Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Intel Flaunts Mac mini Knock-off

Posted by Zonk on Thu Mar 03, 2005 09:23 AM
from the when-you've-got-it dept.
Rollie Hawk writes "Remember how the Mac mini was designed by Apple to steal PC customers? Now Intel wants to steal them back. Adopting a shockingly similar lunch box shape and light-weight design, Intel's upcoming Mini PC features all the sleekness and portability (physical, that is) of the Mac mini with none of the Mac benefits. Well, at least it will probably have a faster processor. Now if only someone would make a Cobalt Qube knock-off for me."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by oftheapes (837835) on Thursday March 03 2005, @09:25AM (#11833385)
    It's good to see innovation coming from Intel.

    Now I remember why I buy AMD.

  • it's an empty case (Score:5, Informative)

    by way2trivial (601132) on Thursday March 03 2005, @09:25AM (#11833398) Homepage Journal
    built soley for show..

    they haven't done anything but stick a clock on the face of an empty stylish plastic box yet.

    apple is shipping....

    • by JHromadka (88188) on Thursday March 03 2005, @09:34AM (#11833500) Homepage
      Has the PC industry really gotten that bad so that they don't do anything but copy Apple? First eMachines copies the iMac, now Intel is trying to show that PCs can be mini too. I know it's a mockup, but do something original instead of copying the color of the mini.

      Why is it so hard to make a decent-looking case that doesn't look like someone riced it up with stupid lights or clear plastic? I just ordered the parts to build a PC, and the hardest part was finding a case that didn't look like crap. I wasn't successful.

      • by ghoti (60903) on Thursday March 03 2005, @09:42AM (#11833611) Homepage

        I just ordered the parts to build a PC, and the hardest part was finding a case that didn't look like crap. I wasn't successful.

        This is really interesting. Since I've seen (and eventually bought ;) an Apple Powerbook, all those black plastic PC laptops make me want to puke. They just look like total crap. And even when companies like Samsung try to copy the Apple look, the results look ugly.
        Same with desktops. Why can't somebody come up with a decent design? And why are the Apple guys able to just get it right? And not just once, but most of their stuff looks really amazing. It's not like there aren't any designers out there ...
        • by emilymildew (646109) on Thursday March 03 2005, @09:45AM (#11833638) Homepage
          Mention that the next time someone talks about how outrageously expensive Macs are. Design costs money. Designers cost money.
          • by jfengel (409917) on Thursday March 03 2005, @10:47AM (#11834381) Homepage Journal
            How much does design cost? Pulling a few numbers out of my ass, let's say that this took a team of 20 people to design, test, fabricate, etc. this design. Let's say it took them a year, at $100k. (Engineers make more, secretaries make less). That's two million bucks.

            According to some news sources, Apple plans to sell around a million of the things. The cost of the design comes out to two bucks a unit.

            Supposing I'm off by an order of magnitude, we're still talking about $20 per unit paid to the designers. So I really don't think that it's the design driving the price of the units.

            I think that the price of Apple computers is generally driven by basic economics: how much are people willing to pay for them? If that number is greater than the cost to manufacture (including the $2 to $20 for the fancy design), then they do it; otherwise, they don't. The manufacturing cost only sets a lower limit on the price, but it doesn't set it.

            People are willing to pay more for Apples, because they like the design and reliability. Some of that comes from spending more on designers; some comes from more expensive components (Apple for years insisted on using pricey SCSI before finally joining the rest of the world in IDE, for example).

            A lot of it comes from the price of alternatives; Apple almost certainly looks at the price of a Dell marketed to the same audience and adds 20% or so. People are willing to pay a premium because they're getting a better piece of equipment. Apple has a tendency to tell people that they want a better computer than the one Dell is marketing to them.

            Dell will happily sell you the cheapest machine they think you'll buy; Apple would rather sell you a computer that would make you happy. That gives them only a portion of the market, but it's a very cheerful market segment.

