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."
Nah! Let's try something better... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Nah! Let's try something better... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Nah! Let's try something better... (Score:3, Funny)
Why would you put a home stereo system [mcintoshlabs.com] in a PC case?
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.
Re:Nah! Let's try something better... (Score:5, Informative)
The Lisa was a completely seperate thing, but a lot of ideas did get shared between the two groups.
Re:Nah! Let's try something better... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Nah! Let's try something better... (Score:3, Informative)
Second, it would have been McIntosh, but Jef Raskin changed the spelling to avoid a trademark issue with the McIntosh stereo people. It didn't work (because how words sound is more important than how they're spelled for trademark purposes), and they had to come to an agreement.
Re:Nah! Let's try something better... (Score:3, Funny)
news-o-matic (Score:5, Funny)
Cramming a PC into a Shell not hacking. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Cramming a PC into a Shell not hacking. (Score:4, Funny)
Why bother? (Score:5, Funny)
Why do *you* bother? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Why do *you* bother? (Score:2)
Re:Why do *you* bother? (Score:2)
Size matters (Score:5, Funny)
That's what I keep trying to tell her. But it's all about size, size, size...
faster?!? (Score:5, Informative)
I have an Epia system; to me it feels pretty anemic for its clock speed in comparison to say a PII or better.
Re:faster?!? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:faster?!? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:faster?!? (Score:3, Informative)
I dunno. I just saw the thing in person today for the first time. It's small, and its internal space would be about the same as a small notebook (not a subnotebook, as they usually rely on external CD-ROMs). And the smaller notebooks have not been speed demons, even in raw MHz.
Certainly none of the desktop-replacement Wintel laptops I've seen have that little volume--they're gargantuan. In fact, the only thing that would equal it is, well,
Re:faster?!? (Score:2)
The VIA unichrome video chipset using shared memory is a poor substitute for a Radeon 9200 with dedicated memory.
Re:faster?!? (Score:3, Insightful)
So.. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:So.. (Score:5, Funny)
I wonder.... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:So.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:So.. (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not so sure... after the Mini was announced, I looked at a bunch of professionally designed small-sized PCs people referenced as Mac Mini alternatives (cappuccino whatever, that sort of thing), and they were all pretty sucky compared to the M.M.
Naturally they all looked pretty dorky -- you don't expect random Taiwan PC houses to compete with Apple on that front -- but they were also all rather lacking in features as well: all had slow CPUs (much slower than a 1.25GHz PPC), bad graphics, etc.
I'd say these sort of comparisons, though they generally seemed intended to demonstrate that the M.M. is "just pretty", usually end up doing just the opposite, and confirm how good the M.M. really is (and I'm no Apple apologist -- I've never owned a Mac, or even used one very often). It's not the fastest computer out there in absolute terms, but given its design constraints, it's a bang-up job.
Maybe it's possible to cram a similar feature-set using PC standards into similar-sized case, but it doesn't look anywhere near as trivial as many people seem to think. I think Apple has genuinely upped the ante -- hopefully competition from the M.M. will pressure other tiny-PC makers into improving their rather anemic existing products.
Bravo, Apple.
Re:So.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Thank God all other consumer products in our society are designed for the best possible efficiency and functionality, completely absent considerations of form or style
At least Apple, minus a few Flower Power iMacs, makes classy stuff. Your vaunted PC makers are the ones grafting 10 pound pieces of neon plastic to their boxes and calling it style.
Summary (Score:4, Insightful)
You should not only fit a CD-ROM, but actually a DVD-RW combo. In other words, you have failed to fit a PC in Mac Mini, so comparing its speed or price is quite pointless. I hate to say it as a PC user, but the result of this experiment is clear: Mac: 1, PC: 0.
Naaah. (Score:3, Funny)
Nonsense. Give Dell or HP a little time and motivation, and I'm sure they could pull it off. Hell, maybe IBM has a patent rotting in a drawer somewhere to help this kind of thing.
The result of this experiment is more like:
Lame tinkerers with way too much time: 0
Everyone else: 1
Re:Naaah. (Score:5, Insightful)
You've got to be kidding. IBM just sold its PC hardware division. Dell doesn't make motherboards, they just put things together - and there aren't ANY shipping motherboards that fit into a Mac mini case...the only one found in this article was a pre-release unit, and even with that one, there was no room for a CD-ROM drive of any type.
