Hackintoshs with a functioning Software Updater can get plenty of updates. iLife and iWork updates work fine. System updates, especially ones that require a restart depend on what is beign updated I've had it go both ways. Point updates will DL but won't install. Even doing a manual update from Apple's website won't work, you have wait for the next version to hacked and seeded, but if the disc burning goes well the update usually works pretty well.
If this is for people who know what they are getting into then why are they buying it from Psystar? More to the point, why would they spend $150 for a $129 copy of OS X Leopard that isn't even installed. What Psystar is installed is a hacked OSx86 copy that is freely downloaded from any newsgroup or torrent site. Why would someone who "knows what they are getting into on the cheap" want a machine that costs more money than and requires them to send their HDD back to Psystar with all their personal data on it for an update to 10.5.3.
The only people interested in this machine are some odd non-technical geek that thinks he knows but really doesn't. MacWorld spent $751 for a Psystar Mac that doesn't include any worthwhile warranty, a monitor, keyboard, mouse, or many of the "just works" features of OS X. OSx86 is for tinkerer's hobby machine that Psystar is trying to replace with a novice's nightmare.
In no way is this a good machine.
That's exactly right.
What i'm concerned about is someone who DOESN'T know, buying one of these things, either from them, or from someone else, and thinking it's a plug-n-play device, when it isn't.
Then who will they blame when they have problems, which they will likely have right away.
Hackintoshs with a functioning Software Updater can get plenty of updates. iLife and iWork updates work fine. System updates, especially ones that require a restart depend on what is beign updated I've had it go both ways. Point updates will DL but won't install. Even doing a manual update from Apple's website won't work, you have wait for the next version to hacked and seeded, but if the disc burning goes well the update usually works pretty well.
That's what I'm talking about though. You can't rely on OS updates working. Program updates are different. They rarely probe the machine. But, not all programs work either.
So many programs won't even start up. they bounce in the dock a few times and then quit. iTunes Sharing is even spotty. FireFox runs the processor up to 100%. Gigabyte NIC gets only 5MB/s max. DVD player app doesn't work. VLC doesn't work. Et cetera....
I could start from scratch with OSx86 HW that is listed on the their HCL, but as a data server it's fine.
Anyone who'd recommend Psystar to a friend as a low-cost Mac is not a good friend.
I think everyone here can agree that had the Mac mini been less "mini" from the beginning it could've offered better performance at a more aggressive price point.
Desktop CPU = faster
Desktop RAM = faster and less expensive
Desktop HD = faster, larger and less expensive
Tray loading DVD = faster, compatible with mini DVDs, less expensive
Larger case = more efficient, less expensive fans
Larger case = no need for that silly external power brick
Larger case = less "design" needed to squeeze everything into the box
The tradeoffs would have been footprint, weight and power consumption, but something the size of the PowerMac Cube could've provided all of the above and still been seen as very small. It also would be enough computer for almost everyone. I'm only guessing, but I think the production cost of a Cube2 would be enough less than the current mini that Apple would have no problem hitting the $499 retail price point and still have Apple-like margins.
For those of us craving internal expansion at a consumer price point, well sorry to say it but Steve Jobs really doesn't think there are enough of us to bother with. Actually he probably thinks all desktop computers are dinosaurs waiting for the asteroid to hit. The future is small, light and mobile and his mind has been there for years already.
Apple's new business model is based on getting people to buy a complete new computer as often as possible. Letting people upgrade their CPU easily, letting them add an inexpensive card to give them new capabilities like eSATA or FireWire 3200, letting them upgrade their video card to play newer games, these sort of things prolong the life of a computer which is great for the consumer, but bad for Apple. It's actually bad for Dell and HP too, but they're only just beginning to realize how much.
Like most of us I want an xMac, a relatively small desktop/tower with a couple of slots, a couple of drive bays and commodity desktop components, but I'll probably die of shock if Apple releases one while Steve Jobs is still alive.
Translation: My whine is now about money and not wires because the wire whine has been proven to be clueless.
[blah blah blah]
It's obvious that you care more about retaliating me than forming an intelligent response to any of the valid counter-arguments I propose.
The iMac has always tried to be the "everyman's computer" and Apple's vision for it has always been to epitomize simplistic/"futuristic" home computing. BY THEIR OWN CLAIM, it simplifies computing by cutting the cords. HOWEVER, it necessitates the use of many external dongles for expansion... harddrives, hubs, perhaps a BluRay Drive in a few months... ANY non-user-replaceable upgrade must be attached via wire to the iMac. Sort of defeats the purpose of creating the simplest, cleanest computer there is, does it not?
