Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Mac mini Review At Macworld

timothy posted more than 9 years ago | from the mikey-likes-it dept.

Desktops (Apple) 221

lemonylimey writes "Macworld has the first hands-on review of the new Mac mini along with nicely illustrated step-by-step dissection. It looks like the mini comes apart easily and (unsuprisingly) uses standard notebook components: a Panasonic DVD-R drive on 'SuperDrive' equipped models, Seagate Momentus 2.5" notebook ATA-100 hard drive and a single, nicely accessible 184 pin DDR DIMM socket. Upgrade options aside, it might not have the clock-for-clock power of the equivalent $499 PC, but you have to ask yourself - If you put them both on a shelf and ask your Mom* to pick one, which one is it going to be? (Yes, I'm sure your Mom is a Doctor of Mathematics and wouldn't buy anything she couldn't run Debian on. You know what I meant.)"

cancel ×

221 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

PC competition for the Mini-MAC? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11442717)

When MAC announced their "Mini", it caught my eye. Wanting to buy/build a small computer for my already cramped breakfast bar, I started pricing out similar hardware. The results startled me. Most of the configurations I found were more than the humble US$499 of the "Mini", often much more. To match price I had to configure with a much bigger shuttle-style case.

My question is this. What PCs are currently on the market to compete with this? When my wife asks for the "cute little MAC", what real computer can I buy instead?

Re:PC competition for the Mini-MAC? (1)

ambrosen (176977) | more than 9 years ago | (#11442910)

I don't get why you don't want to buy one. Well, I do understand, but you've not elaborated your reasons.

Re:PC competition for the Mini-MAC? (2)

the pickle (261584) | more than 9 years ago | (#11442944)

How about you stop trolling with the same comments [slashdot.org] in every Mac mini story on /. ?

Get a life.

Re:PC competition for the Mini-MAC? (2, Insightful)

Yaztromo (655250) | more than 9 years ago | (#11443696)

It's not just the same comment over and over again, it was also a story [slashdot.org] last week.

I guess some PC users are just jealous :).

Yaz.

Re:PC competition for the Mini-MAC? (4, Insightful)

Bastian (66383) | more than 9 years ago | (#11445018)

In talking to PC users about this, I think what it comes down to is that a lot of PC users primarily stick with PCs because they are familiar with it. They don't Macs because they are unfamiliar, do things differently, and the people wear too damn many black turtlenecks. [msn.com] (Well, honestly, I see nothing wrong with this last reason.) More than that, they see the Mac as a toy.

But when it comes down to it, most PC users I have met who talk about how silly Apple computers are either haven't really even used a Mac, or have only used it for a few days or a week. Most of them don't seem to even realize that Mac OS supports multi-button mice and scroll wheels. Oftentimes, the criticisms aren't researched (I know this because they are wrong). Other times, the criticisms seem to be based on the idea that everyone should have a l33t0 gaming machine or a weather modeling workstation. I am always amused by people who complain about the lack of games available for OS X when the only two games they own are The Sims [apple.com] and Civ3 [apple.com]

I suppose it's popular among Mac users to offer a complete psychological breakdown as to why PC users like to rip on Macs so much, but I won't bother. I'll just say that it seems that while I have met a few people who have seriously considered and tried both and ended up choosing Windows because they just prefer the platform (people who need to play Half-Life 2 aside), it was definitely just a few of them.

On the other hand, I know it's not too uncommon for PC users to wonder at how devoted Mac users are to their platform - a column on it shows up in some PC magazine a couple times every year. Here's a hint: it has absolutely nothing to do with SPEC benchmarks, application support, shooting demons with shotguns, or even aesthetics. [lowendmac.com]

Re:PC competition for the Mini-MAC? (1)

daviddennis (10926) | more than 9 years ago | (#11442968)

There was actually an Ask Slashdot on this question a few days ago, so you might want to take a look at it.

That being said, in what way is the Mac mini not a "real computer"? It is a Unix system under the hood, after all. I bet your wife would like MacOS X a lot more than Linux or Windows, neither of which does nearly as well on the "cute and cuddly" test.

D

Re:PC competition for the Mini-MAC? (1)

metalligoth (672285) | more than 9 years ago | (#11443293)

I've seen this argument on several Mac mini related threads lately.

My theory is that it is a new troll. The "Macs aren't cheap enough" troll cannot possibly hold a candle anymore to the $499 mini's price tag. OS X is more powerful than XP Pro, and with the other software (iPhoto = Adobe Photo Album, etc.) it's got at least $499 worth of software on board.

Macs have supported right-click mice since Jobs came back in 1998 (or was it '97?), or you can hold control and click to get the same effect with the Apple one-button mouse. Since you supply the mouse when you buy a mini, the tired mouse argument is dead as well.

So now the people that fight for the glory of the outdated x86 architecture, especially the Windows users, feel obligated to call the mini "not a real computer" because it's a Mac or it's not powerful enough (1.25 GHz G4?! Not powerful @ $499?!) or they don't understand the GUI, etc.

It's the new Mac troll. Guess we need to get used to it, since it's all we'll hear on Mac threads when browsed at -1 for a long, long while.

Re:PC competition for the Mini-MAC? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11443334)

I don't want to start a holy war here, but what is the deal with you Mac fanatics? I've been sitting here at my freelance gig in front of a Mac (a 8600/300 w/64 Megs of RAM) for about 20 minutes now while it attempts to copy a 17 Meg file from one folder on the hard drive to another folder. 20 minutes. At home, on my Pentium Pro 200 running NT 4, which by all standards should be a lot slower than this Mac, the same operation would take about 2 minutes. If that.

In addition, during this file transfer, Netscape will not work. And everything else has ground to a halt. Even BBEdit Lite is straining to keep up as I type this.

I won't bore you with the laundry list of other problems that I've encountered while working on various Macs, but suffice it to say there have been many, not the least of which is I've never seen a Mac that has run faster than its Wintel counterpart, despite the Macs' faster chip architecture. My 486/66 with 8 megs of ram runs faster than this 300 mhz machine at times. From a productivity standpoint, I don't get how people can claim that the Macintosh is a superior machine.

