Mac mini to PC Hack 692
DiZASTiX writes "Kevin Rose, the ever so popular host of G4/TechTV's The Screen Savers, has managed to fit a PC inside the Mac mini. 'I've seen a ton of articles around the web lately comparing the Mac mini to the near full size desktop PC. What they fail to compare is the amount of computing power per square inch you get with the Mini. So, I decided to take it upon myself to create the fastest PC possible with the size constraints of the Mini's small form factor.' The article covers most everything he did and includes pictures."
Why do *you* bother? (Score:2, Interesting)
Apparently they never heard of the Cappuccino PC (Score:5, Interesting)
Anyway, this whole article is missing the point. Cheap OS X is good for everybody! I wouldn't buy a PC that small even though there's the option...
Coincidence? (Score:5, Interesting)
I guess Apple decided to give all those nerds that insist on "upgrading" their Macs with a PC mobo a challenge. :) /greger
Celeron != G4 (Score:1, Interesting)
And for sake of argument, even if the the celeron could get itself up 1.4ghz, it would not offer the same actual performance of a G4. This is the age-old argument about the architectures being so different that the clock speeds don't matter, but it cannot be stressed enough. The CISC-based Intel/AMD processors are not as efficient at getting work done as the RISC-based PowerPC processors.
I like the analogy of a person physically moving 1,000 boxes from one side of the house to the other. The CISC person might be able to get from one side to other (and back) in 2 seconds, but each time he does he can only carry a single box with him, so it would take 2,000 seconds to move all boxes. Whereas the RISC person might take 5 seconds to make the same round-trip distance, but each time he can carry 20 boxes, so it takes a total of 250 seconds (5 seconds * 1000 boxes / 20 boxes-per-trip). The numbers I used are not meant to exactly correlate to a Celeron vs. G4, but they convey the right idea - efficiency and speed are not equivalent.
Re:Nah! Let's try something better... (Score:3, Interesting)
You mean "Lisa"?
If Macintoshes were ever called McIntoshes, there's no mention of it here [apple-history.com]. I think you're wrong.
I *love* those amplifiers.
Agreed -- my family used to have one of these (and a preamp) years ago. Wish I could afford one. Until following the (audiophile pornography!) link above (and wasting half an hour drooling and clicking), I had no idea they made speakers too.
"expensive apple" becoming a myth (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm not an Apple zealot. The only thing that has brought me into thinking of buying an ibook is the price. But if you have a better deal, please prove me wrong. I really need an affordable small laptop.
You're on the road to hell, boyo (Score:2, Interesting)
Car analogies rarely work, however... (Score:4, Interesting)
BMW's aren't the fastest cars on the road, but they're still plenty fast. Anyone with some mechanical skill can turbocharge a Dodge Neon or something and end up with more bang-for-the-buck, but it's just not the same.
...now that that analogy is wearing thin, let me address a couple points...
I'd be surprised if we don't see a PC variant with better specs within a few months. -- Me too! Apple always has a bunch of companies rushing to implement a knock-off of it's current design. (I'm not saying that Apple never takes other peoples ideas, I'm simply saying that when they announce something big/cool, other companies copy it in droves. There are too many examples to list, but here's a few: System7, iPod, Titanium PowerBook, etc.)
Other than the SFF community who are they targeting? Are most Mac/PC users going to give up significant amounts of horsepower to save a couple inches of space? -- I don't think the Mac mini is meant to be the fastest, most upgradable machine they have. In fact, I would speculate that most people buying a Mac mini are buying it as a second computer. I think it has 2 target markets, one of which is more important than the others:
The guts of a Mac mini (Score:4, Interesting)
You start to wrap your head around it more easily when you start realizing it's really an iBook without the keyboard and LCD, but the fact it's even smaller than a laptop blows your mind. Trying to put a PC in such a size failed--he couldn't even include the CD drive. The mini really is an entire home computer in a tiny box, but the real trick is that it actually doesn't suck. That's what seperates it from the rest--it's a real, usable computer that takes up less space than my laptop yet doesn't suck.
Re:Celeron != G4 (Score:3, Interesting)
PPC970 (G5) is wide and shallow. Concurrent execution of many instructions, slower, better for branch misprediction.
CISC and RISC don't really have any standout examples any more (from what I know). Both Intel and IBM have hybrid chips that fall strongly into neither category.
Re:Celeron != G4 (Score:3, Interesting)
There's any number of ways performance can be affected. Are you using a codec that's optimized for Altivec but not SSE? Those chips would not demonstrate such a wide performance gap without something slowing the Athlon down.
"The G5 is better however, because of its addressing and memory management (the two areas PC chips were still "winning" in). The only negative is the total GHz for PPC CPUs available is lower."
What exactly is "addressing and memory management"?
G5s have a bus comparable to Pentium 4s, but Athlon64s and Opterons have on-die memory controllers. That gives them significantly better memory performance, particularly better latency. Better than G5s and better than P4s.
Re:You want me because of my .. referral? (Score:3, Interesting)
Although I agree with you, this Kevin Rose chap seems to be actively encouraging [kevinrose.com] exactly those comments.
Pyramid schemes provide benefits to
in inverse proportion to the expontentially growing userbase. There's a finite number of people who will follow you into these things, and only those who get in very early stand a chance of attracting the requisite numbers to receive the pay-off. Plus they've sold their privacy (and their time, when it comes to dealing with the deluge of spam).For these $FREEITEM offers, there are two groups who stand to lose (and therefore underpin the entire scheme):
Mac Mini PC (Score:3, Interesting)
On another note, about building one of these with high end graphics.... People get so focused on off the shelf cards they forget about a whole nother breed of integrated chips.... for laptops..
While I highly doubt the mini-itx standard will suffice in powering an x86 counterpart to the mac mini, a custom designed board with perhaps a radeon mobility 9700 or 9800 chipset would run most of the games Lan partiers play at playable framerates.
To acheive this type of miniaturization with the level of performace as Apple has done, it will NEED a company willing to custom design a laptop board varient to fit a case, that supports such mobile chipsets. Perhaps even the ability to upgrade the mobile graphics card via a slot in the bottom of the unit.
A dothan and a high end mobility graphics card would prove to be a nice little LAN party animal. but then the issue of $$$ comes into play a PC system outperforming the mini for $499 or less??? I highly doubt it.
Apple Mini - 1
PC mini - 0 & Currently TKO'd
Re:Celeron != G4 (Score:1, Interesting)
I think you should:
1. Pick a CD at random
2. Rip it into one large WAV file
3. Encode it using LAME on both platforms.
4. Repeat with iTunes on both platforms.
5. Provide the results.
In both cases we'll compare identical encoders, and not LAME x86 vs. iTunes G4. This is to prevent problems stemming from LAME being the highest-quality MP3 encoder, and iTunes being a POS.
Btw, clock-per-clock the Athlon64 is better than the G5. And the Pentium 4 is much better at divx encoding than the AthlonXP.
Re:Who said you can't upgrade a Mac? (Score:1, Interesting)