Noting the irony of this flaw was the only point I was trying to make. Leave it to you to either attempt to write my arguments off as "whining" or blow my statements out of proportion.
The iMac has always tried to be the "everyman's computer" and Apple's vision for it has always been to epitomize simplistic/"futuristic" home computing.
I'd argue that the average, low-budget PC tower has been attempting to be the "everyman's computer" for some time by trying to be the most configurable option for the most amount of people, but with desktop sales diminishing as people move toward notebooks and simpler solutions upgradability options are not what the average consumer wants or needs.
You use Blu-ray as an example but that isn't what the average consumer wants or needs so it doesn't fall into the "everyman" category. They "everyman" doesn't upgrade their GPU or overclock their processor or install multiple HDDs for RAID arrays. AIOs, like the iMac and all notebooks are what people are flocking to.
If we're talking about the older machines, then it might, or might not. But it's been tried on the 2 GHz Core duo and shown to work. The newer Core 2 machines do work.
EDIT: Forgot to add; I've seen it myself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
There is plenty of evidence from a simple Google search to Apple's own Mac Mini spec sheet that clearly support 1080 playback. I think Clive won't believe it until he sets it up himself.
On the contrary. I'm not closed to being convinced otherwise. In fact, I've been looking in to this more and have seen some evidence going both ways. I think it depends on the source of the HD playback. There's a fellow on MacRumors who insists he cannot play HD content streamed from abc.com, even though he has high-speed internet and a current generation Mac Mini. There are others who state they can output to 1080p displays easily enough though without mention of content playback. There are others still who can both output to 1080p and play continuous HD media.
Information leans favorably towards 1080p playback on current Minis... but I would see it unwise to rule that it works in 100% of cases.
Nevertheless there are more examples of the MacMini's deficiencies making it unsuitable for general use... for example, its inability to play the second best-selling computer game of all time (and tween-favorite) The Sims 2 (which is second, of course, to The Sims) with any visual clarity whatsoever. The game is from 2004, and we're half way through 2008... and The Sims 3 has already been announced. What are the chances the Mac Mini will be able to play it? No doubt millions of tweens will want to play it as well...
On the contrary. I'm not closed to being convinced otherwise. In fact, I've been looking in to this more and have seen some evidence going both ways. I think it depends on the source of the HD playback. There's a fellow on MacRumors who insists he cannot play HD content streamed from abc.com, even though he has high-speed internet and a current generation Mac Mini. There are others who state they can output to 1080p displays easily enough though without mention of content playback. There are others still who can both output to 1080p and play continuous HD media.
Information leans favorably towards 1080p playback on current Minis... but I would see it unwise to rule that it works in 100% of cases.
Nevertheless there are more examples of the MacMini's deficiencies making it unsuitable for general use... for example, its inability to play the second best-selling computer game of all time (and tween-favorite) The Sims 2 (which is second, of course, to The Sims) with any visual clarity whatsoever. The game is from 2004, and we're half way through 2008... and The Sims 3 has already been announced. What are the chances the Mac Mini will be able to play it? No doubt millions of tweens will want to play it as well...
Any test that is about playing 1080p should be a local copy, not one that is streamed from the internet. regardless of the internet speed cap your provider is giving you there is no guarantee that you're getting an acceptable throughput from start to finish. There are too many factors to consider. The Mac Mini can play 1080p content, there are tech specs and many posts about it.
As for Sims 2, do the game's system requirements state that an integrated GPU is sufficient for the game? Are you trying this with an Intel-based Mac Mini on a game written for the PPC architecture?
System requirements for The Sims 2 call for Mac OS X v10.3.4 or later, G4/1GHz or faster, 256MB RAM, 4.2GB free hard disk space, ATI Radeon 8500 or Nvidia GeForce2 MX or better 3D graphics with at least 32MB VRAM and DVD drive.
I'd argue that the average, low-budget PC tower has been attempting to be the "everyman's computer" for some time by trying to be the most configurable option for the most amount of people, but with desktop sales diminishing as people move toward notebooks and simpler solutions upgradability options are not what the average consumer wants or needs.
The iMac is Apple's "everyman's computer." Obviously Apple doesn't sell an upgradeable/expandable do-as-you-wish mid-tower, but claims that the iMac is what most people will need. Only those on the "outskirts" should consider anything else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
You use Blu-ray as an example but that isn't what the average consumer wants or needs so it doesn't fall into the "everyman" category...
You don't mean to tell me that you don't foresee Blu-Ray adoption doubling (at least) within a year, do you? I specifically said "in a few months," because I acknowledge that the demand isn't here yet. People will want this though. Software titles (think OS X) will exceed the space of DVDs, solid-state capacity won't cut it and high-speed internet is still too slow for the necessary bandwidth requirements.