            Design is the reason they can charge more, but it's not to pay the designers. Designers are cheap compared to the rest of the process. There might be some room for a competitor to Dell to arise with the same philosophy in the Wintel platform, but they'll be stuck with the same small market share Apple gets from seeking the high end, and they'll still be stuck with Windows as the OS, which will limit how much users like the product no matter how spiffy the physical design.
            • by emilymildew (646109) on Thursday March 03 2005, @11:13AM (#11834704) Homepage
              You're right, I was trying to make the argument as simplistic as possible by saying that it was to pay the designers.

              Obviously I failed.
            • by lpret (570480) <lpret42.hotmail@com> on Thursday March 03 2005, @11:29AM (#11834901) Homepage Journal
              It's not just the cost of design, it's the materials used. Dell used run-of-the-mill plastic that is ubiquitous and easy to get a hold of while Apple uses metals and specific fans, etc. This all comes together to make it a very different price.
            • Salaries (Score:5, Interesting)

              by simpl3x (238301) on Thursday March 03 2005, @11:57AM (#11835194)
              Ives likely makes more like three to five hundred thousand a year. He drives a Bentley...

              But custom as opposed to commodity parts cost quite a bit of coin. Of course, not the amount that would make up for a large cost diference, perhaps fifty bucks per. I remember going to the plant that produced the NeXT cube and well as Linn tonearms, and the mold was pretty amazing. The final piece also required custom finishing, as molds have seams, and Steve wanted a seamless design. The stuff is more costly than you think. Which is exactly why so few companies invest in the processes, people, and long term commitments to producing excellent design.
          • by Refrag (145266) on Thursday March 03 2005, @11:21AM (#11834786) Homepage
            Do you find the $999 iBook [apple.com] outrageously expensive? Most people find it gorgeous, but not expensive.
            • by emilymildew (646109) on Thursday March 03 2005, @09:58AM (#11833791) Homepage
              I don't have one. I'm saying that people here and elsewhere complain a lot about how expensive Macs are but nobody seems to take into account that there were some pretty high up designers that made all this pretty machinery and someone has to pay THEM for their work.

              I never said that *I* think Macs are too expensive. I think you get exactly what you pay for - a superior machine both in design and execution.
              • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 03 2005, @10:03AM (#11833854)
                Equivalent in what way? A PC is more than its processor speed.

                I think you'd have to also consider usability, security, size, noise, longevity, style, included software, included hardware ...

                Macs usually lose on the included hardware aspect, whilst winning on everything else. However most people seem to judge a computer solely by the included hardware, and those people are fucking retards because of it.
              • by reachinmark (536719) on Thursday March 03 2005, @10:12AM (#11833946) Homepage
                Right - buy a Mac Mini for 500 bucks and you get XCode included for free. Buy a PC and you have to shell out a thousand more just for a copy of Microsoft Visual Studio. That makes a Mac FAR cheaper for me, as a C++ developer.
                    • by Theaetetus (590071) <danrose@@@gmail...com> on Thursday March 03 2005, @12:19PM (#11835422) Homepage Journal
                      Game. Set. Match. World... Next.

                      And here's why normal people don't claim a win after the first basket:

                      You spec'd out XP Home, an intentionally limited "discount" and "lite" version of the OS. So, let's just replace that with the real version of the OS: XP Pro, $153.95 from New Egg. $60 more, and you've already lost, 'cause you're over $500 now.

                      But, I'll continue.

                      Good find on the CD-RW drive. Now, what do you do when you want to play a DVD?
                      Right, the Mac Mini comes with a combo drive. The cheapest one on New Egg (a Rosewill? Who the hell are they?) is $31, so add another 8 dollars.

                      Nice giant case, too. Look at the comments in the reviews on New Egg - they say it would be nice if it could be quieter... and that's with the 1 fan in the side. You really think that one fan, plus the one on the power supply, is gonna keep that AMD 64 cool? So, toss in $20 for some more fans, plus another $20-50 for sound dampeners, fan controllers, etc. to try to get it down to the 22 dBA of the Mac Mini. And then fail to do so.

