New (?) Mini mac pics

[Dan]

bloodline wrote:
This is the fist time I've ever thought a Mac was cool... this IS cool!!!

Come on it can´t be the first time?
Colour Classic?
Powerbook 540c? Dont say you didn´t wanted to run WB3.1 on that?
Although not Apple: Umax Pulsar? With a theoretical maximum of 8 CPUs!!!!
So Macs have been cooler before. 8-)

[Dan]

Argo wrote:
I could see one of these in the living room as part of the entertainment center. When I first looked at this my thought was "This should be an Amiga".
To me the Mac is becoming more and more what I think the Amiga would be like if Commodore hadn't gone under due to the management.

I agree
iMac Mini vs A500/A1200
OS: You can use the GUI or commandline as you like, WB and OSX is simliar in this. OSX gets bonuspoints for including a full POSIX-enviroment from start.
Software:Pretty similar Garageband,iPhoto, iTunes, iMovie vs Soundtracker, DPaint,

Ram:Buyers will soon want extra ram, same for both. Biggest mistake on the A1200 no easy way of adding ram. A500 wins on easyness to add more.
Tv-out:Both requires an adaptor(mac mini) or special cable(A500/A1200). A1200 superior here. A500 had the adapter included in price.
Sound in: both needs a sampler.

Other expansion: All can add external hardrives pretty easy. Videodigitizers can used(firewire/side-expansion/par). USB+Firewire is pretty much the same as par, serial,diskdrive and expansionbus of the amiga.
PricePretty much the same.

So it is very an Amiga for the 21-century.

[Dan]

minator wrote:

Mini ITX motherboard,
Mac Mini motherboard..
Nearly the same dimensions nearly the same cpu speed, one intel one G4.

Not quite, the VIA CPUs are very weak compared to, well, everything.

Not Geodes :-P

At the same clock speed the G4 will kick it's ass.

No doubt.

Something you could set the record straight for me on is just how much RAM does OS X like to have so the OS isn't paging to the hard drive all of the time..

256MB should do fine providing you're not into heavy multi tasking.
My machine is currently using 309MB and thats running Safari (8 tabs open), iTunes, mail, SETI, 2 finder windows, Activity monitor & a desktop pager.

OS X is not Windows XP...

I don´t see much difference in terms of memory usage?

[Dan]

I think it will be hit in the educational market. Both with schools and students. And  OSX is really cheap and easy when it comes to unixes/posix/bsd whatever. thats a huge benefit in this market
And it´s back to the original iMac concept of trying to compete with PC at PCs pricelevel.

I think its time to do this rigth :-D

I almost consider getting one just to run this http://www.kallisys.com/newton/einstein/
http://www.amiga.org/forums/showthread.php?t=13456

But I wouldn´t have minded if it was higher and had regular DDR DIMM and a 3,5" HD instead of SO-DIMM and 2,5" HD. What would a little more height mattered compared to the price difference? :-?

[Dan]

Floid wrote:
You've hit on the reason there's no TV out; Apple's in the TV (Studio Display) business now.  Why should they take pains to be compatible with the competition -- both at the physical layer and in content?

Studio Display a TV? Really, most tvs is still CRTs around here. Only real geeks and rich snobs go for lcd and plasma.
But you could sell a cheap projector to Svensson. :-)

[Dan]

@HopperJF
Sure, it was just that somebody thought the Apple monitors was TVs. Not at that price :crazy:

 

Hammer wrote:
MacOS X has its fare share of *issues* i.e. refer to http://www.macfixitforums.com/

So does most things, heck even my TI-86 graphing calculator had one(1.0 ROM).

[Dan]

Wayne wrote:
Besides, both the AmigaOne and Pegasos are just as non-expandable where the CPU is concerned.  You can't plop a  higher speed CPU into either without modifying it.  There's no indication anywhere that the CPU in the mac mini ISN'T socketed, since there are two different ones, $100 apart.

 
It be just like the Cube, but you might have to remove the DVD to fit a dual-cpu accelerator:-D

That leaves the video card support the ONLY part of the Mac Mini that's really debatable.

Nothing wrong with the video, I say the so-dimm(I assume?) is the worst part. 1GB is *#£$€&€# expensive. I guess Apple realized that getting lots of RAM is you run newer OSes on outdated machines. This won´t run OSX Puma or OSX Lynx or whatever.

Not sure that matters either, because if they wanted to, Apple COULD do upgrade plans as needed later.
Wayne

But thye won´t, thats the whole point, switch to Mac and then upgrade to a faster, bigger more expensive machine the next time. That´s why they didn´t put two regular RAM-slots on. Never underestimate Jobs loathing of the users( see the Newton-thing).

[Dan]

Waccoon wrote:

Dan:  Studio Display a TV? Really, most tvs is still CRTs around here. Only real geeks and rich snobs go for lcd and plasma.

Still, you're hard pressed to find CRTs in stores these days.  People like the idea of trading bulky size for inferior picture quality and wonky colors.  :-)

I worked in a photo store, and nearly flipped when my boss started replacing all the monitors with LCDs.  Color accuracy is impossible!!!

Sigh, I was talking TVs :smack:
But you are right about monitors.

[Dan]

Ilwrath wrote:

I've seen some internal shots; it's a regular DDR DIMM, crammed in on the left? side. Standard height, Apple likes to use cheap commodity parts where the user can't tell the difference.

Good point  I stand corrected.

I guess I shouldn't believe everything I read on the internet. :lol:

So it's back to an insane price, but a slightly more sane design.  :-)

Then people will just buy the 256MB version and then buy a 1GB stick from pc-store.Remove the 256MB mem and put it in a free slot in a desktop and the 1GB in the MacMini.

First mac-user lesson don´t buy it from apple unless you have to! :-D

[Dan]

bloodline wrote:

Dan wrote:
First mac-user lesson don´t buy it from apple unless you have to! :-D

Don't say that!!! Then no one would buy a Mac!!!

Many people want Mac just not an Apple Mac, that´s why Jobs killed the clones. Mac gained marketshare like crazy back then but Apple lost.
Apple would have been in a much better position without Jobs.