Blu-Ray -- in a matter of months -- will become a household requirement, just as DVDs have.
Any test that is about playing 1080p should be a local copy, not one that is streamed from the internet. regardless of the internet speed cap your provider is giving you there is no guarantee that you're getting an acceptable throughput from start to finish. There are too many factors to consider. The Mac Mini can play 1080p content, there are tech specs and many posts about it.
As for Sims 2, do the game's system requirements state that an integrated GPU is sufficient for the game? Are you trying this with an Intel-based Mac Mini on a game written for the PPC architecture?
System requirements for The Sims 2 call for Mac OS X v10.3.4 or later, G4/1GHz or faster, 256MB RAM, 4.2GB free hard disk space, ATI Radeon 8500 or Nvidia GeForce2 MX or better 3D graphics with at least 32MB VRAM and DVD drive.
Test or not, watching streaming HD content should be well within the capabilities of any modern computer with high-speed internet. So long as it is a commonly practiced activity, no computer should be exempt from such a test. With this statement I am neither arguing for or against the Mini... I'm simply stating that any modern computer should be able to perform activities that are considered commonplace.
As for The Sims 2, either PPC or Intel, the game will barely hobble along. Like I said, it will run... just with extremely unremarkable graphics. Their hands look like spatulas. I've seen some very beautiful in-game scenes... but these are not them. Now I'm likely a bit more particular than the target audience of this game - I'll be the first to admit it - but these views look pretty trashy.
Translation: My whine is now about money and not wires because the wire whine has been proven to be clueless.
Wow, you are really being sour for some reason. Clive is right - the iMac is only clean and neat up to a point, and afterwards, it's just as much of a mess or more than a tower. Optical drives, TV tuners, sound cards, that stuff simply isn't done with wireless. Even with the gear you suggest like NAS, Time Machine, wireless printer, etc. when the additional cost for the wireless gear can add up to a significant part of the iMac's price, it's pretty freaking far from competetive versus a simple tower that accommodates that functionality with no extra cost. Wireless kb+mouse are just as much of an opportunity with a tower so that makes no difference.
Not saying AIO is bad. It's great. But once you want to add a lot of stuff to it, it's just silly trying to force it into a role it really wasn't designed to do. Like buying a sports car and spending a lot of money modding it so it gets good performance on a muddy forest trail. Sure, you can do it. You can put a whole file and printing server - like one of them tower-y computers - on the other side of that wireless network! Look, no wires in the iMac! But sometimes it really is wiser to buy an offroad car right off the bat.
Everyman computer for Apple, as defined by the most commonly purchased would probably be the white MacBook. The 'everyman computer" isn't meant to do "everything", if it did then the "everyman" couldn't afford it.
Quote:
You don't mean to tell me that you don't foresee Blu-Ray adoption doubling (at least) within a year, do you?
I have no idea how fast adoption will take place, but I know it will take place. What is the percentage of people who have foregone DVD for Blu-ray? Will this doubling be noticable of a chart of DVD users.
Quote:
Test or not, watching streaming HD content should be well within the capabilities of any modern computer with high-speed internet. So long as it is a commonly practiced activity, no computer should be exempt from such a test. With this statement I am neither arguing for or against the Mini... I'm simply stating that any modern computer should be able to perform activities that are considered commonplace.
But you seem to saying that the Mac Mini is the problem without considering the numerous issues with streaming HD content. I don't care what your ISP gives you, unless you have a business account you aren't being guaranteed any amount of bandwidth and once you are past your ISP you aren't being guaranteed anything. You're blaming the cart before the horse...or something like that. \
Quote:
As for The Sims 2, either PPC or Intel, the game will barely hobble along. Like I said, it will run... just with extremely unremarkable graphics.
But the game wasn't designed for integrated graphics or an Intel CPU. Running it on a GMA950 or under Rosetta is going to muck up any game whose minimum system requirements state otherwise. If you bought a Mac Mini to play games or bought Sims 2 thinking it would play fine I can only suggest you know your product better before buying.
Wow, you are really being sour for some reason. Clive is right - the iMac is only clean and neat up to a point, and afterwards, it's just as much of a mess or more than a tower. Optical drives, TV tuners, sound cards, that stuff simply isn't done with wireless.
You think the average iMac customer is buying extra optical drives and TV Tuners for their iMac? It's a particular machine for a particular customer. A market is that happens to be growing while PC towers are shrinking.
Quote:
Not saying AIO is bad. It's great. But once you want to add a lot of stuff to it, it's just silly trying to force it into a role it really wasn't designed to do.
The role of the iMac as your run-of-the-mill desktop PC is only being force on this thread.