I'm sure there will eventually be an equivalent PC this size, but the fact is that it's impossible with any existing technology, and Apple has a huge head start. It will be at least a year before PCs catch up in this particular niche market, and Apple will continue to innovate...
sounds right to me (Score:4, Insightful)
The devil's work (Score:5, Funny)
I have to admit, it has a kind of black symmetry to it.
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...
Re:Apparently they never heard of the Cappuccino P (Score:3, Informative)
But, yes, you're right - the point of the mini is to get a nice reasonably powerful box that takes up no space, costs very little and runs OS X.
Re:Apparently they never heard of the Cappuccino P (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Apparently they never heard of the Cappuccino P (Score:5, Insightful)
The point of Kevin's article (or at least, what I took away from it) was that it's damn hard to match the value of the mini when you consider it's size. Even with the Mocha PC [cappuccinopc.com] it starts at $495, and that is without RAM, a hard drive, CPU, or even a CD-Drive!.
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
Re:Coincidence? (Score:3, Insightful)
You want me because of my .. referral? (Score:5, Insightful)
Give the man props for his work on his site, don't be a smarmy pissant and use the popularity of his work to increase your chances at winning a Mac mini. If it's so precious and you have to have it, sell your current machine, get a part time job, and actually make the $500 it takes to buy the thing.
I am curious as to how many blog sites have a commenting community with so much self-zeal. I feel sorry for the frequent site visitors, who must find it necessary to wash themselves vigorously with soap and scalding hot water.
I'm with you (Score:4, Insightful)
I would say that time would be better spent hawking things you really do not need on eBay in order to raise funds.
Re:I noticed those as well... (Score:3, Insightful)
eBay can't be making much money off these listings (since they don't get to extract a Final Value Fee) and they're in violation of the Gratis Internet terms of service. I really wish eBay would crack down on these listings which pollute its service.
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 attrac
TechTV (Score:2)
Re:TechTV (Score:2)
Look (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Look (Score:2)
Re:Apple, the VW Bug of computing. (Score:5, Insightful)
People who hate Windows, don't want to get caught up in the learning curve or zealotry of Linux, and have been waiting for an inexpensive Mac to become available.
Ever since I got my Powerbook, I've had several friends ask to look at it and use it, and said they'd really like to switch to OS X if only the hardware was affordable. Now it is.
Target audience (Score:4, Informative)
Good question, and thanks to a disaster with my PowerBook Saturday, I have my own input. Had you asked that earlier, I would have said the target audience was rather vague...perhaps people that wanted to test out the Mac, the Mac cultists, and a handfull of switchers. It's the price point that erases all the "well the Mac is too expensive" excuse that many people have.
After a nasty power issue with the laptop, I've had to take it in for repairs. Aw criminy...what to do? Can't really afford a new G5 or anything...ayeee! But wait...only $499 for the Mac Mini? That's a perfect solution. I can just use that temporarily, it's got a decent processor, is small...yeah...that's the ticket. And then I can use it as a database server when I get my PowerBook. Totally beats buying a G5 (even though I want one) or something used off of eBay.
Missing the point (Score:5, Insightful)
You're missing the point, like most people on this forum, seemingly. Fact is, outside of the tiny minority of humans that constitute the "geeky" market segment, the vast majority of people who buy computers really honestly couldn't give a crap about either "raw horsepower" or "small form factor". They just want a computer that is NICE TO USE and is not overly expensive. Read that part in caps again ... PCs just do not fit the bill (certainly neither Windows nor Linux), Mac Mini does.
You can do whatever you like to a PC, make it fast, small, whatever, doesn't matter, because no matter what you do it will still be "just a PC". Until someone makes a decent, usable operating system for the PC platform, I'll stick with the Mac, because I'd actually like to be able to use a computer for more than a few hours straight without wanting to put a brick through the screen.
I'm sorry for you if you think that only a "Mac cultist" would think Mac's have a vastly better designed operating system that is also more aesthetically pleasing .. obviously you haven't even used a Mac. Windows sucks no matter how much "raw horsepower" you give it, and Linux is not ready for Joe Public.