                      So, now that you've got all that, what are you going to run on this system of yours? Notepad? Solitare?
                      So, add in a copy of Office to compete with Appleworks ($250), a copy of Acid to compete with Garageband ($100), a licensed copy of Acrobat Distiller so that you can create PDFs (it's built in on the Mac), a copy of Adobe Premiere Express to compete with iMovie ($200), a copy of something that can handle full-screen video conferencing (any ideas?), plus a copy of Quicken for your taxes ($30). Oh, and 'cause you're running a Windows box, don't forget the Anti-virus software ($20).

                      So, for over $1000, you've got a box that's 10 times larger, 10 times noisier, has discount components (that combo drive) with questionable lifespans, and yes, has a 64-bit processor in it.

                      Now you just have to wait for a 64-bit version of Windows.

                      -T

          • by ghoti (60903) on Thursday March 03 2005, @10:05AM (#11833880) Homepage
            I hate to say it, but perhaps being the perfect geek isn't everybody's ultimate goal in life.
            Maybe I'm just getting old, but I start valueing good design and thought put into things. I also value the fact that my computers now are almost perfectly silent - I don't want to sit next to an open case with whirring harddisks and fans anymore. A silent and well-designed computer serves me much better than one that has 100 times the power - that I'm not using anyway.
      • by rjung2k (576317) on Thursday March 03 2005, @10:21AM (#11834070) Homepage
        Has the PC industry really gotten that bad so that they don't do anything but copy Apple?

        As any Apple-watcher will tell you, this has been SOP with the Wintel world for decades now.

        The only thing dumber than the folks surprised at Intel's shameless copycat effort are the ones who mistake that empty plastic box for a fully-functional, shipping, ready-to-go-on-your-desk computer. [apple.com]
    • Corrected article follows:

      Intel Flaunts Empty Plastic Case

      In a stunning show of shamelessness in the face of a total lack of innovation, Intel today unveiled to a gaggle of gullible corporate lackeys and ass-kissing note-takers their newest product: an empty plastic box. An Intel spokesperson said they hope that some day, someone will build a computer to put in the box. At that point, they hope to load it down with the deeply flawed and customer-hostile Microsoft Windows operating system, thereby releasing misery from the confines of dens and offices and into family rooms worldwide.

      • by johnpaul191 (240105) on Thursday March 03 2005, @09:45AM (#11833645) Homepage
        the current mini ITX board will not fit inside the Mac Mini's case if you are trying to get the same footprint.... remember when Kevin Rose from TechTV tried to put a windows running thing in the Mac Mini case? he used a pre-release nano-ITX mobo.
        This intel mockup is an empty plastic box with a wristwatch glued to the front. while Kevin could not fit in an optical drive, he got a lot farther than Intel did.
        on top of that the Mac Mini has some extra room and an unused internal firewire connection that this week sparked speculation of possible future revision, or that the rumored built in iPod dock was in the plans at some point.

        http://www.kevinrose.com/index.php/weblog/comments /project_mini_pc/ [kevinrose.com]
        • by Altus (1034) on Thursday March 03 2005, @10:29AM (#11834152) Homepage


          dont a lot of the mac desktops have internal firewire ports? Im pretty sure the G4 towers did although I am not sure about the G5. I wonder how much the presence of one really indicates that they intended to use it for an iPod doc.

          you do have to wonder why they would put one in the mini though. there is no hope of adding an internal firewire device.

  • Not "Upcoming"! (Score:5, Informative)

    by Some guy named Chris (9720) * on Thursday March 03 2005, @09:26AM (#11833409) Journal

    From the second paragraph of the article: " It's unlikely that Intel itself would build such a device."

    Then, the article clearly goes on to say that this is a empty plastic shell, designed merely to inspire Intel's partners, not an example of any upcoming Intel product. I guess that doesn't sound as exciting and inflamatory, though.