Mac addicts, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use a Mac over other faster, cheaper, more stable systems.

Re:PC competition for the Mini-MAC? (1)

daviddennis (10926) | more than 9 years ago | (#11443856)

You posted this exact same message with SGI instead of Mac in response to one of my posts a year or so back.

Since that is so, it clearly has no factual content and should be ignored.

I'm not angry, just puzzled as to why anyone would bother to write... um ... upload such a post.

D

Re:PC competition for the Mini-MAC? (1)

Senjutsu (614542) | more than 9 years ago | (#11444970)

It's just an old troll that the slashbots like to upload.

Re:PC competition for the Mini-MAC? (3, Interesting)

daviddennis (10926) | more than 9 years ago | (#11444043)

I hope you got a laugh out of the other reply to your post, which was an ancient troll. He didn't even update the model numbers and mhz ratings he used, how sloppy was that?

But understand that there are two types of customer. One type, and I fear the most common, looks at the details of a product and tries to compare it to others using a laundry list of features. For instance, a computer with an 80gb hard drive is better than one with 40. One with 512mb is better than one with 256mb. This completely ignores whether the products are well designed and assembled, whether they run MacOS X or Windows, and so on. This type of buyer drives the market because he/she/it is most common. It's much easier to describe something in numbers than in depth.

People who appreciate Apple products tend to look more at the whole product than the specifications, and they realize that while Apple isn't the cheapest company in the world, it makes fabulous things because it sets out from the start to do just that.

The two types of customer really don't understand each other very well, and I think that's why there is so much passion between pro and anti-Apple factions. One point of view simply cannot understand the other.

One thing that does intrigue me is that obvious valid anti-Apple arguments are rarely seen. For instance, you have to re-purchase much of your software if you want to use an Apple computer to its full potential. If you have Office, you need Apple Office. If you have Adobe products, you need to upgrade them. And so on.

The best anti-Apple argument is that many people fear change and going to something different. I've known people like that and they are perhaps the hardest type of person to deal with. This is largely disregarded on Slashdot simply because most Slashdot people are happy to learn about new operating systems and user interfaces, but it is a genuine problem.

So yes, there are lots of trolls and they change but little over the years. Perhaps they are simply envious of the cohesiveness of the Apple community and its obvious love of the products. That's something very unusual in this day and age, and we should celebrate it. Don't kowtow to the God Steve, but don't ignore his virtues either.

D

Re:PC competition for the Mini-MAC? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11442984)

My question is this. What PCs are currently on the market to compete with this? When my wife asks for the "cute little MAC", what real computer can I buy instead?

Personally, I don't think your "wife" really cares what you buy, as long as you keep her properly inflated.

Re:PC competition for the Mini-MAC? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11443008)

First of all, it's "Mac" not "MAC".
Second of all, it's "Apple" not "Mac".
Third of all, there are no currently no PCs that can compete AT ALL if you are talking about form factor (size, db rating, features).

Re:PC competition for the Mini-MAC? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11443065)

Mod parent down - this is a cut and paste dupe of a different thread on /.

Re:PC competition for the Mini-MAC? (3, Informative)

Bastian (66383) | more than 9 years ago | (#11443271)

Assuming your wife is after a Mac for the two main reasons why people buy Macs (the OS, and it just works), you're not going to find a PC on the market that compares to the Mac Mini. You can certainly find PC's the same size - just check out the Mini-ITX platform.

However, a preliminary look-through suggests that in this size range, you're going to get more bang for your buck with the Mac Mini. (I'm assuming, that, like most other Mac-disparaging PC users, you're a Megahertz Weenie.)

A good example of what I can find at CappuccinoPC.com is a 1ghz Celeron with only 128MB RAM, a 20GB HD, a CD-ROM drive (as in, no DVD, no burning), and a crap graphics card. For a price tag of $580.
To get it to something comparable to the Mac Mini, you're going to have to upgrade to a 1.26ghz PIII ($155), 256MB RAM ($55), a 40GB HD($30), a CD-RW/DVD combo ($60, $70 for slot loading), and add Windows XP ($119 for Home, $159 for Pro). Meaning that a comparable PC in the same form factor will cost you $920 - $970. And you're still stuck with a crap graphics card. I'm not sure if you get a sound card. On top of all that, 256MB RAM is the most you can get, and all the other upgrades (wireless, bluetooth, etc.) are more expensive than the same upgrades for the Mac Mini.

Re:PC competition for the Mini-MAC? (0, Flamebait)

TheOnlyCoolTim (264997) | more than 9 years ago | (#11444698)

That $580 PC is absurdly overpriced, unless it includes a monitor. Which the Mac doesn't.

You fail it.

Tim

Re:PC competition for the Mini-MAC? (1)

Bastian (66383) | more than 9 years ago | (#11444797)

If it's so overpriced, I would love to see an example of one that is reasonably priced.

Or is your definition of overpriced, "Anything that doesn't have a big blue Dell or a big green e on the case." 'Cause neither of them sell anything in this form factor, so they're not really very good references for comparison.

And no, it includes neither a keyboard, nor a monitor. It does come with a little stand so you can turn it on its side, though.

Re:PC competition for the Mini-MAC? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11443283)

MAC [maccosmetics.com] makes computers now?

Can Mac Mini run Linux? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11442719)

This is the question I hear most often. I just don't get it. Could someone smarter please explain it to me? I don't understand why anyone would bother running Linux on a Mac. For $99 you can purchase Mac OS X and get real live tech support for problems that (probably won't) pop up. There's a lot of technical reasons you should run Mac OS instead of Linux.

  1. PowerPC hardware, PowerPC operating system
  2. Linux has its origins on IA32, Intel's 32-bit architecture. Every platform Linux has migrated to since then has been beset with porting problems Linux runs 32% more efficiently on Intel than PowerPC. This is very telling as PowerPC is in general much faster per clock than Intel. Somewhere in the translation from PowerPC to IA32 something got lost.

    Mac OS is 100% native for PowerPC. The Mach kernel has been optimized for the G3, G4, and 970 since Apple began writing the operating system back in 1996. Why choose a hacked and kludged OS from another platform when you can have an environment tailor-made for the system you'll be running it on? Mac OS certainly isn't plagued by same driver problems Linux is (in)famous for.

