Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Intel Hardware

Intel Preps Mac mini Look-Alike 515

Posted by samzenpus from the small-computing dept.
boarder8925 writes "From Wired: 'A new Wintel prototype that openly apes Apple Computer's popular Mac mini is due out this week, giving Intel a showcase to prove its chips are a match for anyone when it comes to tiny PC designs. Working prototypes of the Mac mini look-alike running Microsoft Windows and based on Intel's Pentium M CPU have already been built by Taiwan PC maker AOpen at Intel's request, according to two sources in Taiwan's PC manufacturing industry who have seen them.' This isn't the non-working box Slashdot covered earlier."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Intel Preps Mac mini Look-Alike More

Intel Preps Mac mini Look-Alike

Comments Filter:

  • OK (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 31, 2005 @08:06AM (#12682809)
    Who cares if it ain't got no pictures?

    The main reason for a small box is so it can be put on show, thus style and design need to be seen to make a judgement.
    • "The main reason for a small box is so it can be put on show...

      With the Mac Mini being whisper-quiet, I actually prefer the option of hiding it. Maybe it's just that I use mine as a file server in the kitchen.

      __
      Laugh Daily video clips [laughdaily.com]

    • Re:OK (Score:3, Funny)

      by tomhudson ( 43916 )
      Who cares if it ain't got no pictures?
      True. Once you've seen one BSoD, ...

      Unless its priced WAY cheaper than a MiniMac, what's the point? Why not get the real deal?

      • Re:OK (Score:5, Insightful)

        by DigitumDei ( 578031 ) on Tuesday May 31, 2005 @08:49AM (#12683038) Homepage Journal
        I'm sure there are people out there who want to continue using PC's but would like a simple, stylish, small PC.

        Just because Apple already did it, doesn't mean no one else should ever try.

      • Re:OK (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Darth Maul ( 19860 ) on Tuesday May 31, 2005 @08:53AM (#12683063)
        So you can only compare an Intel-based small form factor machine to the Mac Mini by price?!?? The whole point of the Mac Mini is OS X. Unless you somehow have OS X for Intel, there is no comparison to be made.

        That's why I can't stand all this about a Mac Mini look-alike from Intel. Unless it runs OS X, then you shouldn't even use the term "Mac Mini" anywhere in the article. It's just a small form factor PC. I can't think of anyone who would put a small form factor Wintel box in the same trade space as a Mac Mini. Unless you like to compare apples and oranges in your spare time...

        • Re:OK (Score:3, Insightful)

          by tomhudson ( 43916 )

          So you can only compare an Intel-based small form factor machine to the Mac Mini by price?!?? The whole point of the Mac Mini is OS X. Unless you somehow have OS X for Intel, there is no comparison to be made.

          That's why I can't stand all this about a Mac Mini look-alike from Intel. Unless it runs OS X, then you shouldn't even use the term "Mac Mini" anywhere in the article. It's just a small form factor PC. I can't think of anyone who would put a small form factor Wintel box in the same trade space as a

          • Re:OK (Score:5, Interesting)

            by Rakishi ( 759894 ) on Tuesday May 31, 2005 @09:31AM (#12683321)
            Or maybe to peopel who want a mini-comp but don't want to get a mac... I mean it's not like Windows is 90% of the consumer market or anything... oh wait it is.

            • Re:OK (Score:4, Insightful)

              by tomhudson ( 43916 ) <barbara.hudson@b ... m ['son' in gap]> on Tuesday May 31, 2005 @10:37AM (#12683884) Journal
              Windows was originally for people who wanted mac-like functionality on cheaper hardware. Now that the Mini Mac is actually cheaper (unless you pirate Windows) than a baseline PC, we're going to see a LOT of Mini Macs sold in the fall back-to-school season, and even more for Xmas.

              If Apple ever releases OSX/ia32 and/or OSX/ia64, a LOT of people will buy it and start dual-booting their windows boxes, instead of buying the non-existent Longhorn.

              • Re:OK (Score:3, Insightful)

                by BewireNomali ( 618969 )
                unh, dude... the mac mini doesn't cost less when you take into account actual use. justing looking at Dell's website, I saw two entry level desktop systems, complete systems with printers that cost less than the price of the mac mini unit.

                Form factor is an area where wintel boxes cannot compete, but they've always been able to beat Apple products on price point and will continue to do so. there is no doubt the issue of form factor, in that one can't find comparable wintel products at that cost. That's an a
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Re:OK (Score:3, Interesting)

        by jedidiah ( 1196 )
        Intel based PC's have been small and easy to hide since at least 2000. Based on this, the hoopla over the MiniMac really is quite misplaced.