On the contrary. I'm not closed to being convinced otherwise. In fact, I've been looking in to this more and have seen some evidence going both ways. I think it depends on the source of the HD playback. There's a fellow on MacRumors who insists he cannot play HD content streamed from abc.com, even though he has high-speed internet and a current generation Mac Mini. There are others who state they can output to 1080p displays easily enough though without mention of content playback. There are others still who can both output to 1080p and play continuous HD media.
Information leans favorably towards 1080p playback on current Minis... but I would see it unwise to rule that it works in 100% of cases.
Nevertheless there are more examples of the MacMini's deficiencies making it unsuitable for general use... for example, its inability to play the second best-selling computer game of all time (and tween-favorite) The Sims 2 (which is second, of course, to The Sims) with any visual clarity whatsoever. The game is from 2004, and we're half way through 2008... and The Sims 3 has already been announced. What are the chances the Mac Mini will be able to play it? No doubt millions of tweens will want to play it as well...
-Clive
I can't clam that every source is properly sent either.
If a source is encoded with H.264, any Core 2 processor machine should play it without a problem. If not, then something is wrong somewhere.
You don't think the average iMac customer is buying extra optical drives and TTV Tuners for their iMac? It's a particular machine for a particular customer. A market is that happens to be growing while PC towers are shrinking.
Are you trying to make some sort of point? I don't get it.
While we're throwing random unrelated facts around, I note that the PC tower market is still many, many times larger than all Mac sales combined.
Quote:
The role of the iMac as your run-of-the-mill desktop PC is only being force on this thread.
Oh no. iMac is the closest to a run-of-the-mill desktop PC among all machines running official OS X. Apple put it in that role by choosing to only offer a desktop laptop, an AIO and a full-blown workstation that costs twice as much. So when, like vinea and Clive were discussing, one of those customers comes up who does want some of these capabilities on top of reasonable desktop performance+price, iMac's the number one suspect in the Apple lineup that is going to have to stretch to do it. Whether that means the user picks up sizable additional expense for the wireless gear, or the iMac grows to look like a fat octopus sitting on the desk with all the crap hanging from it. Now, with a minitower they could just stick the extra parts right in, no mess.
Are you trying to make some sort of point? I don't get it.
I edited my question. I had added the word "don't" by mistake.
Quote:
While we're throwing random unrelated facts around, I note that the PC tower market is still many, many times larger than all Mac sales combined.
PCs do sell a lot more and probably always will sell more towers than Apple sell of all their Macs put together. What is your point? Apple sells a higher-end machine to a certain demographic, not the $300 PC with 3 year old HW whose price is supplemented by all the apps ready to ask you for your credit card.
Quote:
Oh no. iMac is the closest to a run-of-the-mill desktop PC among all machines running official OS X.
Now you quantify it as "desktop", fine it is there most popular desktop machine. But it's not their most popular Mac and more people are replacing desktops with notebooks every day. BTW, notebooks are all-in-one, and even more so becasue the keyboard is in their too. The majority has spoken.
Quote:
Whether that means the user picks up sizable additional expense for the wireless gear, or the iMac grows to look like a fat octopus sitting on the desk with all the crap hanging from it. Now, with a minitower they could just stick the extra parts right in, no mess.
No one is debating whether there is a market for an xMac. What is being argued is if the market is big enough to warrant the constant complaining about it. Apple has a choice to make what they want. Some computer companies have cryptic models and have a build option that seems to fit everyone and Apple has gone the other way with a limited number of designs to fit the consumer that they find most beneficial to their bottom line. Or maybe they just don't like gamers. Whatever the reason, it's their choice, but crying foul because they aren't doing what you want is silly.
You think the average iMac customer is buying extra optical drives and TV Tuners for their iMac? It's a particular machine for a particular customer. A market is that happens to be growing while PC towers are shrinking.
The role of the iMac as your run-of-the-mill desktop PC is only being force on this thread.
Which is it? You claim AIOs are growing at the expense of towers while others claim laptops are growing at the expense of all desktops.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8CoreWhore
Maybe I can have them make me a Cinema Display.
Unless you desperately need very good color accuracy for graphic design, non-Apple LCDs are far cheaper than Cinema Displays. And note that I wrote "very good," not perfect. I can get a 28" LCD for what Apple asks for a 20" Cinema Display.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Since when as the iMac been a machine priced for "everyone"? Ah, that's right. Never. Because not everyone can afford even a $599 computer much less an iMac.
It's the machine Apple prices for everyone who's not a power user or a power abuser. I believe the OP wrote "everyman," meaning an average guy who's not very computer literate, not "everyone."
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Well gee...if you don't like wireless devices why would you whine about having wires? You wouldn't. One extra cable to a dorbo or firewire enclosure isn't going to make much difference.
