and aluminum molding process.
Actually, the form factor is something new. It's much smaller than the Shuttle cases, and smaller than mini-ITX.
Miniaturization traditionally commands a premium, which makes the fact that it's Apple's entry-level model even more striking.
A theoretical G5 Mini, built for performance and features and not simplicity and price, could potentially look like hell too if one were released using a high-end chip like this system's at the time.
Which system's? The HTPC Intel demonstrated was an empty plastic box.
Show me a tiny, quiet, 20-28W consuming $499 PC and I'll agree that Apple didn't do anything interesting here. As far as I can see, they did. The mini is an astonishing piece of engineering.
Originally posted by Amorph
Show me a tiny, quiet, 20-28W consuming $499 PC and I'll agree that Apple didn't do anything interesting here. As far as I can see, they did. The mini is an astonishing piece of engineering.
Now, that's a point. See here (sorry, in french only). I find surprising that a PC desktop with an Athlon XP 1.7 GHz needs 7-8 times more power than a Mac mini with a G4 at 1.4 GHz.
Sorry to nitpick, but the processor for this Intel concept PC would not be a top of the line desktop CPU, it would be a notebook chip.
Well, my old Toshiba lappie runs a P4 2.8Ghz with HT.
But, regardless, this is Intel trying to point out to computer manufactures (since they don't actually manufacturer desktop PCs) that a Mac mini-styled computer is possible for the PC.
I bought my first Mac 6-months ago, and am glad I did. But, I hate these arguments of Windows vs. Apple... and now it is Intel vs. Apple. How bizarre. I like both of my laptops, and they both serve their purposes. And, btw, my WinXP system hasn't failed/crashed in a long time. After just a couple months of owning my powerbook, it crashed hard and required an OS re-install. But, again, I love my powerbook, and would recommend (and have recommended) it to others, but it is far from God's gift to computing.
Originally posted by monkeyastronaut
It doesn't matter who came up first with what. It's interesting to see how Apple is still a trend-setter year in and year out. That's the importance of the intel-mini. It validates Apple as the spearhead of the industry.
You have nailed it monkeyastronaut, while few outside of geekdom will take note of this mock mini offered up by Intel as the "Livingroom PC of the future" the PC assemblers will be rushing to fill that empty case when the sales numbers for the Mac mini start to come in.
Apple at least designs things to not melt after a couple of months.
Originally posted by Rhumgod
Apple at least designs things to not melt after a couple of months.
Well, not according to all the reports about power-adapters melting (or catching fire). Oh... and my powerbook (which I love) gets REALLY hot. More hot than any PC laptop I have ever owned (more hot than my current P4 2.8HT Laptop). So hot that it gets really uncomfortable in my lap sometimes.
I love apple, but lets be real... They are far from infallible. In fact, my 6-month-old powerbook has had one major crash which required an OS reinstall. The battery has just failed, which means I need to have Apple replace it. And, it has consistent problems connecting to wireless networks (especially after waking from sleep).
Originally posted by Chagi
Sorry to nitpick, but the processor for this Intel concept PC would not be a top of the line desktop CPU, it would be a notebook chip.
I wasn't referring to the Intel concept, but an actual product released, linked to in message 3, which at the time could use a top of the line CPU.
Originally posted by Amorph
Actually, the form factor is something new. It's much smaller than the Shuttle cases, and smaller than mini-ITX.
Miniaturization traditionally commands a premium, which makes the fact that it's Apple's entry-level model even more striking.
The product I was referencing wasn't a Shuttle or mini ITX.
Originally posted by Amorph
Which system's? The HTPC Intel demonstrated was an empty plastic box.
Show me a tiny, quiet, 20-28W consuming $499 PC and I'll agree that Apple didn't do anything interesting here. As far as I can see, they did. The mini is an astonishing piece of engineering.
See previous quotes for which system. I disagree over the miniaturization at this point. The contents of the Mini aren't too dissimilar to an updated headless eMac, which has always been low-end. I made the point that the 2400 Micro PC shows what was done 2.5 years ago for a high-end product. Apple's twist was to make a low-end product, using a similar form factor. A new invention as a form factor it is not. What's I find "interesting" about the Mini is the simplicity, which is Apple's trademark. Not so much the innards or size.