        There were even low profile Alpha systems.

  • Welcome to the age of innovation (Score:4, Funny)

    by The Slashdotted ( 665535 ) on Tuesday May 31, 2005 @08:06AM (#12682811)
    Long live AMD64
  • As long as they drop the MHz on the Intel chips, this could be a definite contender in the over-priced/underpower market.
    • They'd also need a very popular rock star to be in colorful commercials singing "One... Two... Three... Fourteen!"

      Marketing success, here they come!

  • It won't be a Mac mini lookalike... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Mikito ( 833242 ) on Tuesday May 31, 2005 @08:07AM (#12682816)
    ...until the mouse has only one button.

    I kid, I kid. I own a Mac myself.

  • Competition (Score:5, Interesting)

    by under_score ( 65824 ) <mishkin@be[ ]ig.com ['rte' in gap]> on Tuesday May 31, 2005 @08:09AM (#12682826) Homepage
    I like the idea of competition in this space. I would love to buy a Mac Mini (and probably will within the next year), but it would be nice to see either: prices drop, or features improve. Intel coming into the game as a chip-maker is interesting, and I hope that someone like Dell goes for it as well. I would wager that they will given their current thrusts into some home/game/media oriented PCs.

    • Re:Competition (Score:2, Informative)

      by DenDave ( 700621 )
      but it would be nice to see either: prices drop, or features improve.


      499 too much for you? You shouldn't be spending your money on a computer...

      What improved features? Take one for a spin, they're pretty complete...

      • Re:Competition (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Lussarn ( 105276 )
        How about some speed. The Mini is bottom line (3 year old tech) on everything, thats a fact and can only be better with more competition.

        • Re:Competition (Score:3, Insightful)

          by fr0dicus ( 641320 )
          It's quicker than the average laptop by any vendor. Better graphics too, looking at some of the VIA and Intel crap that comes onboard such systems. Many people find a laptop more than adequate, so why is this not quick enough? It of course has much better software than you'll find on competing platforms, and is the cheapest way to get into OS X and the iApps. Sometimes functionality is not measured in Mhz.
          • typical laptop is a 2ghz p4 or amd64 these days. with nvidia or ati integrated video. a lot better than the pitiful 32mb ati 9600 in the mini.

            and i have a mini. just about any x86 laptop is faster than this thing.

            it is most definitely not fast compared to a laptop or desktop. it's not even competetive with shuttle SFF's and its much less expandable.

            it's a cheap mac, that's its main call to fame. period. the small size is just a side effect of all the cost cutting to get it that cheap.
            • Last time I looked at Laptops, you paid a heavy premium for graphics and high-end CPUs, unless you're talking about desknotes? Those aren't "laptops" and still aren't cheap.

              Yes, it's a cheap Mac. I think that was the point. Why isn't 32MB VRam not enough for what it's designed for? What do you need the speed for at this price point? I'd take OS X and all the additional software that comes with it over a 3GHz+ CPU any day of the week.

      • Re:Competition (Score:2, Informative)

        by Erwos ( 553607 )
        "What improved features? Take one for a spin, they're pretty complete..."

        As was noted in Anandtech's review of the Mac Mini, they're seriously underpowered for any sort of PVR work, and the software DVD decoder sucks. For a computer that seems to be designed to fit near your TV, that's a serious issue. They also have bad onboard video, and are totally non-upgradable (except for RAM, I suppose).

        Maybe none of that matters to you - fair enough. But they're enough to make me totally drop the notion of buying

        • For a computer that seems to be designed to fit near your TV

          Who said that? Apple certainly didn't.

        • Re:Competition (Score:4, Insightful)

          by blackmonday ( 607916 ) on Tuesday May 31, 2005 @08:51AM (#12683052) Homepage
          This Intel clone is guaranteed to have on board video and be pretty non-upgradeable, except for RAM. I've had an intel 845G built in video, I'll take the Mac Mini Radeon over that piece of crap any day.

          Oh, and being an intel clone, this thing better be $249 out the door, including a DVD reader / CD burner and a copy of Windows XP. Think it'll happen? Probably not. They didn't even take advantage of the Mac Mini's one missing feature - S-Video out. I think that's a power port, not the elusive TV connection.

          • Re:Competition (Score:5, Informative)

            by nuggetman ( 242645 ) on Tuesday May 31, 2005 @09:00AM (#12683102) Homepage
            They didn't even take advantage of the Mac Mini's one missing feature - S-Video out.