You'll have to excuse me if I don't remember "whining" about cords. Probably because I didn't. In fact, I actually wrote that I don't care about extra cords, as evidenced by the jungle of 50 or so cords next to my desk.
Comments
Has anyone tried to update manually?
Hackintoshs with a functioning Software Updater can get plenty of updates. iLife and iWork updates work fine. System updates, especially ones that require a restart depend on what is beign updated I've had it go both ways. Point updates will DL but won't install. Even doing a manual update from Apple's website won't work, you have wait for the next version to hacked and seeded, but if the disc burning goes well the update usually works pretty well.
If this is for people who know what they are getting into then why are they buying it from Psystar? More to the point, why would they spend $150 for a $129 copy of OS X Leopard that isn't even installed. What Psystar is installed is a hacked OSx86 copy that is freely downloaded from any newsgroup or torrent site. Why would someone who "knows what they are getting into on the cheap" want a machine that costs more money than and requires them to send their HDD back to Psystar with all their personal data on it for an update to 10.5.3.
The only people interested in this machine are some odd non-technical geek that thinks he knows but really doesn't. MacWorld spent $751 for a Psystar Mac that doesn't include any worthwhile warranty, a monitor, keyboard, mouse, or many of the "just works" features of OS X. OSx86 is for tinkerer's hobby machine that Psystar is trying to replace with a novice's nightmare.
In no way is this a good machine.
That's exactly right.
What i'm concerned about is someone who DOESN'T know, buying one of these things, either from them, or from someone else, and thinking it's a plug-n-play device, when it isn't.
Then who will they blame when they have problems, which they will likely have right away.
Will they be given their money back?
Hackintoshs with a functioning Software Updater can get plenty of updates. iLife and iWork updates work fine. System updates, especially ones that require a restart depend on what is beign updated I've had it go both ways. Point updates will DL but won't install. Even doing a manual update from Apple's website won't work, you have wait for the next version to hacked and seeded, but if the disc burning goes well the update usually works pretty well.
That's what I'm talking about though. You can't rely on OS updates working. Program updates are different. They rarely probe the machine. But, not all programs work either.
But, not all programs work either.
So many programs won't even start up. they bounce in the dock a few times and then quit. iTunes Sharing is even spotty. FireFox runs the processor up to 100%. Gigabyte NIC gets only 5MB/s max. DVD player app doesn't work. VLC doesn't work. Et cetera....
I could start from scratch with OSx86 HW that is listed on the their HCL, but as a data server it's fine.
Anyone who'd recommend Psystar to a friend as a low-cost Mac is not a good friend.
Desktop CPU = faster
Desktop RAM = faster and less expensive
Desktop HD = faster, larger and less expensive
Tray loading DVD = faster, compatible with mini DVDs, less expensive
Larger case = more efficient, less expensive fans
Larger case = no need for that silly external power brick
Larger case = less "design" needed to squeeze everything into the box
The tradeoffs would have been footprint, weight and power consumption, but something the size of the PowerMac Cube could've provided all of the above and still been seen as very small. It also would be enough computer for almost everyone. I'm only guessing, but I think the production cost of a Cube2 would be enough less than the current mini that Apple would have no problem hitting the $499 retail price point and still have Apple-like margins.
For those of us craving internal expansion at a consumer price point, well sorry to say it but Steve Jobs really doesn't think there are enough of us to bother with. Actually he probably thinks all desktop computers are dinosaurs waiting for the asteroid to hit. The future is small, light and mobile and his mind has been there for years already.
Apple's new business model is based on getting people to buy a complete new computer as often as possible. Letting people upgrade their CPU easily, letting them add an inexpensive card to give them new capabilities like eSATA or FireWire 3200, letting them upgrade their video card to play newer games, these sort of things prolong the life of a computer which is great for the consumer, but bad for Apple. It's actually bad for Dell and HP too, but they're only just beginning to realize how much.
Like most of us I want an xMac, a relatively small desktop/tower with a couple of slots, a couple of drive bays and commodity desktop components, but I'll probably die of shock if Apple releases one while Steve Jobs is still alive.
Translation: My whine is now about money and not wires because the wire whine has been proven to be clueless.
[blah blah blah]
It's obvious that you care more about retaliating me than forming an intelligent response to any of the valid counter-arguments I propose.
The iMac has always tried to be the "everyman's computer" and Apple's vision for it has always been to epitomize simplistic/"futuristic" home computing. BY THEIR OWN CLAIM, it simplifies computing by cutting the cords. HOWEVER, it necessitates the use of many external dongles for expansion... harddrives, hubs, perhaps a BluRay Drive in a few months... ANY non-user-replaceable upgrade must be attached via wire to the iMac. Sort of defeats the purpose of creating the simplest, cleanest computer there is, does it not?