Originally posted by bostongeek
Well, not according to all the reports about power-adapters melting (or catching fire). Oh... and my powerbook (which I love) gets REALLY hot. More hot than any PC laptop I have ever owned (more hot than my current P4 2.8HT Laptop). So hot that it gets really uncomfortable in my lap sometimes.
I love apple, but lets be real... They are far from infallible. In fact, my 6-month-old powerbook has had one major crash which required an OS reinstall. The battery has just failed, which means I need to have Apple replace it. And, it has consistent problems connecting to wireless networks (especially after waking from sleep).
Lemons are one thing (and it sure sounds like you got one) but just plain, bad design is another. That was the point I was trying to make.
Originally posted by Amorph
Show me a tiny, quiet, 20-28W consuming $499 PC and I'll agree that Apple didn't do anything interesting here. As far as I can see, they did. The mini is an astonishing piece of engineering.
VIA's C3 is still around and available up to 1.4ghz these days. They run a bit cooler than the PPC7447A. Ironically IBM will be making the next generations C3s for VIA at Fishkill.
Originally posted by nowayout11
See previous quotes for which system. I disagree over the miniaturization at this point. The contents of the Mini aren't too dissimilar to an updated headless eMac, which has always been low-end.
Irrelevant. As I stated, miniaturization itself is the luxury. Look at the specs on Sony subnotebooks.
Again: Show me a cheap and quiet and extremely power-efficient and general-purpose PC and I'll concede the point. To hit any one of those goals is no great accomplishment. To hit all of them is a significant accomplishment. If you don't believe me, go see what Tom's Hardware thought of the Mac mini. They considered the price of a loaded mini to be reasonable in light of the size, quiet and elegance of the design.
I made the point that the 2400 Micro PC shows what was done 2.5 years ago for a high-end product. Apple's twist was to make a low-end product, using a similar form factor.
That's not a twist, it's a feat of engineering. Miniaturization commands a premium because it's both difficult to achieve and highly desirable. Designing it to be cheaply mass-produced is no small feat either.
It doesn't matter whether someone, somewhere, came up with something more or less the same size. What matters is whether they were able to hit size and power and power consumption and features and price.
Originally posted by BenRoethig
VIA's C3 is still around and available up to 1.4ghz these days. They run a bit cooler than the PPC7447A.
However, I have yet to see a computer the size of 5 stacked CDs running WinXP on a C3. I happen to own a Mac mini and I am positively amazed how small and silent it is.
Yes, it would be possible to build a similar machine using a C3. Yes, it would be possible to do so using a Pentium M. No, noone has ever done so.
Originally posted by Smircle
However, I have yet to see a computer the size of 5 stacked CDs running WinXP on a C3. I happen to own a Mac mini and I am positively amazed how small and silent it is.
Yes, it would be possible to build a similar machine using a C3. Yes, it would be possible to do so using a Pentium M. No, noone has ever done so.
Well, the Cappuccino PC has been out for 5 years. Those run Via C3s, p3s, celerons, p4s. Putting notebook parts into a little "desktop" computer isn't new. It's just that no big company has made it such a big part of their lineup. The mac-mini is filling a big hole and will sell a proportionate number of units.
Originally posted by Amorph
Irrelevant. As I stated, miniaturization itself is the luxury. Look at the specs on Sony subnotebooks.
Again: Show me a cheap and quiet and extremely power-efficient and general-purpose PC and I'll concede the point. To hit any one of those goals is no great accomplishment. To hit all of them is a significant accomplishment. If you don't believe me, go see what Tom's Hardware thought of the Mac mini. They considered the price of a loaded mini to be reasonable in light of the size, quiet and elegance of the design.
That's not a twist, it's a feat of engineering. Miniaturization commands a premium because it's both difficult to achieve and highly desirable. Designing it to be cheaply mass-produced is no small feat either.
It doesn't matter whether someone, somewhere, came up with something more or less the same size. What matters is whether they were able to hit size and power and power consumption and features and price.
It's not irrelevant, or else the eMac would've been "luxury" priced too. And again knowing what was done 2 and a half years ago makes the Mini no miraculous feat, but simply natural. Apple is using matured (older) and portable equipment to achieve the price, size, and energy efficiency. The technology is old hat, and obviously priced accordingly. Apple's success is in the simplicity, as it always has been.