Re:Missing the point (Score:5, Insightful)
If you think the differences lie only in looks, then you are revealing a rather stark lack of knowledge about OS X and, well, operating system design in general .. sounds more like you're just repeating a mantra that you heard from others, which makes you no less "biased" than me. The fact is, OS X really is a better designed operating system, it really is "good engineering" as opposed to Windows which really is sloppy so-called "good enough" engineering. Just like Ferrari really is a better engineered car, and nicer to drive than, say, a Ford. Or would you call someone a "zealot" for wanting to drive a Ferrari over a Ford, or claim someone "biased" for stating that Ferrari is better engineering? I mean after all, a car's a car right? They're all "nice enough", they all have four tyres and a steering wheel, a Ferrari only "looks a bit better", right? Riiight .. you keep telling yourself that, but believe me, standing there obviously advocating mediocrity doesn't make you look smart. I don't know why you apply a different standard here. Or perhaps you really believe that it's OK for mankind to aim for mediocrity in computer design, but of that's the case you probably shouldn't have anything to do with either computer design or the advocacy of specific systems.
You are probably right though that Windows is "good enough" for most people (if you ignore all the virus/spyware/security problems), but that's all it is, "good enough". It's certainly not "nice". It puzzles me how people like you can stand there and actively defend mediocrity. (Is it that you feel you have to defend your own personal choices? I mean, you presumably use Windows, so saying "Windows is a poor choice" implies *you* made a poor choice, perhaps you are rationalising your choice?) I don't get it ... "You should buy Windows, even though it looks worse, and you'll need to install anti-virus which slow down your PC, and you'll be cleaning spyware every other week, etc. etc., this is the right choice!"
Still, you are probably right that most of the things that annoy me about Windows stem from me being an 'advanced user', and are in features that most "Joe Public" users don't use (for example Windows SMB networking, which is *genuinely* bad from any kind of engineering perspective). But most users don't use it, and even fewer use it all the time.
Anyway, if you're going to be comparing platforms, I suggest you at least make sure to have some genuine knowledge of the platforms you're comparing next time. Claiming that the difference between XP and OS X is mainly looks makes it pitifully obvious that you don't.
Who? Just about anyone wanting a new computer (Score:3, Insightful)
Since then the wait for a new order is still quite long, so many people do seem to be ordering them.
So who would buy a Mac MINI?
People wanting new computers and tried of PC's. People wanting new computers that already have bits (like monitors) but don't want to spend a lot. People with laptops that would like a backup computer. People who want a computer in the entertainment center.
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:
Failed: Mac Mini to PC Hack (Score:5, Insightful)
All this proves is you can fit a lower-powered nano-ITX mobo in the same case as a Mac Mini, and power it up. But it's not the same, nor even complete...
It was a cool experiment, but not a sucessful one... Hat's off to the Mac design team for shoving that much stuff into such a small box.
No CD/DVD (Score:3, Informative)
I'd say his project failed. The whole idea of such a device is to not have all sorts of other bricks (like external media) plugged in. Esp if it is to sit next to the nice 36" LCD TV (of course using DVI connector) and act as a media box.
enough with the free minis! (Score:2)
Cool, but I see there are caveats,,, (Score:2)
The Nano-ITX motherboard used is not commercially avalible - and it will not be avalible for general sale for some months yet. The author points outs that even using this yet-to-be released motherboard, there was no room for a CD/DVD drive. It also does not feature a built in modem or a 'Firewire' port (but I don't think that's a big deal). It doesn't appear to feature WiFi or Bluetooth
It's all in the stuffing (Score:5, Funny)
--
Free iPod Photo: http://FreeiPodPhotos.com/index.php?referral=2546
Free Mac Mini: http://www.FreeMiniMacs.com/?r=13941255
Put a Mac-mini in an XBox =XBox2 (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)
computing power per square inch (Score:5, Insightful)
Otherwise what area are they talking about? Footprint? In that case my 1.5 metre tower case would have more computing density than your desktop G4.
And a flood of "What's the point?" ensues (Score:5, Insightful)
- Wireless
- Bluetooth
- Optical drive
- Probable heating issues later
- SODIMM slots = more expensive RAM
- OS X, iLife, etc.
Also, Rose doesn't mention the cost of his parts, but I'd guess that, for the specs of the baseline mini even without the optical drive it would likely come to WELL over $500. That mobo in particular looks to be fairly pricey.