Noting the irony of this flaw was the only point I was trying to make. Leave it to you to either attempt to write my arguments off as "whining" or blow my statements out of proportion.
-Clive
The iMac has always tried to be the "everyman's computer" and Apple's vision for it has always been to epitomize simplistic/"futuristic" home computing.
I'd argue that the average, low-budget PC tower has been attempting to be the "everyman's computer" for some time by trying to be the most configurable option for the most amount of people, but with desktop sales diminishing as people move toward notebooks and simpler solutions upgradability options are not what the average consumer wants or needs.
You use Blu-ray as an example but that isn't what the average consumer wants or needs so it doesn't fall into the "everyman" category. They "everyman" doesn't upgrade their GPU or overclock their processor or install multiple HDDs for RAID arrays. AIOs, like the iMac and all notebooks are what people are flocking to.
If we're talking about the older machines, then it might, or might not. But it's been tried on the 2 GHz Core duo and shown to work. The newer Core 2 machines do work.
EDIT: Forgot to add; I've seen it myself.
There is plenty of evidence from a simple Google search to Apple's own Mac Mini spec sheet that clearly support 1080 playback. I think Clive won't believe it until he sets it up himself.
On the contrary. I'm not closed to being convinced otherwise. In fact, I've been looking in to this more and have seen some evidence going both ways. I think it depends on the source of the HD playback. There's a fellow on MacRumors who insists he cannot play HD content streamed from abc.com, even though he has high-speed internet and a current generation Mac Mini. There are others who state they can output to 1080p displays easily enough though without mention of content playback. There are others still who can both output to 1080p and play continuous HD media.
Information leans favorably towards 1080p playback on current Minis... but I would see it unwise to rule that it works in 100% of cases.
Nevertheless there are more examples of the MacMini's deficiencies making it unsuitable for general use... for example, its inability to play the second best-selling computer game of all time (and tween-favorite) The Sims 2 (which is second, of course, to The Sims) with any visual clarity whatsoever. The game is from 2004, and we're half way through 2008... and The Sims 3 has already been announced. What are the chances the Mac Mini will be able to play it? No doubt millions of tweens will want to play it as well...
-Clive
On the contrary. I'm not closed to being convinced otherwise. In fact, I've been looking in to this more and have seen some evidence going both ways. I think it depends on the source of the HD playback. There's a fellow on MacRumors who insists he cannot play HD content streamed from abc.com, even though he has high-speed internet and a current generation Mac Mini. There are others who state they can output to 1080p displays easily enough though without mention of content playback. There are others still who can both output to 1080p and play continuous HD media.
Information leans favorably towards 1080p playback on current Minis... but I would see it unwise to rule that it works in 100% of cases.
Nevertheless there are more examples of the MacMini's deficiencies making it unsuitable for general use... for example, its inability to play the second best-selling computer game of all time (and tween-favorite) The Sims 2 (which is second, of course, to The Sims) with any visual clarity whatsoever. The game is from 2004, and we're half way through 2008... and The Sims 3 has already been announced. What are the chances the Mac Mini will be able to play it? No doubt millions of tweens will want to play it as well...
Any test that is about playing 1080p should be a local copy, not one that is streamed from the internet. regardless of the internet speed cap your provider is giving you there is no guarantee that you're getting an acceptable throughput from start to finish. There are too many factors to consider. The Mac Mini can play 1080p content, there are tech specs and many posts about it.
As for Sims 2, do the game's system requirements state that an integrated GPU is sufficient for the game? Are you trying this with an Intel-based Mac Mini on a game written for the PPC architecture?
I'd argue that the average, low-budget PC tower has been attempting to be the "everyman's computer" for some time by trying to be the most configurable option for the most amount of people, but with desktop sales diminishing as people move toward notebooks and simpler solutions upgradability options are not what the average consumer wants or needs.
The iMac is Apple's "everyman's computer." Obviously Apple doesn't sell an upgradeable/expandable do-as-you-wish mid-tower, but claims that the iMac is what most people will need. Only those on the "outskirts" should consider anything else.
You use Blu-ray as an example but that isn't what the average consumer wants or needs so it doesn't fall into the "everyman" category...
You don't mean to tell me that you don't foresee Blu-Ray adoption doubling (at least) within a year, do you? I specifically said "in a few months," because I acknowledge that the demand isn't here yet. People will want this though. Software titles (think OS X) will exceed the space of DVDs, solid-state capacity won't cut it and high-speed internet is still too slow for the necessary bandwidth requirements.