  3. Control over the source code
  4. In Linux, the development model is highly irrational: anyone is allowed to submit patches, and one man (Linus Torvalds) sorts through gigabyte after gigabyte of amateurish code, attempting to integrate it into the kernel. Apple's model is much more modern and decisive: the code for the low levels of Mac OS is available for anyone to download and modify, while the more complex parts of the system (QuickTime and OpenGL) are kept closed-source so those that know better the Apple programmers are the only ones allowed to tinker.

    The results because of these differing development models are clear. Apple released a major update to the OS once a year, and releases about five minor updates to the OS, as well as several dozen security patches and driver updates, in the interim. Since March of 2001 we've gone from 10.0 to 10.2.5! Linux is still stuck at some sort of bizarre "in-between" 2.5 kernel patch and won't move on to 2.6 until well after Apple has released Mac OS 10.3.

    It's not hard to see the difference here is a bunch of kids playing with source code instead of doing their homework vs. highly qualified professionals pushing their skills to the limits. The Mac OS user benefits.

  5. Graphical user interfaces
  6. I don't even think I have to touch on this. While Linux offers several GUIs from GNOME, KDE, and Enlightenment, Apple offers only one. But here we have a case of quality vs. quantity. Apple controls the GUI for its operating system while anyone can hack and modify the various Linux GUIs as they please. This has led to a lack of desktop standards and a whole lot of bickering and flame wars over human interface guidelines. Most of the GUIs for Linux are simply poor knock-offs of the Windows 95 interface.

    Apple's Aqua and QuickTime graphical interfaces are faster, more elegant, and very consistent. A Mac user can sit down at any Mac and (assuming someone hasn't installed Linux) get right to work. With Linux, it's hit or miss as to whether the user will know what to do when he logs in! Getting work done is the most important aspect of a computer. After all, it is just a tool. Linux fails in this area miserably you're forced to edit and tinker and kludge and hack to make things perfect. A Mac allowes you to just sit down and roll up your sleeves and get some work done. I don't have time to play at my job.

  7. Software!
  8. I've used Linux before and the headache of downloading drivers and libraries and making sure the versions all sync up are too mucvh to handle, especiallly considering one has to compile these applications. On a Mac, I mount a disk image and drag the .app file to /Applications, and I'm done. Hell, most software for Mac even installs it there for you.

To put this last point in perspective, let's look at a recent task I performed under both Linux 2.4 and Mac OS 10.2.

Sendmail and sshd were both cracked recently and needed updated. The guys who code these programs were on the ball and had patches ready and waiting just hours after the security holes were discovered. Both a Linux box and my dual 1.42GHz Mac system needed updated. Here's a breakdown of how this went on my Mac:

  1. open System Preferences's Software Update Control Panel
  2. hit the CHECK NOW button
  3. hit the INSTALL button
  4. wait for Mac OS to download, install, and optimize the updates

Total time: 4 minutes

Now here's how it went in Linux. I was severely unimpressed:

  1. download the source code for sendmail and sshd
  2. check the readme file for library and driver version requirements
  3. download new library files
  4. compile new library files
  5. update older applications not compatible with new versions of library files
  6. compile source for sendmail and sshd
  7. email a mailing list about errors during compilation
  8. wait a few days for the correct response
  9. recompile new sendmail and sshd
  10. update Linux kernel with patches
  11. reboot Linux
  12. Total time: 200 minutes (over the course of 3 days)

I don't think I need to go on anymore these examples are pretty common. Anyone willing to shell the money out for a Mac is smart enough to know you should run Mac OS. I just don't get the mentality of the fringe who shells out several grand for an Apple system and runs an operating system on it that makes it harder to work with and cuts down productivity.

So, what are the reasons to run Linux on Mac Mini?

Re:Can Mac Mini run Linux? (3, Informative)

satoshi1 (794000) | more than 9 years ago | (#11442829)

So, what are the reasons to run Linux on Mac Mini? Because you can.

Re:Can Mac Mini run Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11443086)

> > So, what are the reasons to run Linux on Mac Mini?

> Because you can.

That's also a reason to jump of a bridge e.g. a stupid reason, isn't it?

Re:Can Mac Mini run Linux? (1)

satoshi1 (794000) | more than 9 years ago | (#11443187)

Depends on how you look at it. What are the possible outcomes? The positives and the negatives. It all depends.

Re:Can Mac Mini run Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11443292)

> > > > So, what are the reasons to run Linux on Mac Mini?

> > > Because you can.

> > That's also a reason to jump of a bridge e.g. a stupid reason, isn't it?

> Depends on how you look at it. What are the possible outcomes? The positives and the negatives. It all depends.

Exactly my point. And the original poster was obviously asking about the positives, but you are not going to share them with us, are you?

Re:Can Mac Mini run Linux? (2, Insightful)

sootman (158191) | more than 9 years ago | (#11443854)

Jeez, does this need to be spelled out every single time? Yes, OS X is a great OS and a great UNIX. But some people, sometimes, just want to run Linux, and they want to run it on Apple hardware. I will be using my mini as a web server (apache, php, postgres, mysql, gallery, geeklog, and more) and everything I need works fine under OS X. If someone else wants a wsebserver in a tiny package BUT they have the desire or need to do it all in Linux, why shouldn't they?

Re:Can Mac Mini run Linux? (4, Informative)

JMZorko (150414) | more than 9 years ago | (#11442841)

OK, this is just wrong.

1. Linus is not the _only_ person who looks at submitted code for Linux ... there are many people, and i've met some of them. This is just disingenuous to suggest.

2. The kernel source is not available because it's the least complex part of the OS -- it's available partly because it's one of the more complex pieces, and a lot of really smart people who know their stuff in kernel space look at / debug / suggest additions for it.

3. Come on -- on a Linux box, if you don't want to compile from source, use apt or rpm or dselect or whatever.

Hey, I love my Macs (1.33ghz 12" PowerBook, 450mhz Cube, dual 1.25ghz g4) but your points are deceptive -- there are harder methods of doing things on OSX, and easier methods of doing things on Linux. You choose the best method for the desired outcome.