I'm not asking "What's the point?" but rather, saying "There is no point." This is just a geek's homebrew project, and a waste of a perfectly good Mac mini.
Re:Wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
You: You seem to be missing the point...
--
Second, it's ridiculous to compare production costs of a corporation with homebrew assemblies of non-commodity parts
When it was first announced and the first reaction was how cheap it was, the backlash consisted of a lot of "You can built a more powerful system yourself for $200" responses. (that all fell short in one way or another, I might add) Now that the shoe's on the other foot, it's "ridiculous".
--
Apple
Call me cynical but where's the proof? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not saying that these guys haven't done what they said they've done but it would have been good to have some pictures of the back of the machine with the ports or perhaps some re-assembly shows so we could see just how tight the fit is.
Ahh... Kevin's First Slashdotting! (Score:3, Funny)
Mac Mini v2? (Score:3, Insightful)
:)
Funniest line in the article (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll bet that thing sounded like a wind tunnel when you turned it on.
Nehemiah 1Ghz Processor? (Score:5, Informative)
Never mind the media encoding/decoding capabilities of the G4. It doesn't even come close in regular desktop use. Not even with Linux installed. To even do half what the G4 can do encoding/decoding wise, you'd have to add a PVR card (which won't fit in that case).
If the guy is doing this to build the "fastest PC possible with the size constraints of the Mini's small form factor," he should have left the G4 in there (unless PC=Intel/AMD in this case).
I'm all for hardware hacking, but I hate to see a perfectly good machine go to waste. I hope at least that he retrofitted in a non-destructive way so that he can put the original machine back together again. Some people just have too much money...
BTW, If I was a VIA executive, there's no way that I would loan out a Nehemiah for review so that it could be pitted against the G4. Nothin' but bad news there. Somebody outta get fired over that one!
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:MirrorDot link (Score:4, Informative)
Re:MirrorDot link (Score:3, Funny)
It's not very hard at all. All you've got to do is post the URL, and some URL nazi will come along and do it for you. It's all automatic!
Re:MirrorDot link (Score:3, Informative)
That's not a link, that's a URL. this [mirrordot.org] is a link.
Re:MirrorDot link (Score:5, Funny)
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:Need a review (Score:2)
You're kidding, right? Bare bones small FF PCs have been going like hotcakes for the LAN party crowd.
The hard part, IMHO, is the video card. How do you duplicate the size of the Mac-Mini while getting high-end graphics? When someone figures that out then the PC version is going to fly off the shelf.
TW
Re:Need a review (Score:4, Informative)
The super small boxes that are via mini itx based are not selling like hot cakes. When you get to that size you are paying more for smaller less standard components and not equal performace. Plus there has been no large push by any mini itx system makers. Shuttles have been doing great cause the company has been pushing them very well, and they are something people want.
The mac mini will sell good though, it's cheap for what you get and has proper marketing behind it. And it runs OSX, which will be a huge bonus for a long time. Most people run windows, and if they are looking for something different it's going to be OSX cause it's just as easy for them, and plenty common and so forth. The selling point to macs is the OS not so much the hardware though the hardware helps.
Just Works + Tech support (Score:2)
Mini comes with S-video adapter (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Need a review (Score:5, Insightful)
If you want something to compare to the G4, how about a 1.5GHz Pentium M at the very least?
Re:Need a review (Score:3, Informative)
A Pentium M is at *least* as fast as a G4 clock-for-clock, and given the much higher bus speed and memory bandwidth, will spank it in general-purpose performance.
That's what I've been wondering too (Score:3, Insightful)
But a 1 GHz _Via_ CPU? Gimme a break. Those things are a dog, performance wise. They're not just lower MHz, they're also lower IPC (instructions per cycle) even than a P4 Prescott.
The fact that they only have 64K L2 cache doesn't really help there either. And Via's being still stuck on a 133 MHz SDR bus also doesn't help.
Also it seems that the article just illustrates
Re:Need a review (Score:5, Informative)
The video card is also a 4MB card. The Mac mini has a ATI Radeon 9200 with 32MB of RAM. Again, a huge difference.
While the Espresso is in the right ballgame for size, weight, etc, performance is not even close.