Blu-Ray -- in a matter of months -- will become a household requirement, just as DVDs have.
-Clive
Any test that is about playing 1080p should be a local copy, not one that is streamed from the internet. regardless of the internet speed cap your provider is giving you there is no guarantee that you're getting an acceptable throughput from start to finish. There are too many factors to consider. The Mac Mini can play 1080p content, there are tech specs and many posts about it.
As for Sims 2, do the game's system requirements state that an integrated GPU is sufficient for the game? Are you trying this with an Intel-based Mac Mini on a game written for the PPC architecture?
Test or not, watching streaming HD content should be well within the capabilities of any modern computer with high-speed internet. So long as it is a commonly practiced activity, no computer should be exempt from such a test. With this statement I am neither arguing for or against the Mini... I'm simply stating that any modern computer should be able to perform activities that are considered commonplace.
As for The Sims 2, either PPC or Intel, the game will barely hobble along. Like I said, it will run... just with extremely unremarkable graphics. Their hands look like spatulas. I've seen some very beautiful in-game scenes... but these are not them. Now I'm likely a bit more particular than the target audience of this game - I'll be the first to admit it - but these views look pretty trashy.
(No more replies tonight. Bed time.)
-Clive
Translation: My whine is now about money and not wires because the wire whine has been proven to be clueless.
Wow, you are really being sour for some reason. Clive is right - the iMac is only clean and neat up to a point, and afterwards, it's just as much of a mess or more than a tower. Optical drives, TV tuners, sound cards, that stuff simply isn't done with wireless. Even with the gear you suggest like NAS, Time Machine, wireless printer, etc. when the additional cost for the wireless gear can add up to a significant part of the iMac's price, it's pretty freaking far from competetive versus a simple tower that accommodates that functionality with no extra cost. Wireless kb+mouse are just as much of an opportunity with a tower so that makes no difference.
Not saying AIO is bad. It's great. But once you want to add a lot of stuff to it, it's just silly trying to force it into a role it really wasn't designed to do. Like buying a sports car and spending a lot of money modding it so it gets good performance on a muddy forest trail. Sure, you can do it. You can put a whole file and printing server - like one of them tower-y computers - on the other side of that wireless network! Look, no wires in the iMac! But sometimes it really is wiser to buy an offroad car right off the bat.
The iMac is Apple's "everyman's computer."
Everyman computer for Apple, as defined by the most commonly purchased would probably be the white MacBook. The 'everyman computer" isn't meant to do "everything", if it did then the "everyman" couldn't afford it.
You don't mean to tell me that you don't foresee Blu-Ray adoption doubling (at least) within a year, do you?
I have no idea how fast adoption will take place, but I know it will take place. What is the percentage of people who have foregone DVD for Blu-ray? Will this doubling be noticable of a chart of DVD users.
Test or not, watching streaming HD content should be well within the capabilities of any modern computer with high-speed internet. So long as it is a commonly practiced activity, no computer should be exempt from such a test. With this statement I am neither arguing for or against the Mini... I'm simply stating that any modern computer should be able to perform activities that are considered commonplace.
But you seem to saying that the Mac Mini is the problem without considering the numerous issues with streaming HD content. I don't care what your ISP gives you, unless you have a business account you aren't being guaranteed any amount of bandwidth and once you are past your ISP you aren't being guaranteed anything. You're blaming the cart before the horse...or something like that.
As for The Sims 2, either PPC or Intel, the game will barely hobble along. Like I said, it will run... just with extremely unremarkable graphics.
But the game wasn't designed for integrated graphics or an Intel CPU. Running it on a GMA950 or under Rosetta is going to muck up any game whose minimum system requirements state otherwise. If you bought a Mac Mini to play games or bought Sims 2 thinking it would play fine I can only suggest you know your product better before buying.
Wow, you are really being sour for some reason. Clive is right - the iMac is only clean and neat up to a point, and afterwards, it's just as much of a mess or more than a tower. Optical drives, TV tuners, sound cards, that stuff simply isn't done with wireless.
You think the average iMac customer is buying extra optical drives and TV Tuners for their iMac? It's a particular machine for a particular customer. A market is that happens to be growing while PC towers are shrinking.
Not saying AIO is bad. It's great. But once you want to add a lot of stuff to it, it's just silly trying to force it into a role it really wasn't designed to do.
The role of the iMac as your run-of-the-mill desktop PC is only being force on this thread.
On the contrary. I'm not closed to being convinced otherwise. In fact, I've been looking in to this more and have seen some evidence going both ways. I think it depends on the source of the HD playback. There's a fellow on MacRumors who insists he cannot play HD content streamed from abc.com, even though he has high-speed internet and a current generation Mac Mini. There are others who state they can output to 1080p displays easily enough though without mention of content playback. There are others still who can both output to 1080p and play continuous HD media.