    • by artemis67 (93453) on Thursday March 03 2005, @09:51AM (#11833708) Homepage
      is that the maketing position for the Mac Mini is to convert Windows iPod users who are sold on the Apple brand but think even the iMacs are too expensive.

      Who, exactly, is the target market for the x86 Mini? PC's are already dirt cheap, and we know that shrinking down the form factor like that will only raise the price over existing desktop PC's. They aren't going to convert Mac users, because Mac users a) don't buy on price alone, and b) already have a Mac option in that category, so they will buy the Mac Mini.

      Logically, for Intel to compete against the Mac Mini, they need to develop an iPod killer, not another desktop system.
  • I'm going to switch (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SamSeaborn (724276) on Thursday March 03 2005, @09:27AM (#11833414)
    I'm a long-time PC user that's finally had enough. I'm switching to a Mac mini, but I'm waiting for the next hardware update (probably in August, I'm guessing?) and for Tiger to be released.

    Sam

      • by amichalo (132545) on Thursday March 03 2005, @10:30AM (#11834165)
        I think that much of your issue with OS X is simply understand a new paradigm for using an OS.

        A few comments make me think you have missed the point:
        Finder is like "Explorer" for Windows - it allows you to navigate a file system, go in and out of folders, etc.
        "Docking Station" (the Dock) is NOT like the Start menu in windows and NOT like the task bar ar the bottom either. It is a place where you can put applications you often run, so they are easily accessed, as well as applications that are running, to easily switch between, as well as open or closed documents you may be working on and even file folders and finally, the trash can. That's why they call it the Dock, you can just "dock" things there.

        Another issue I think is confounding things is that to install an application in OS X, 9 times out of 10, you just copy one file from the CD to the hard drive. It can live in just about any directory and when you click it, it launches. This is WAY different than windows, but very nice because you don't end up with dozens of files everywhere for a single program (makes uninstalling clean too!) But I digress - you may find it helpful to drag your "Applications" folder to the dock (right side of the divider bar, near the trash can is where documents and folders go). When you want to launch an application, simply hold down your mouse click on that folder for about a second and the contents will pop up, allowing you to launch an application from there.

        As for the keyboard shortcut things, I am surprised how much you feel they are necessary. I don't believe, but admit I could be wrong, there is anything that cannot be done with just the mouse that can with a keyboard shortcut.

        I have two recommendations - if you are really worried about the way the OS works, go to a local Apple store or even CompUSA/other Apple retailer and ASK SOMEONE TO SHOW YOU AROUND IT. Yeah, it is a different experience, but I argue it would be easier to learn than Windows, had someone no experience with either OS. SECONDLY, there are great books at Amazon/etc for switching to OS X from XP. Here [amazon.com] is just one.
      • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 03 2005, @12:35PM (#11835601)
        I'm a life-long Windows (since v. 1) user that switched to an iMac recently (Feb). I can tell you right now that I'm sold, and not going back to the PC!

        To me, your rant sounds like you were looking for an imitation of Windows on the Mac.

        The reason I like the Mac so much is because they did _not_ imitate Windows! Instead, they designed the OS from (almost) the ground and created something that was created with usability in mind, instead of creating something that need to be backwards compatible with MS-DOS.

        For the past four weeks, I haven't booted in Windows once at home, and I now find Windows a pain to use at work.

        My $0.02
        • by dont_think_twice (731805) on Thursday March 03 2005, @11:43AM (#11835060) Homepage
          I'm too stupid to figure out how to use a Mac, therefore I don't think anyone else should switch.

          Translation:

          I'm a dick who insults the intelligence of anyone who "thinks different" than I do.

          I use linux, but I have seriously been considering buying a Mac for a while. At least, I was considering it until I actually tried using one. I used it for a whole summer, and learned to hate it. Nothing worked like I expected.