            Mac mini: $500 (give or take)
            DVI to SVIDEO adapter for Mac mini: $19
            Posting this for the 30000th time: Priceless

          • Re:Competition (Score:3, Informative)

            by bani ( 467531 )
            the mini also has no audio input.

            what's top stop them from using integrated nvidia? that's light years faster than the POS ati 9600 in the mini.

            and i _have_ a mini. this thing is _not_ fast.

            why does it have to be $249 out the door? the mini's lowest end is $499.

            they could easily do a $499 x86 mini pc with all the trimmings _and_ a copy of windows xp. hell you can get a full desktop pc with lcd monitor, keyboard, mouse, dual layer dvd burner, 80gb hd, 512mb ram, 2.66ghz p4, speakers and windows xp [dell.com] for $5

            • Re:Competition (Score:3, Insightful)

              by javaxman ( 705658 )
              the mini also has no audio input.

              I originally thought that this was an issue, but more and more I've come to decide it's something Apple actually got right. In a way. Really, I'm not a Mini guy. I'd rather have a pro rig, one where I can drop in the kind of audio input I want. There's the issue, though. What kind of audio input do you want? You want the cheapest possible audio input? Get an iMic, they're like thirty bucks. Want something higher-end? There's an unbelievable range of USB audio input devices

        • Why do you think it's designed to fit near your TV? It's size? It's not anything like the width or depth of any of my other TV-connected devices. The optional TV-out? Every Mac has one.

          I think you're confusing how any Mac device would look good next to the TV. It's a computer.

          Apple don't sell machines that don't work out of the box for what they're intended, I think you must be confusing them with other vendors.

        • Re:Competition (Score:4, Informative)

          by rdc_uk ( 792215 ) on Tuesday May 31, 2005 @08:54AM (#12683068)
          The thing is; loads of people harp on about the mini being "seriously underpowered for any sort of PVR work", "For a computer that seems to be designed to fit near your TV".

          The thing is; look at the rear of a mac mini; no digital audio out, no TV-friendly output.

          Why do people not take the hint? The mini is NOT designed to work with a TV, it is lacking ALL of the elements you would want. That doesn't make it designed for the TV, but lacking: it make it what it is; a cheap, no integrated display, desktop computer that runs OS X. Nothing more.

          And for that job, its pretty good; it seriously dropped the minimum price of entry for OS X. Job done, design complete.

        • Re:Competition (Score:4, Informative)

          by Golias ( 176380 ) on Tuesday May 31, 2005 @09:17AM (#12683211)
          As was noted in Anandtech's review of the Mac Mini, they're seriously underpowered for any sort of PVR work, and the software DVD decoder sucks.

          As somebody who is using his Mac mini as a high def PVR and media center on a 199" screen, I can say without hesitation that Anandtech's review is full of shit.

          Using the El Gato EyeTV, it works like a champ for both recording and playback of either 720p or 1080i signals.

          Also, the DVD player in 10.3 works very well, and the new DVD player for Tiger is even better.

          The only complaint I have (and it's a nitpick) is that the deinterlace software is not that great, which is a problem when watching cheaply-made interlaced DVD's (such as some anime TV show disks.) That's easy enough to get around, thanks to VLC.

          (The new Tiger DVD Player does have some deinterlace control, but so far nothing that works nearly as well as the better filter options on VLC.)

      • Re:Competition (Score:2, Informative)

        by OwP_Fabricated ( 717195 )
        I would buy a Mini in a heartbeat if the onboard video was better.

        The processor is plenty good enough, the 512MB RAM upgrade seems to have gotten even cheaper.

        It's just the damn video card. If they threw a 128MB Radeon 9600 (the regular card with a different HSF design, or a mobility version) it would actually make a good game box.

        Yeah yeah, I know, laugh. I think it would be cool to have a cheap, very tiny LAN box to play Quake 3 engine based games (since most of them have Mac ports) or Blizzard titles.
        • "I think it would be cool to have a cheap, very tiny LAN box to play Quake 3 engine based games (since most of them have Mac ports) or Blizzard titles."

          PowerBook.
      • 499 too much for you? You shouldn't be spending your money on a computer.

        Why not? Are you arguing that the market segment for sub-$300 computers (new or otherwise) shouldn't exist? As nuevo-poor, I'm not sure I can agree with that; being able to have a cheap computer is one helluva lot better than having none at all, particularly given how capable today's cheap computers are.