Information leans favorably towards 1080p playback on current Minis... but I would see it unwise to rule that it works in 100% of cases.
Nevertheless there are more examples of the MacMini's deficiencies making it unsuitable for general use... for example, its inability to play the second best-selling computer game of all time (and tween-favorite) The Sims 2 (which is second, of course, to The Sims) with any visual clarity whatsoever. The game is from 2004, and we're half way through 2008... and The Sims 3 has already been announced. What are the chances the Mac Mini will be able to play it? No doubt millions of tweens will want to play it as well...
-Clive
I can't clam that every source is properly sent either.
If a source is encoded with H.264, any Core 2 processor machine should play it without a problem. If not, then something is wrong somewhere.
This isn't a 3D game machine. We all know that.
You don't think the average iMac customer is buying extra optical drives and TTV Tuners for their iMac? It's a particular machine for a particular customer. A market is that happens to be growing while PC towers are shrinking.
Are you trying to make some sort of point? I don't get it.
While we're throwing random unrelated facts around, I note that the PC tower market is still many, many times larger than all Mac sales combined.
The role of the iMac as your run-of-the-mill desktop PC is only being force on this thread.
Oh no. iMac is the closest to a run-of-the-mill desktop PC among all machines running official OS X. Apple put it in that role by choosing to only offer a desktop laptop, an AIO and a full-blown workstation that costs twice as much. So when, like vinea and Clive were discussing, one of those customers comes up who does want some of these capabilities on top of reasonable desktop performance+price, iMac's the number one suspect in the Apple lineup that is going to have to stretch to do it. Whether that means the user picks up sizable additional expense for the wireless gear, or the iMac grows to look like a fat octopus sitting on the desk with all the crap hanging from it. Now, with a minitower they could just stick the extra parts right in, no mess.
Are you trying to make some sort of point? I don't get it.
I edited my question. I had added the word "don't" by mistake.
While we're throwing random unrelated facts around, I note that the PC tower market is still many, many times larger than all Mac sales combined.
PCs do sell a lot more and probably always will sell more towers than Apple sell of all their Macs put together. What is your point? Apple sells a higher-end machine to a certain demographic, not the $300 PC with 3 year old HW whose price is supplemented by all the apps ready to ask you for your credit card.
Oh no. iMac is the closest to a run-of-the-mill desktop PC among all machines running official OS X.
Now you quantify it as "desktop", fine it is there most popular desktop machine. But it's not their most popular Mac and more people are replacing desktops with notebooks every day. BTW, notebooks are all-in-one, and even more so becasue the keyboard is in their too. The majority has spoken.
Whether that means the user picks up sizable additional expense for the wireless gear, or the iMac grows to look like a fat octopus sitting on the desk with all the crap hanging from it. Now, with a minitower they could just stick the extra parts right in, no mess.
No one is debating whether there is a market for an xMac. What is being argued is if the market is big enough to warrant the constant complaining about it. Apple has a choice to make what they want. Some computer companies have cryptic models and have a build option that seems to fit everyone and Apple has gone the other way with a limited number of designs to fit the consumer that they find most beneficial to their bottom line. Or maybe they just don't like gamers. Whatever the reason, it's their choice, but crying foul because they aren't doing what you want is silly.
You think the average iMac customer is buying extra optical drives and TV Tuners for their iMac? It's a particular machine for a particular customer. A market is that happens to be growing while PC towers are shrinking.
The role of the iMac as your run-of-the-mill desktop PC is only being force on this thread.
Which is it? You claim AIOs are growing at the expense of towers while others claim laptops are growing at the expense of all desktops.
Maybe I can have them make me a Cinema Display.
Unless you desperately need very good color accuracy for graphic design, non-Apple LCDs are far cheaper than Cinema Displays. And note that I wrote "very good," not perfect. I can get a 28" LCD for what Apple asks for a 20" Cinema Display.
Since when as the iMac been a machine priced for "everyone"? Ah, that's right. Never. Because not everyone can afford even a $599 computer much less an iMac.
It's the machine Apple prices for everyone who's not a power user or a power abuser. I believe the OP wrote "everyman," meaning an average guy who's not very computer literate, not "everyone."
Well gee...if you don't like wireless devices why would you whine about having wires? You wouldn't. One extra cable to a dorbo or firewire enclosure isn't going to make much difference.
You'll have to excuse me if I don't remember "whining" about cords. Probably because I didn't. In fact, I actually wrote that I don't care about extra cords, as evidenced by the jungle of 50 or so cords next to my desk.