          I have no problems with Macs in general. I still might buy a MiniMac as a "family room" computer. But there is no way that I could use one as my personal computer. They are designed for a different type of computer user than me.

          So why do you insist that someone is a idiot because they don't like the OSX interface? Do you seriously believe that every intelligent person has the exact same view you do about it?
  • by MooseByte (751829) on Thursday March 03 2005, @09:28AM (#11833431)

    Intel can make whatever shaped/sized box they want, but it's still going to ship with Windows for Joe Consumer. A box that can get easily 0wned is what people are growing weary of. Mac Mini targets those folks as well as iPod users (not necessarily separate groups there). This knock-off once again misses the point.

    What makes this interesting is how well it runs Linux. Otherwise.... pfffft!
  • by hydroxy (863799) on Thursday March 03 2005, @09:28AM (#11833436)
    They always seem to want to copy what Apple does... but they muck it up and end up going nowhere with it. I would think that they would have learned after everyone and their mother tried to copy the iMac with no success.
  • Uh... (Score:5, Funny)

    by NardofDoom (821951) on Thursday March 03 2005, @09:29AM (#11833441)
    Thus far, the concept PC is just a piece of plastic, literally, although its design showed a clock display and optical drive in front, with ports such as USB, optical audio and FireWire in the back.

    Way to go there, Intel. Suprisingly, it's about as functional as any XP machine once it's been let onto the Internet(s).

  • pathetic attempt (Score:5, Insightful)

    by PureCreditor (300490) on Thursday March 03 2005, @09:30AM (#11833465)
    If Intel is truly the industrial leader (true)and innovator (questionable), then they should come up with a radically different concept PC to compete with Mac mini, and yet can target the same audience. Having a carbon-copy of Mac mini is the same as saying :

    their design is superior, the only thing special about ours....we use a x86 cpu!!

    Reminds me of Creative Zen looking awfully similar to the iPod mini, but much uglier colors.
    • by xsupergr0verx (758121) on Thursday March 03 2005, @09:55AM (#11833759)
      That's silly. You act as if Apple did some real groundbreaking work for mass marketing the next logical step (which has already existed.)

      Two months ago, you had your choice of hundreds of different mini itx systems. Now everybody thinks the Mac Mini is a new idea, and that anybody making a small computer is a copycat.

      I see the same thing happen when talking about the iPod as well. A hard drive in a portable music player was an evolutionary idea (notice the E at the beginning), and the logical next step. Hard drive players existed before first gen iPods shipped, but Apple's image as being different and hip advertised their product as if it was the only hard drive mp3 player you could buy.

      I like Apple products, and they make quality hardware, but the examples you used were not revolutionary. They were next step, no surprises, and not even Apple's idea.
      • by mrtrumbe (412155) on Thursday March 03 2005, @10:19AM (#11834045) Homepage
        I've already posted a comment very similar to this, but here goes anyway...

        Look past the components and look at the design. You are absolutely right that Apple didn't invent the idea of a hard-drive in a portable music player. But you are absolutely wrong if you think the iPod wasn't revolutionary. Look at the form of the iPod. Look at how small, sleek and pretty it is. Now consider its user interface. Take in the simplicity of its menu system, its scrollwheel and button layout and overall ease of use. Now consider how easily and effectively it interfaces with iTunes, how trivial it is to create playlists and fille your iPod with music.

        Now compare that experience (that of the revision 1 iPod) with the hard drive players available at the time. Is there a difference? Is that difference major? I think so.

        I've given an iPod to people utterly unfamiliar with gadgetry of any kind and they were up and using the iPod in under a minute (after they got over how cool it looked). THAT is the Apple difference and why they sell products. They lead in a way that is foreign to many PC users: design.

        Taft

  • by qwertphobia (825473) on Thursday March 03 2005, @09:38AM (#11833553)
    Let me see if I have this right...

    Apple creates something beautiful again, and everybody says "Wow, it's perfect, but it's an Apple".