Regards,

John

Re:Can Mac Mini run Linux? (3, Informative)

amichalo (132545) | more than 9 years ago | (#11443044)

For $99 you can purchase Mac OS X and get real live tech support for problems that (probably won't) pop up.

From your comment I am not certain that you realize the $499 Mac mini comes with OS X, there is no need to purchase Mac OS X for $99.

Or am I the one who is confused?

Re:Can Mac Mini run Linux? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11443066)

You are the one who is confused. That is one of the reasons why it is so cheap.

Re:Can Mac Mini run Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11443571)

A quick check of http://www.apple.com/macmini/software.html would show you that the mac mini comes with osX along wuat a lot of other software.

Re:Can Mac Mini run Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11443855)

Can you seriously imagine Apple doing that? C'mon.

Re:Can Mac Mini run Linux? (2, Insightful)

Geoffreyerffoeg (729040) | more than 9 years ago | (#11444329)

That is one of the reasons why it is so cheap.

Sorry, no. If Apple really wanted to have a $499 computer, and components and labor cost over $400, they'd just throw in OS X free/underpriced. They're Apple. They can expect the profit on the Mac Mini to exceed any losses by not charging for OS X.

It is software, after all. Copying software has effectively zero marginal cost. The only question is whether to consider the profit as OS X profit or Mac Mini profit.

Re:Can Mac Mini run Linux? (4, Insightful)

daviddennis (10926) | more than 9 years ago | (#11443056)

I wouldn't be as negative on Linux as you are - surely it should be admitted that the "kids", in the long term, have created a high-quality product that works well for a large variety of applications, especially for knowledgeable users.

In my mind, though, it just doesn't match up well to a bunch of user interface obsessives over at Apple Computer. Can you imagine the meetings, with Steve obsessing on the exact shade of aqua blue to use for the default button on a form? I can imagine hours of bone-grinding tedium for the other folks on the team, while Steve pushes and shoves and demands as close to absolute perfection as we can get on this planet.

I don't see Open Souce folks doing that. They're too nice. They don't really care about the shade of aqua blue on their buttons at all. And none of them have much tolerence for ten hour meetings. They'll just use the same ugly shade Windows does and go on with their lives.

That's why Open Source software is never going to win on the cool factor when pitted against Steve Jobs and pals.

I don't think I'd enjoy working for Steve. But from the outside, the polished perfection he gives his products is second to none. that's the first thing I love about the Apple platform.

The second thing is that it gives you a near-perfect blend of Open Source software for web development, and commercial software for video editing, animation and word processing. So far, the commercial programs for those purposes are superior to their open source alternatives. So you can use open source for what it's great for, and proprietary software for what it's great for.

Neither of those advantages exist in Linux, and they are, broadly speaking, why I'm a Mac user nowadays and not a Linux user. So I join your puzzlement; I don't understand why someone buying into Apple hardware would not want their sofware as well.

So I'd certainly be interested in hearing peoples' responses to this question, and hopefully this less inflammatory post will help get reasonable people out of the woodwork.

D

Re:Can Mac Mini run Linux? (1)

Ohreally_factor (593551) | more than 9 years ago | (#11445434)

I can think of a reason. if someone were a die hard F/OSS person, they wouldn't want to use proprietary software for philosophical reasons, but they still might want the nifty hardware. Quite recently, it was considered hip amongst a certain segment of linux developers to sport Apple laptops with linux installed. They liked the nifty hardware.

I'm a die hard kool aid drinking card carrying Apple zealot, myself. But that's one possible reason, and I think it's a valid one.

Standard bog PC2700 DDR ram? (1)

(H)elix1 (231155) | more than 9 years ago | (#11442730)

Any (quality) DDR ram work? I heard earlier Macs needed some goofy timing, so you had to be careful about what you bought. This still true, or did they use off the shelf stuff this time?

Re:Standard bog PC2700 DDR ram? (2, Informative)

Gob Blesh It (847837) | more than 9 years ago | (#11442771)

You've always been able to use off-the-shelf RAM, but it's true that recent versions of Mac OS X (apparently not the hardware?) are more sensitive to timing issues. So be careful not to buy the rebranded DIMMs they'll sell you at a 50% discount because they failed all the QA tests. Stick to name-brand RAM, or at least buy from somewhere with a decent return policy, and you'll be fine.

upgrading the Mac mini (1)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 9 years ago | (#11442997)

Fortunately even really high quality RAM (like Corsair) in the PC3200 (faster than the Mac mini uses) 1Gig DIMM variety with 2.5-3-3 timings, still cost far less than what Apple charges. Even if you pay Apple $50 to install it for you, you're going to save some real money there.

The thing I'm concerned with upgrading is the HD - I really want a 7200rpm drive in mine (Hitachi makes a nice 60GB model).

Re:upgrading the Mac mini (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11444017)

You could definitely upgrade the drive. I know people with PowerBooks that do this, the only problem is of a thermal design, it might run a bit too hot.

Re:upgrading the Mac mini (1)

Johnny Mnemonic (176043) | more than 9 years ago | (#11444937)


Even if you pay Apple $50 to install it for you,

I would be very surprised if you can pay Apple to install third-party product; I wouldn't when I was at an Apple store. Reasoning is simple: if it doesn't work/fails early, do you blame Apple? Apple has no control over where you purchased your third party product, or how you've treated it since, so they don't want to be culpable if it fails sooner than you think it should through no fault of their own.

If you want to do upgrades to this box, you're very likely on your own. And no, doing so doesn't void your warranty unless it causes damage to the rest of the machine; and such a thing is hard to determine anyways--so I always gave folks the benefit of the doubt.

There's PC3200 RAM in my Mini... (4, Informative)

parvenu74 (310712) | more than 9 years ago | (#11445126)

I bought my Mac mini this morning (waited in line in the 18 degree temps outside the Apple store in Kansas City so I could be fifth in line!) and have been working with it all day. Of the more interesting things I've noticed: System Profiler indicates that I have 256MB of PC3200 RAM installed... and I thought these things came with PC2700! I am going to buy myself a putty knife [macworld.com] and will get back later with info and a picture or two of what I find inside...