    • Re:Competition (Score:4, Funny)

      by dsginter ( 104154 ) on Tuesday May 31, 2005 @08:26AM (#12682906)
      I like the idea of competition in this space.

      I'd like to see Intel one-up Apple and utilize the same hardware for an open laptop spec. Imagine not having to pay $900 to get a 14.1" LCD repaired. Imagine the modding that would come along.

      As a side note, I propose a new unit of volume - the MM. Not to be confused with the linear measurement 'mm' (millimeter), MM will stand for Mac Mini. So if something is 1.3MM, then it is 1.3x the volume of a Mac Mini.

      That seems to be the new standard. We could use this with LoCps (Libraries of Congress per second).

  • Photos (Score:5, Informative)

    by HoneyBunchesOfGoats ( 619017 ) on Tuesday May 31, 2005 @08:10AM (#12682832)
    Silent PC Review [silentpcreview.com] has a couple photos.

    • Re:Photos (Score:3, Informative)

      by FaceHead ( 822836 )
      Woah! Could that look anymore like a mac mini? Perhaps if it were a mac mini, but other than that...

    • Silver + beige = $$ (Score:5, Funny)

      by peekitty ( 613568 ) on Tuesday May 31, 2005 @08:46AM (#12683021)
      Very lovely. It makes me wonder why Apple didn't think of slapping a big beige power button in the middle of the Mini.

    • Re:Photos (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Wow; redefining the word "blatant"...

    • Re:Photos (Score:3, Insightful)

      by MSBob ( 307239 )
      Wow. Looks (almost) like Mac Mini, but it's not. Isn't that cool.

      Sort of reminds me when my parents remodelled their dining room and hung a nice crystal chandelier. Our neighbour saw it, got jealous and went to buy a plastic knockoff at the mall for $30.

      She thought it looked every bit as nice as my parents'

      It didnt.

  • Intel's killer application (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 31, 2005 @08:15AM (#12682854)

    built in hotplate and griddle for 3D in-game snacks (running solitare turns it into a plate warmer)
    Apple isn't bothered but George Foreman better start worrying

    • indeed, now a nice mini PC based on one of VIA's offerings would be of interest, but i don't really much care for intel's mobiles.
    • A 1.4GHz Pentium M is speced to draw a peak of 10W, considerably less than the 1.4GHz G4 used in the "high end" Mac Mini. Even if you bump up to a 2.1GHz chip, peak power consumption is 21W - still at least as good as the G4 (haven't found peak draw figures, but the reported "typical" figure is 19W).

      Jackass.

  • Not cool :-( (Score:5, Interesting)

    by vstanescu ( 522393 ) on Tuesday May 31, 2005 @08:20AM (#12682874) Homepage
    Mini computers, with nice looks existed for a long time. But at least from my point of view, the coolness factor of the MiniMac is exactly this: it is a Mac - a cheap Apple computer, similar enough with its bigger brothers that I am not so interested to buy. A normal Apple computer although is very nice, is not useful enough for me to buy it at its price. But a MiniMac toy seems interesting enough at a right price. On the other side.. I don't want a small PC. I want a big PC, with enough free slots for the cards that I want to use. A compact PC card (like all those 5.25" and 3.5" motherboards with mobile processors) is very nice to use with a flash card as hard disk in various appliances - but a shiny tiny pc sits just in the middle. It is not flexible enough - no space for addon cards. It is not rugged enough (still a pc, with hard disk, not a compact computer designed to work in extreme conditions). It is not even a cheap solution because the PC market is very cheap already and I guess this mini pc will not be 50$ to mantain the price proportions of the normal Apple versus MiniMac.
    • Actually, what I really want are smaller system cases that take advantage of the mini-ATX form factor motherboards (let alone BTX!). Of course, the XPC form factor pioneered by Shuttle Computer is nice, but the problem is you can't easily upgrade the motherboard....
    • I totally agree with you.

      Part of the MiniMac fun is that you can try MacOSX without having to buy an expensive machine! And this is a major selling point.

      If Intel ships this MiniPC, they should put some new desktop Linux distro (Ubuntu?) on it, and make sure it works perfectly on their hardware. Then it would have some charm like the MacMini, people would look and say: "Look, a nice, cheap, little computer that comes with an easy Linux thing installed! I want one!". Hell, add a Tunner Card and MithTV and

      • Wrong priorities (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Moraelin ( 679338 ) on Tuesday May 31, 2005 @09:47AM (#12683438) Journal
        If you think Joe Average will _ever_ say "hey, I want this computer because it runs Linux", methinks you got it all wrong. And it's this kind of getting it wrong that's why Linux is still a nerd-only OS. Not saying that Linux is bad or anything, but I'm saying that assuming everyone will see it as a goal, rather than a means, is the awfully wrong assumption and the awfully wrong way to market anything.