    Then within a few months {"Intel", "Dell", "Microsoft", "Compaq"} tells the rest of the world "it's alright, go ahead and start copying Apple".

    So everybody does, and tells {"Intel", "Dell", "Microsoft", "Compaq"} how great they are.

    again.
  • by KajiCo (463552) on Thursday March 03 2005, @09:38AM (#11833556)
    The whole poing of the Mac Mini is that it's a small affordable system that comes preinstalled with; an OS, a Photo Editor, Movie Editor, Music Player, DVD/VCD designer, and Music Composition software. Additionally most Macs comes pre-installed with Apple Works and World Book Encyclopedia.

    Not to mention the splendor of no Adware or a major risk of viruses.
  • by ehack (115197) on Thursday March 03 2005, @09:40AM (#11833586) Journal
    So far, Intel has enforced market segmentation: You could get a laptop *or* a space-heater. This model is an indication that laptop processors will now be allowed to trickle into the general market. Ipod sized servers and child-pizza sized desktop comps are well within Intel's ability - just look at the size of the "computer" in your laptop.

    Microsoft will doubtless resist the move: if it's not a "PC" then clients might not want "Windows", that clunky 19th century command center for a steam-powered computing box. Dell etc will also resist, because clients might get into the nasty habit of upgrading their CPUs only; even worse, some might dump laptops in favor of just taking their company "mini desktop" home in the backpack.

    Summary - the Mac mini has broken Apple's hi-price policy, but it has also broken many of the unwritten laws of the PC cartel. Clearly, a form factor who's time has come !
  • by kajoob (62237) on Thursday March 03 2005, @09:40AM (#11833588)
    I was a Dos/Windows (then to some extent Linux) user my entire life. I now am the proud owner of a Mac Mini. I haven't booted into windows once since I got it. I got sick of all the viruses/spyware/malware in windows and the fact that , althought windows gets the job done, it's not enjoyable to use.

    I would have NEVER bought a mac had they not released the mini because I was not about to pay a premium for hardware when I don't do any graphic design work or play many games. So all these companies that are trying to release a Mac Mini killer are barking up the wrong tree when they just release a traditional pc with a small footprint. It's the operating system, stupid! I don't have an answer for them because I just don't think linux is ready for prime time yet, but I am evidence that people are ready for an alternative, but it has nothing to do with the fact that our computers are too big now. If apple had released a $499 machine that was the size of a G5 tower, I would have bought that as well.

  • by 10Ghz (453478) on Thursday March 03 2005, @09:45AM (#11833637)
    ...Mini Me Too?
  • Why is no one talking about this part of the article:

    At the same time that Intel is looking to push computermakers on the design front, it is also working to improve the quality of such devices. It is also working to ensure that content can be secured to the satisfaction of Hollywood studios, which will decide whether or not to make their movies available on such machines.

    MacDonald brought Microsoft eHome executive Joe Belfiore on stage to talk about collaborations between the two companies. He spoke about an effort to make sure Microsoft's digital-rights management technology is compatible with Intel's push for standards to enable content to move among home devices easily while still being protected from widespread distribution.

    A Disney executive also spoke about the potential for bringing its Moviebeam service to PCs. The service, which offers more than 100 movies on demand, currently works only with set-top boxes.


    That seems to be more disturbing than Intel trying to get manufacturers to compete with a mini-esque PC.
  • by standards (461431) on Thursday March 03 2005, @09:47AM (#11833660)
    Sadly, it does seem to me that Apple is the only one out there that innovates and inspires.

    At one time, Compaq, Dell, and even Microsoft could be expected to innovate. Just look at the original Armada. Visual Basic 3.0. the Pre-inspiron laptops. Ya, they weren't the best products ever, but they were very innovative, industry-changing ideas at the time.

    Now they're just a slow evolution of an old idea. For people who don't like the press that Apple gets, and would like to see others garner some press time - well, what the hell has ANYONE in the industry done in the past 5 years?