For you PC (ab)users (I'm now in recovery on this point!) who are sitting on the fence wanting to get one of these but don't want to loose the functionality of all your Windows software, have no fear. Just go download the Windows Remote Desktop Connector [microsoft.com] and get cooking. Among the neat features, you can map the drives on your Mac to the remote PC allowing you to move files back and forth between the PC and the Mac with the utmost of ease! :-)

Imagine... (4, Funny)

Temporal (96070) | more than 9 years ago | (#11442819)

A beowulf cluster of these.

No no, seriously! You could have a little stack of them. You could even built a little pyramid of them, right on your desk! Am I the only one obsessed with this idea!?

Must... purchase... stack of Mac minis... ::zombie::

Re:Imagine... (3, Interesting)

the pickle (261584) | more than 9 years ago | (#11442980)

Actually, Apple says not to do that [macintouch.com] .

I suspect it's mostly a wireless issue, and if you're building a mini-cluster, you'd probably rather use Ethernet to connect them anyway, and you probably won't be using Bluetooth. Either way, at least the top machine would have antenna access, so if you absolutely needed BT/802.11 you could have one of them do wireless and relay to the rest over Ethernet.

p

Re:Imagine... (1)

confidential (23321) | more than 9 years ago | (#11443295)

I would imagine it's more of a thermal issue, as the intake vents are on the bottom of the mini and heat will obviously rise to the top of it. Putting another mini on top of the first would just be feeding it warmer air.

Re:Imagine... (1)

SunFan (845761) | more than 9 years ago | (#11444056)

Just put a desk fan behind the cluster.

Re:Imagine... (2, Interesting)

tfiedler (732589) | more than 9 years ago | (#11442993)

In eight rack units I could fit what, 16 of these critters. So I get 16 1.4GHz G4 processors for about US$9,600 My cluster of eight xserve g5s (16 cpu) cost me about $35,000 and takes up 8 rack units. Now my question is this... what is the real world performance difference between 16 1.4 GHz G4 processors versus 16 2GHz G5 processors and does the $25,000 difference make up that gap? Then, if you figure the cost of double the power cords, ethernet cabling and administration does it still?

Re:Imagine... (1)

SunFan (845761) | more than 9 years ago | (#11444062)


What about hot-swap?

Re:Imagine... (1)

sootman (158191) | more than 9 years ago | (#11443785)

when the minis first came out, apple had a picture of 5 of them stacked next to a PC to show their size. it seems they took that pic away (else I forgot where it was) but in any case, you aren't supposed to stack them (or put anything else on top) 'cause that might damage the optical drive. So, either stand them on their sides (that's OK) or buy an itty-bitty rack. :-)

Re:Imagine... (1)

bblazer (757395) | more than 9 years ago | (#11443823)

I am actually considering doing something similar. I want to use one as an in-home server for a single web site, DNS, file server, and mail server. I had thought about a G5 but that is overkill and very costly. For $579 for the "turbo mini" and $499 for OSX Server (10 user) I could be all set up for a fraction of the cost of an xServe. And considering the low load on the box, it should run just fine.

Re:Imagine... (1)

Isbiten (597220) | more than 9 years ago | (#11443933)

Why not save 499$ and just use the standard client version? It support all that too. Hell you can even disable the GUI to save a few extra cycles.

Re:Imagine... (2, Insightful)

bblazer (757395) | more than 9 years ago | (#11444436)

The GUI interface for all of the server functions is exactly what I am after.

Benchmarks (4, Interesting)

Gob Blesh It (847837) | more than 9 years ago | (#11442825)

And here's a bunch of performance benchmarks pitting the Mac mini against a range of other current Macs [macintouch.com] --not just abstract numbers but real-world tasks (think "17 Meg file" [kottke.org] ). I wonder how PCs stack up, particularly with Cinebench and the iTunes rip test...

My Mac sucks (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11442892)

I don't want to start a holy war here, but what is the deal with you Mac fanatics? I've been sitting here at my freelance gig in front of a Mac (a 8600/300 w/64 Megs of RAM) for about 20 minutes now while it attempts to copy a 17 Meg file from one folder on the hard drive to another folder. 20 minutes. At home, on my Pentium Pro 200 running NT 4, which by all standards should be a lot slower than this Mac, the same operation would take about 2 minutes. If that.

In addition, during this file transfer, Netscape will not work. And everything else has ground to a halt. Even BBEdit Lite is straining to keep up as I type this.

I won't bore you with the laundry list of other problems that I've encountered while working on various Macs, but suffice it to say there have been many, not the least of which is I've never seen a Mac that has run faster than its Wintel counterpart, despite the Macs' faster chip architecture. My 486/66 with 8 megs of ram runs faster than this 300 mhz machine at times. From a productivity standpoint, I don't get how people can claim that the Macintosh is a superior machine.

Mac addicts, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use a Mac over other faster, cheaper, more stable systems.

Re:My Mac sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11442954)

I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use a Mac over other faster, cheaper, more stable systems.

Nice... base a comparison using two OSes that you cannot even buy anymore: OS 9 (at best) and NT 4.

While you're at it, I have a 486 66 MHz with 16M of memory running DOS that can't run Halo 2. PC addicts, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use a PC over other faster, cheaper, more stable systems.

Re:My Mac sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11443138)

YHBT. YHF. STFU.

Re:My Mac sucks (2, Funny)

the pickle (261584) | more than 9 years ago | (#11443125)

I know you're trolling, but here's a question for you.

What hard drive controllers are you using in each machine?

If both machines are using ATA-33 or ATA-66 controllers, it's a fair comparison. If the PPro box is using an upgraded controller but the Mac is still using its stock SCSI (which, admittedly, isn't all that great compared to modern ATA, but we ARE talking about a Mac from 1996 here), then this is obviously a very UNfair comparison.

Also, you don't say what OS you're running, but the disk drivers from early PPC Mac OS versions are horribly slow. If the drivers haven't ever been updated since the machine was new, I'm not the least bit surprised that you're seeing very slow disk copies.