        Frankly, other than die-hard nerds, noone gives a damn about the OS. The point that all the "Linux rules, Windows blows" or "MacOS rules, everything else blows" flamewars are missing is just that: that the OS itself is really the least important part.

        In the real world what matters is what can you _do_ with a tool, and the computer or OS are just such tools to an end. What matters is what concrete goals can you achieve with it, not what a cool Apple logo it has on the box. What Joe Average asks is stuff like "Can I edit my digital photos with it and burn them on a CD"? What Joe is seeking just a solution to some clear problems, never "but I really wanted to try Linux, although I have no clue wth will run on it, or what can I do with it".

        That solution means: apps. And the OS exists only to load those apps. Most people would run any OS just as gladly without an OS, if they could just pop the CD in and have the application start up.

        Don't believe me? Look at the some 100 million game consoles sold, and how noone said "nah, if it doesn't show a Windows boot-up screen I'm not buying a PS2". What they _did_ however ask is: "what games are available on it, then?" I.e., they asked about the _apps_.

        That's it. The apps are the alpha, omega, and the whole alphabet in between.

        So all this OS brand zealotry is really like saying you buy only a certain brand of car for the dashboard, and not to actually drive it. Or better yet, saying that you're buying a microwave oven instead of a fridge because you like the interface more. It's... missing the point, to put it very diplomatically.

        _Noone_ other than geeks will want to buy a computer for Linux or any other OS. In the real world they'll buy it for what they can do with that box.

        Tell them "yeah, you can get this machine and you'll have a cheap, secure and very easy to use computer, that can edit your digital photos, surf the web, encode and decode movies and music, etc" and you'll have the people's attention. That's what Apple did. _That_ is the message that people want to hear.

        But tell them "give me your money to try a new OS that exists just to fight MS's evil empire", and you've lost them. _Noone_ sane blows their paycheck just to fight in some idealistic nerd rebellion.

  • No one emulates bad ideas... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Boone^ ( 151057 ) on Tuesday May 31, 2005 @08:21AM (#12682880)
    Intel probably sees the Mac Mini for what it is: a simple, practically disposable personal computer that'll keep a *large* percentage of the population happy for 3 years until they buy another one. You lose iLife going to XP/P-M, but there's Picasa 2, Windows Movie Maker, and various DVD burning programs out there to kluge together to get someone an "equivalent" experience. I "switched" to the iMac G5 when it was released for 2 reasons: iLife, and the fact that most of the "gaming" I do these days is less FPS and more plastic trucks with my 18-month old son. Never underestimate the extreme amount of digital pictures and MiniDV footage you'll accumulate when your first child is born.

    I guess eventually people reach the point where they begin to treat their computers more as appliances and less as sandboxes to play in; upgrading video cards, hard drives, and processors whenever the latest hot game is released. When I use a computer these days, I'm either modifying content I've created (pictures, movies), browsing the web, or logging into a shell at work to catch up on my tasks. I don't need a GeForce 6800 GT and a 4 GHz hyper-pipelined processor to do that.
    • "Never underestimate the extreme amount of digital pictures and MiniDV footage you'll accumulate when your first child is born."
      This is why I keep on adding big HDDs to my mini tower. At 20GB an hour for full DV quality, it won't take you long to fill up a Mac Mini's storage. When you do this, you'll have to start adding external firewire drives, which isn't really all that neat...

  • Clunky. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by safari-surfer ( 888239 ) on Tuesday May 31, 2005 @08:22AM (#12682883)
    'A new Wintel prototype that openly apes Apple Computer's popular Mac mini is due out this week, giving Intel a showcase to prove its chips are a match for anyone when it comes to tiny PC designs.

    Few dobut that Intel's chips have the same potential for minturization as Apple's chips. Yet somehow it seems that 90% of all mini PC's and PC laptops out there still look like concrete slabs when compared with the Mac mini and the PowerBooks which has caused a not inconsiderable number of consumers to begin regarding the PC's as clumsy. Apple concluded that style and ultra compactness matters to some consumers more than raw computing power and apparently they were not entirely wrong. For a Mac user it is certainly satisfying to see Intel finally acknowledging that.
    • I guess more and more people start to realize that raw power doesn't mean anything if you're not using it.