    Intel does not need to inspire the industry with a Mac clone. The industry has seen it - and is merely betting that people won't switch.

    That's a good bet, but it shows me how much the PC industry has totally lost it's spark of innovation, despite loads of inspiration from a non-competitor.
  • The Aztec (Score:5, Informative)

    by justforaday (560408) on Thursday March 03 2005, @09:57AM (#11833781)
    This is exactly the same as when Intel unveiled the Aztec prototypes [theapplecollection.com] right after the introduction of the original iMac...
  • That was NOT Intels new "mini" computer, only the new heatsink required for the next generation of Intel processors.
  • Intersting (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SWTP_OS9 (658064) on Thursday March 03 2005, @10:16AM (#11833995)
    1) Imitation the sencerest form of flattery.

    2) Its not the power brick, powering this unit. But the cooling tower you also need to hang off of it! With the earplugs included in the box!

    3) Intel been doing this "odd shape case thing" for years and no one has coppied them yet. Remember the Aztec pyrimid? Uggly shape and colors.

    4) But Microsoft want to go to the "Teddybear" form factor case!
    http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=5459 78&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312/ [go.com]

    5) The "low heat" and also "low power" micro/Pico-ITX form factor MB are not made by Intel but are being driven by VIA CPU's and chipset!

    6) And is this from the same Intel that was hyping so much bleeding edge stuff, over the last few years. That after X months usually said we can't do it?
  • by guidryp (702488) on Thursday March 03 2005, @10:43AM (#11834334)
    A plastic box the size of the Mini to inspire partners. Heck it is not even a prototype, just a plastic mock up.

    Intel would be a lot more inspirational if they showed up with a circuit board prototype for a small form factor that comes in with a reasonable dollar cost and heat envelope.

    A hunk of plastic when intel doesn't really offer a solution that fits in the plastic seems kind of pointless. Does intel offer any explanation of What processor/chipset would power their partners? A prescot would melt anything that size unless that was the heatsink.

    Only really leaves Dothan solutions, which intel doesn't really sanction or price for desktop usage.

    The only PC form factors close to this are micro-itx (non intel but shipping/working) and nano-itx (also non intel and maybe non shipping).

    Maybe Intel is inspiring it's partners to think about using Via Epia solutions.

    • Re:Jeebus (Score:5, Insightful)

      by LarsWestergren (9033) on Thursday March 03 2005, @09:51AM (#11833713) Homepage Journal
      What the hell is happening to the PC industry? It used to be all about making better faster machines with more features and now the trend is to make smaller machines with less features?????

      What happened was that people got fed up with big ugly boxes that used a lot of power to make a lot of noise and heat. Especially since few people apart from gamers need the processing power of new machines. Being small, unobtrusive, less energy hungry, cool and quiet are also features you know, stuff that a lot of people are obviously willing to pay for. Hardly marketing spin.
    • Re:Jeebus (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Dirk Pitt (90561) on Thursday March 03 2005, @09:51AM (#11833719) Homepage
      used to be all about making better faster machines with more features

      Maybe it's shifting towards adequetly powered machines with features that actually work all of the time.

      computer is a tool, not a toy, when did we see a shift from functionality to marketing spin?

      As soon as Joe Consumer wanted one in the living room instead of just the home office. Why is this a bad thing? Miniaturization will just increase the pervasiveness of computer hardware in general. There *needs* to be a paradigm shift in the PC industry. These things need to go from tempremental monsters that need more attention than my two year old, to appliances on par with my Tivo. To an extent, Mac is successfully in this transition state already. (no - I'm no fanboy, don't even own one, but I think they're well made)

    • Re:Jeebus (Score:5, Insightful)

      by LWATCDR (28044) on Thursday March 03 2005, @10:27AM (#11834131) Homepage Journal
      "A computer is a tool, not a toy, when did we see a shift from functionality to marketing spin?"