Finally, how much RAM does the PPro have?

p

Re:My Mac sucks (2, Informative)

Gob Blesh It (847837) | more than 9 years ago | (#11443197)

Dude, I don't think that's actually Jason Kottke [kottke.org] . I linked to it in my original post because it's a pretty well-known troll, or so I thought.

talked with the project lead (4, Interesting)

voisine (153062) | more than 9 years ago | (#11442953)

Had a nice conversation with the project lead for the mac mini this morning at the apple store in the Westfield mall. He said first day sales blew away any computer apple's ever made, by a sizable margin, although the shuffle blew the mini away for first day sales of any apple product ever. He said he was asked, can you make it this small? (10" square)... yes. Can you make it this small? (8" square)... yes. Can you make it this small? (7" square)... maybe. Can you make it this small? (6 1/2" square)... no. Okay, that's the size then.... oh crap! :)

Re:talked with the project lead (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11443614)

The first day isn't over yet, unless all the Apple stores sold out.

Re:talked with the project lead (2, Informative)

voisine (153062) | more than 9 years ago | (#11444934)

The mini already passed the previous best first day for an apple computer (Imac G5), just on pre-orders.

Mac mini taken apart seen @ iSight (0)

giaguara (632198) | more than 9 years ago | (#11442960)

I watched my 2 friends take apart a Mac mini yesterday in iChat using 2 iSights (one here, one in US).

It took them less than 30 minutes to take everything back, explain me and themselves what they were doing (there were other people there watching it too), and put everything back. I took several snapshots during the takeapart - which is good since they forgot to use their cameras...

Actually, pretty amazing. That Mac that is, but as well how good quality of video I had.

The first thing I wanted to do when I saw those Macs was to take one apart. Now seen one taken apart, took pictures of it, and will take one apart as soon as I have one myself... So yes, not news seeing the contents of them.

Re:Mac mini taken apart seen @ iSight (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11443150)

Where is "here"? How was the iChat video chat lag between "here" and the US?

Re:Mac mini taken apart seen @ iSight (1)

giaguara (632198) | more than 9 years ago | (#11443931)

europe.

Re:Mac mini taken apart seen @ iSight (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11444942)

How was the iChat video chat lag between "here" and the US?

ARGH! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11443582)


I hate it when people talk about photos they took or video they captured but don't bother to provide a link to see them! What's the point? Like we can read your mind or something?

um. . . (4, Informative)

Bastian (66383) | more than 9 years ago | (#11443025)

A) I am making this post from a TiBook running Debian. Debian has one of the best PPC ports out there. I think the Mini will most likely run Debian very nicely.

B) Everyone is sick of the stupid clock speed per dollar argument. It's lame. Quit assuming that everyone out there cares about raw CPU power first and foremost, or shut up.

Re:um. . . (1)

lemonylimey (745130) | more than 9 years ago | (#11443666)

A) I am making this post from a TiBook running Debian. Debian has one of the best PPC ports out there. I think the Mini will most likely run Debian very nicely.

So I guess your mom will be buying one, then?

Everyone is sick of the stupid clock speed per dollar argument. It's lame. Quit assuming that everyone out there cares about raw CPU power first and foremost, or shut up.

I wasn't saying that it was important. I was saying that people can go on and on about it and it isn't going to make the slightest bit of difference to 99% of the purchasing descisions made about the MM.

Underpowered? (5, Insightful)

zmotula (663798) | more than 9 years ago | (#11443027)

From the article: "As I stated in my previous column, 'machines like the mini or the cheap Dell desktop are underpowered for advanced users, but both will suffice for their target market.'"

Underpowered? What does an "average advanced user" do to need more than a one gigahertz processor? I'm currently running a PII/350, which is a bit slow for my needs (some movies skip a bit and the browsing is not as smooth as I wish it would be), but I'll be quite happy with, let's say, 800 MHz PIII.

I do some programming, some typesetting, edit some sound samples, why should I need more than 1,2 GHz Mac Mini?

Allright, editing half a GB photographs in Photoshop would probably suck on the machine, but that's not "advanced user", thats "professional" in my terms...

Re:Underpowered? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11443298)

Are you thinking of upgrading? Stick a gig of RAM in the mini and you'll be totally fine. I think "professional" is probably what they meant.

Re:Underpowered? (3, Interesting)

FLAGGR (800770) | more than 9 years ago | (#11443300)

I agree. Currently, my main system is a P2 / 266mhz. I spend all my time programming games and stuff, works fine for me. Sure, I could go on one of the family PCs, which are P4's, but this one is in my room and runs fast enough. (Then again, half the stuff I do I have to move to another PC to test it, because either my CPU is too slow or GPU doesnt support some feature) I ordered a mac mini, can't wait (3 weeks till it ships, so says apple) xcode will be awsome.

Re:Underpowered? (2, Informative)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 9 years ago | (#11443652)

I use Motion, possibly Apple's heaviest app in terms of system requirements, on my 15" 1.5Ghz powerbook and it runs quite nicely indeed. Just don't expect full frame, full quality playback of an unrendered multi-layer composite (but then, don't expect this of a Dual G5 either).

As noted, the Mini has similar specs to a Powerbook, although it only has 32Mb of video ram compared to the 64 in my PB. My laptop will also take twice the amount of RAM if you can afford two 1GB SO-DIMM sticks.

I think the Mac Mini is well specced for what it is and will hardly break sweat for the apps that its target audience will be running on there. Garage Band might give it pause for concern if you start getting complex, but freezing the ttracks you're happy with while working on others will fix that.

Re:Underpowered? (1)

allanc (25681) | more than 9 years ago | (#11444120)

Advanced User things I do that would like more processing horsepower:

1. Video editing. Converting video files to MPEG, rendering effects, that sort of thing.
2. Compiling software. More MHz = Faster compile. Doesn't matter much when you're just installing software, but when you're developing software and have to go through several iterations of fiddle-compile-run to get a particular feature to work properly, compile time gets really annoying.