Re:Celeron != G4 (Score:3, Informative)
x86 CPUs haven't been CISC since the mid 90s.
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 m
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 hybri
Re:Celeron != G4 (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Celeron != G4 (Score:3, Insightful)
CISC always wins when executing the special complex instructions thanks to pipelining - which, by the way, is much more complicated than RISC pipelining. CISC boxes usually optimize the code to help this along. This is why CISC is winning: it has a lot of the features of a JIT compiler built-in.
Each trip would take 130 seconds, but it'd be able to do 1.5 of them at a time.
The only place that RISC wins is when the instructions must all be sequentia
Re:Celeron != G4 (Score:3, Insightful)
Why is that, you ask? Because RISC instructions are inherently more pipelineable. The only place -CISC- wins is if all the instructions must be sequential. RISC can do far more instruction
CD ripping is I/O bound nowadays (Score:3, Informative)
They also rip audio CDs to MP3s at nearly the same rate.
I/O bound! I/O bound! No Compact Disc Digital Audio ripper will go much past 48x max (really about 36x over the entire surface of the disc) because a drive that spins the CD much faster than that will break it.
The only negative is the total GHz for PPC CPUs available is lower.
Which can translate to lower current drain and thus a lower electric bill.
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
Re:Decoder die size (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps with the original Pentiums, but it's much smaller than that now.
There's also disadvantages to RISC; binaries tend to be bigger (x86 has variable sized instructions) and that uses up some of the larger cache that RISC chips tend to have. Also, the really highly performing RISC chips spend a LOT of die space on scheduling instructions (G5 is a good
Re:Celeron != G4 (Score:5, Insightful)
This argument, while certainly valid from a point of view, is similar to saying that the price per horsepower is the only important criteria for buying a car. Fred Flintstone has you beat there, pal.
In computing terms, your brain has a better price per volume/speed than any computer, so why buy a computer?
I've yet to see a benchmark that proves that price per (volume/battery) justifies buying an iPod. iPods are more expensive than most portable music players. iPods also dominate the market because there are virtues other than cost per song stored on the device, and iPod customers sing their praises. iPods certainly weren't the first, they aren't the cheapest, nor are they the smallest, batteries aren't their strongest suit either... They are popular because they are easy to use, have stellar sound quality, and cost only a little more than the competition.
People who buy a Mac aren't buying it because it's the fastest ship in the fleet; they buy it because it's more luxurious than a Wintel box, or because it's able to do things that a PC currently doesn't do well, if at all. They choose macs because they are still more intuitive and easy than a Wintel box.
The majority of users I know of who complain about Macs are really only complaining about two things: Games, and 'upgradeability'. If it doesn't play their newest AMOR (Amusing Misuse of Resources -- apologies to the KDE team), the computer therefore 'sucks'. Then they complain about 'upgradeability.' That's an interesting argument, seeing that I can't 'upgrade' my PC without replacing the at least the Motherboard, CPU, and RAM. Yet PC's are more upgradeable? If I want a longer 'upgrade path' than sticking with AGP gives me, I'd have to also get an entirely new case and power supply for PCI-Express. Somehow this strikes me as little different than having to buy a whole new computer.
I don't own a Mac; but I've actually used them for real work(gasp). Once you get past the fact it isn't a Wintendo Entertainment System, Macs really are excellent machines, and I'll be glad to shell out the cash for a Mac the next time I 'Upgrade' my computer.
Re:Need a review (Score:4, Informative)
Tiger will need 64MB VRAM for CI/CV to be crunched in the GPU. However, if the GPU does not have the requisite memory/power, Tiger will be smart enough to direct the CI/CV crunching to be done by the CPU (unlike Panther, which just sends the eye-candy to the GPU, regardless of whether or not the GPU can do it).
Re:Need a review (Score:2)
It's not even close to being the same thing - nor does it appear that it's MEANT for the same audience.
C'mon, let's at least compare apples to Apples here.
Re:Detailed Instructions... [-100: troll] (Score:2)
How was this modded insightful?
Re:So uh... (Score:2)
Re:Apples to Oranges (Score:2)
Because everything running on x86 is Windows®.
Re:Been there, done that, spent less (Score:2)
5.82"(W) x 10.0"(D) x 2.79"(H)
The Beast (Score:2)
Re:Is the mini really that cheap? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)