      Actually this is a shift to functionality. The Mac Mini comes with everything the average person needs. FireWire for dumping video and hooking up your iPod. Ethernet for networking. A good but not great video card. USB for hooking up mice, keyboards, scanners, memory drives and game controllers. You can add an airport to the Mini as an option. The only thing I see missing from the Mac Mini is a video in.
      As a tool these new computers are complete and simple. They are more functional for most people.
      You see I have been in computers a long time. I can remeber when you had many players in the market each one very different. Back in the 8 bit days you had Commodore. Atari, Tandy, Ti, Apple, and Sinclair. Each had it's own OS if you want to call it an OS. You had many different types of CPUs z80, 6502, 6809, and the TI chip. Even fast forward to the late 80s and you had Amiga, Atari ST, and Mac pushing to innovate. The PC you have now SUCKED compared to the Amiga, Atari ST, and Mac. The PC only won because of marketing spin. Look at a PC from 85 and look at the Amiga. The Amiga was cheaper, had better graphics, stereo sound, would multi task, could have a hard drive partition bigger then 33 megs and access more than 640k of ram with out doing all sorts of strangeness. A pc at the time was a 286 running at maybe 16 mhz and ran DOS 3.3, maybe windows 1 but no one really used that. The idea that PC industry has gone from technically driven to marketing drive just now is very very funny. It has been all marketing for the last 20+years.

    • by 2nd Post! (213333) <gundbear.pacbell@net> on Thursday March 03 2005, @09:54AM (#11833733) Homepage
      Because the Mac mini shipped. It's why Doom 3 shipping is news, while the milestone of Duke Nukem Forever is not.

      Mini ITX boards have been around for years; Mac minis are 1/3 the volume and 1/2 the size. Nano ITX has been announced many months before the Mac mini, but hasn't shipped yet, while the mini has. Even still, when someone took a prototype nano-itx board and tried to fit it into a Mac mini, it was discovered it didn't fit; they hat to saw down the heatsink AND they had to remove the optical drive, so the Mac mini is STILL smaller than nano-itx.

      There's nothing revolutionary about the mini, other than it's size AND price; the only similar PC is the Cappuccino PCs, which are slightly smaller, but nearly twice as expensive. Even Shuttle based boxes, which can hold almost 3 Mac minis inside them, cost more.
    • by cowscows (103644) on Thursday March 03 2005, @09:55AM (#11833744) Journal
      The mac mini qualifies as news less for its form factor and more for its price. An actual Apple computer for $500? Scandalous. It's certainly applicable to slashdot, where for years people have been talking about how they're fascinated by OSX, they respect the general quality of Apple's hardware, they just couldn't justify the high prices for a machine to play around on.

      All of a sudden, an entry level Mac is now truly entry level on price. And a lot of people have said that price was the biggest thing that PC's had over Macs.

      The empty box from intel is interesting just because it's so obviously inspired (copied) from Apple. It really looks like they just painted over the apple logo, put a couple lines across it, and glued a little digital clock to it. It's amusing for the same reason that the early imac knockoffs were. There's hundreds of ways to make an all-in-one machine, and using curvy, translucent, brightly colored plastic isn't the most obvious one. I'm all for sharing and the progression of knowledge, but there's a difference between building upon what came before, and just throwing out a me-too product.
    • by 10Ghz (453478) on Thursday March 03 2005, @10:00AM (#11833819)
      Nano-ITX, while relatively new, was announced many months before the Mac Mini or this empty box from Intel.


      Yep, it was "announced", but it's still not available! have you seen one for sale? Anywhere? Not to mention that their performance sucks when compared to Mac Mini. And their price is more or less the same as the Mini. And you can't run OS X on one ;). I'm no Mac-fanboy, but I would like to try out OS X. The Mini suits me perfectly. While I could almost get the same size with Mini-ITX, with comparable price (but not the performance), I couldn't run OS X on it.

      The Mini is interesting and newsworthy because it does the same thing Mini-ITX and the like do, only better. And because it's the cheapest Mac there is.