But actually, the main processor-hungry type of activity out there is the one used by the least advanced group of users out there. Video games. The last several upgrades to my Windows machine have been to run various games (Starcraft brought me up to a P166, The Sims brought me to PII, Black & White got me an Athlon XP 1600+, and most recently The Sims 2 and Myst: Uru got me to shell out for a GeForce video card).

All that being said, I'm getting myself a 1.25GHz Mini to use primarily for video editing as soon as I have $724 (getting the 512M, bluetooth, and Superdrive upgrades) to spare.

Re:Underpowered? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11445639)

I'm a Java developer, and I am planning on getting a Mac Mini to use as my primary development environment (using either XCode, Netbeans or Eclipse as an IDE).

It will be quiet (unlike my current noisy PC), and will hopefully provide a cleaner, more stable UI than Windows. I've spent more time fighting Windows than doing work lately.

Compilation can be done on my Linux server, and the appserver can run there too. I doubt I'll need more than a 1.42GHz processor for coding, given that I used a Celeron 466 up until 2 years ago with similar IDEs. They run fine once you disable automatic compilation, and may even run fine with it on the Mac Mini (although I can really live without it).

Re:Underpowered? (1)

harlows_monkeys (106428) | more than 9 years ago | (#11444278)

Underpowered? What does an "average advanced user" do to need more than a one gigahertz processor?

My 1.5 GHz PowerBook gets a bit pokey in iDVD, both in laying out the DVD, and in encoding the video when burning.

I love mine (1, Funny)

caulktel (199194) | more than 9 years ago | (#11443173)

I just love my Mac mini, except I still prefer Firefox over Safari, but other than that it rocks! !.25 gig is plenty of speed for everything that I do . Now when my Apple keyboard arrives Mon. I will be complete once again.

Re:I love mine (1)

allanc (25681) | more than 9 years ago | (#11444134)

You know there's a Firefox port for OSX [mozilla.org] , right?

Re:I love mine (1)

caulktel (199194) | more than 9 years ago | (#11444756)

Yes, that's what I'm using. I just like it better because I can import my bookmarks from other platforms, also even though its slow I like fire ftp . Oh and theres the Noia theme also. Man, do I love this Mac Mini.

iDVD question (1)

ip_vjl (410654) | more than 9 years ago | (#11443370)

I know that in iLife 05, iDVD will install even if you don't have a superdrive. Does anyone know if it works with external DVD drives?

I've got an external firewire Sony DVD+-R/RW drive. If it will work, I could just get the combo-drive model.

I know there was a hack that would allow non superdrive systems to use iDVD, but was wondering if it was now part of the official build of iDVD.

Failing directly buring in iDVD - i believe it now supports creation of disk images. Are these standard disk images that I would be able to burn to the DVD drive outside of iDVD, or are they some sort of "iDVD-only" disk image?

Anyone know?

Re:iDVD question (3, Informative)

phillymjs (234426) | more than 9 years ago | (#11443429)

According to this, [apple.com] you still have to have a Superdrive-equipped computer to burn DVDs directly from iDVD.

According to this, [mac.com] however, the disk images feature would allow you to save your project as a DVD image and then burn the image to a disc with another app.

~Philly

Re:iDVD question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11443721)

PatchBurn can be used to enable DVD burning in iDVD on internal DVD drives that are otherwise not supported, Firewire Burning is sketchy at best.

Re:iDVD question (3, Informative)

sootman (158191) | more than 9 years ago | (#11443829)

this page [mac.com] says that there's a trick to make iDVD 5 create an image, rather than burn a disk. Also, there's a hack out there to do this in iDVD 4. I used it a year ago and it worked fine. made a plain-vanilla .iso or .dmg or .img (I forget which) so no, it shouldn't be some goofy iDVD-only format. I made images one one mac and burned them on another with Toast. I'm posting this from my combo-drive mini but I haven't installed iLife 05 yet. (Ships with '04 and comes with '05 on a DVD.)

Re:iDVD question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11443910)

PatchBurn 3 [patchburn.de] can be used to do this. It can enable burning support in Finder/iTunes for unsupported and firewire drives. It also enables the iDVD Easter Eggs to burn to an unsupported internal drive/export to an image. You can supposedly use it to burn from iDVD to a Firewire DVD-RW but it's a bit sketchy as someone else has said.

Re:iDVD question (-1, Troll)

TheOnlyCoolTim (264997) | more than 9 years ago | (#11444633)

So Apple says you should only be able to burn DVDs with their drive?

It really mystifies me why people think Apple is better on some moral level than Microsoft. At least I don't have to buy a Microsoft CD-R drive to use XP's built in CD burning...

Tim

Re:iDVD question (2, Informative)

admactanium (670209) | more than 9 years ago | (#11444673)

you don't need their drive to burn a dvd, you need their drive to burn a video dvd from idvd. i can burn data dvd's on external drives all day long easily from the mac os x finder. it opens it as an empty volume and i drag and drop files onto it like any other disk. when i eject it asks me if i want to burn the disk.

plus, there are ways to get around the idvd restriction.

Some random benchmarks (2, Interesting)

kompiluj (677438) | more than 9 years ago | (#11443501)

I have lately started thinking about buying MacMini, iBook or a PowerBook. Because I most often use Gentoo GNU/Linux or FreeBSD (but I also use Fedora, SuSE, M$ Windows and Solaris) therefore I have done some benchmarks to compare compile times on some different architectures. My software of choice is PostgreSQL database since it's size is just right (a few minutes of compile time anyway). Ok, here come the benchmarks (the most important is the 'user time' which is how long really the compile took, it discard other factors like filesystem, HDD and system load factors):
# cd /usr/portage/dev-db/postgresql/
# ebuild postgresql-7.3.6-r1.ebuild fetch unpack
# time ebuild postgresql-7.3.6-r1.ebuild compile

PowerPC G4 750FX 800MHz, 512kB cache
real 5m53.398s
user 4m26.985s
sys 0m51.748s

Intel Northwood ("old" pIV) 2.8:
real 2m56.295s
user 2m29.630s
sys 0m26.190s

AMD Athlon 1.5 256kB cache(Sempron 2200+):
real 5m55.046s
user 5m9.700s
sys 0m34.270s

AMD Athlon 1.8 256 kB cache (Sempron 2600+):
real 4m14.234s
user 3m19.729s
sys 0m44.704s
Well, not bad for 0.8 GHz, heh

Re:Some random benchmarks (1)

xil (151104) | more than 9 years ago | (#11443598)

> PowerPC G4 750FX

The PowerPC 750FX is a G3, not a G4. (It's made by IBM; all G4s are made by Motorola.)

Also note that Apple doesn't ship any G3 processors anymore; the low-end in new machines is a G4.

Re:Some random benchmarks (1)

kompiluj (677438) | more than 9 years ago | (#11443648)

Sorry, you are right, it is G3:
$ cat /proc/cpuinfo
processor : 0
cpu : 750FX
temperature : 19-21 C (uncalibrated)
clock : 800MHz
revision : 2.2 (pvr 7000 0202)
bogomips : 1585.15
machine : PowerBook4,3
motherboard : PowerBook4,3 MacRISC2 MacRISC Power Macintosh
detected as : 257 (iBook 2 rev. 2)
pmac flags : 0000000b
L2 cache : 512K unified
memory : 384MB
pmac-generation : NewWorld

Re:Some random benchmarks (1)

Ohreally_factor (593551) | more than 9 years ago | (#11445336)

Well keep in mind that the main difference between the G4 and the G3 is that the G4 has an Alti vec sub processor. If you're mostly going to be running postgre, the alti vec isn't going to buy you anything. I'm sure some of OS X's Aqua display technology leverages alti-vec, but probably not a lot.

What I mean to say is that despite your comparison using a G3 rather than a G4, it's probably not that far off from a G4.

Re:Some random benchmarks (0)

Daleks (226923) | more than 9 years ago | (#11444753)

Compilation of a full application is heavily dependent on I/O. If you're compiling tons of tiny object files and then doing one big link, then most likely the CPU isn't being taxed. Try your benchmarks again while mounting a RAM based file system and compile PostgreSQL from there. The times will probably be vastly reduced, and indicate more about relative CPU performance.

Fan behaviour? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11443757)

I've read lots of reports that under light use the fan is either very quiet or does not run at all. Can anyone who actually has a Mini confirm whether under light load the fan runs at all (and not just "whisper quiet" or "dunno if it's the HD or the fan")? I'd order one immediately if someone can actually confirm that the fan rarely runs (as opposed to running at low speed), just like my iBook.

Re:Fan behaviour? (3, Informative)

caulktel (199194) | more than 9 years ago | (#11444776)

I have been using mine now for about 50 hours without shuting it off, and I have yet to hear any fan at all (its in my bed room) in fact the case of the Mini itself feels cool to the touch and the power brick just slightly warmer.

hard drive question (1)

sootman (158191) | more than 9 years ago | (#11443773)

ATA/100 means 120 GB is the max, right? You need ATA/133 to go over 128 (or 137 or whatever) GB?

Re:hard drive question (1)

Bishop (4500) | more than 9 years ago | (#11444814)

no. ATA/xxx is the IDE interface speed.

Ram $$$ savings (2, Interesting)

rollthelosindice (635783) | more than 9 years ago | (#11444469)

It is so good to see that the end-user can do their own ram installations on the Mac Mini. After all, with one of the main purposes of the machine being cost savings, it would be difficult to achieve with Apple charging $425 for what the other says can be bought for $160 (1GB ram chip).

I have come to the conclusion that I will buying one of these and replacing my lilksys wireless router with it. It's about time I got a legitimate home network setup, and this is a great motivation.

Not really $499 (-1)

9mind (702505) | more than 9 years ago | (#11444792)

The first thing I noticed was lack of an analog monitor connection. This automatically drives up the price for most would be buyers looking to replace their PCs. Most users would rather spend $500 on a new PC and use their existing montior, thna be forced to buy a DVI compliant (read: flat screen) monitor. The people that can afford both... wouldn't they just buy one of the little half-eggshell IMACs with the monitor attached and basically get the same thing?

I myself think the size is great... contemplated buying one... saw that... and was like oh well I'm not going to replace my 21" Trintron flat CRT with a flat panel (I could afford) just to use it... and most new users sans anything thinking they are getting a new computer for $499, only to have a flat-panel pricetag of $250 to $1000 (compared to a CRT from $60 to $200) for a compatible 15" to 19", is going to balk at the price. Sometimes I think Apple just doesn't get it.

Great product, but they missed one key factor, in the crowd they are supposedly going after.... they want ALL AROUND affordable.

Re:Not really $499 (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11444827)

Yeah, it would be nice if you could hook up a VGA monitor. You know, using some sort of adaptor. Like a DVI -> VGA adaptor. It would be really nice if Apple would even throw it in the box!

Oh, wait, they do!

Research first next time.

Great post, but you missed one key factor, in the fact that your premise was entirely flawed.... we want ALL AROUND intelligence.

Re:Not really $499 (5, Informative)

Senjutsu (614542) | more than 9 years ago | (#11444828)

The first thing I noticed was lack of an analog monitor connection. This automatically drives up the price for most would be buyers looking to replace their PCs. Most users would rather spend $500 on a new PC and use their existing montior, thna be forced to buy a DVI compliant (read: flat screen) monitor.

True. That why the Mini comes with a DVI-to-VGA adaptor, genius.

Re:Not really $499 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11444912)

"Connect your USB keyboard and mouse. Then hook up your DVI or VGA display (adapter included)."

Problem solved. Except there never was a problem.

Re:Not really $499 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11444914)

The first thing I noticed was lack of an analog monitor connection.

You couldn't have been looking at a Mac Mini if you didn't notice the analog video output. DVI-I is not a digital only connector, it contains pins for both digital and analog signals. To connect the mini to a VGA monitor all you need is the right cable.

Re:Not really $499 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11445060)

what's next? you're gonna complain about the 1 button mouse (or the fact that they don't bundle it)

Re:Not really $499 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11445548)

It comes with a DVI to VGA converter, so this is a non-issue.

Mod parent "-1, Dumbass" (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11445590)

Adapter in the box, you tool.

Next time, remove head from sphincter before clicking "Submit."
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>