      I'm currently running an AMD XP 2600 and I only notice it's "limitations" when compressing MP3's at 10x or doing some other heavy multimedia stuff which most people don't.

      The average Joe doesn't really need all that power and even when they do need it occasionally, then won't mind waiting that extra few seconds, they'd rather have convenience and a nice look; those things still make a difference.
    • they aren't apple's chips. they're IBM's.

  • Mini-market (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Nytewynd ( 829901 ) on Tuesday May 31, 2005 @08:25AM (#12682900)
    I don't see the big rush for these Mini-machines. They are clearly aimed at a market where people want a very simple solution. The people that want email, internet access, and maybe Office.

    I think Intel is better off with the normal PC market. For the same price you can get way more out of a normal PC. Apple might make a little money off the Mini mostly because the Mini looks trendy and that drives a lot of Mac sales.

    The Mini design might start looking good for a media PC that would sit on top of a TV, but until there is a way to add way more storage for DVR and storing DivX, they won't cut it. Also, I am guessing the GPU in it won't play HD quality very well.

    Intel might be a little better off enlarging the size, but adding more power to it. Call it the "Almost-mini" and sell it as a faster solution.

    • Re:Mini-market (Score:3, Informative)

      by Henk Poley ( 308046 )
      I don't see the big rush for these Mini-machines. They are clearly aimed at a market where people want a very simple solution. The people that want email, internet access, and maybe Office.

      Great, now tell us what percentage of the desktop PC market does just that? Did you say 90-95%? Hmmkay. I hope you can see it now.

      Btw, the way to add storage is by means of a Firewire connected harddisk enclosure. And about the HD playback, it seems to do 720i/p just fine. Higher resolution is a problem. But then only

  • Just one size to small (Score:4, Interesting)

    by martijnd ( 148684 ) on Tuesday May 31, 2005 @08:29AM (#12682918)
    The Apple Mini is just one size too small, and thus sacrifices efficiency (laptop HD, little cooling).

    If you are looking for a good office solution look at the ASUS Pundit [asus.com.tw]. They don't get hot, have space for a decent harddisk and DVD drive and are very efficient with desk space (especially when used with a flatscreen and wireless keyboard)

  • Apple doesn't just throw components into a box (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dpbsmith ( 263124 ) on Tuesday May 31, 2005 @08:29AM (#12682920) Homepage
    There have been innumerable "Mac look-alike" models introduced in the Wintel space. I wish I could recall the name of the model some company introduced circa 1991 which had almost the same form factor as the classic Mac, 9" screen and all. I'll bet it left out the built-in handle; that's the sort of detail the Mac-alikes always forget.

    There have always been Mac lookalikes. Remember the eOne from eMachines.

    Apart from press interest at their introduction, all of them sank in the marketplace without so much as a ripple.

    Anyone who says that there is much difference overall in price or power between a Mac and a PC is grinding an axe. The fact is they're using technologies that are pretty much on a par and the price/performance is pretty much on a par.

    But the Wintel Bizarro-world Mac-alike machines usually ARE overpriced and underpowered. And the form factor and "look" usually look like a cheesy knockoff; it's obvious they are not using industrial designers of the caliber that Apple uses.

    Love it or hate it, the original iMac, for example, showed an amazing design integrity in carrying the "translucency" theme throughout the entire design; not only the case, but the keyboard, the mouse, _and the power cord_ were translucent. I'll bet those power cords added cost. That's the sort of detail the would-be Mac-alikes never seem to include.

    It's the overall integrity of the product design that gives Apple that "wow" factor. It's also the overall integrity of the product design that makes Apple's products so comfortable and usable.

    So, someone else can throw just as many components into a little box as Apple can? I never doubted it for a second. The point is, Apple doesn't just throw components into a box.

  • Are we supposed to be impressed? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Andy_R ( 114137 ) on Tuesday May 31, 2005 @08:32AM (#12682933) Homepage Journal
    5 months after Apple has a finished product in the shops, Intel manages to cobble together a working knock-off prototype?

    This is the sort of tactic would I expect from a no-name box-shifter, not a supposed market leader in technology. The Mac Mini makes sense as a switcher's 1st Mac, as a cheap means to play with OSX, or as a design Icon (with an expensive pretty Apple LCD, wireless keyboard and mouse) in a high-tech setting, but this box has none of those factors in it's favour.

    The only market for a small and pretty 'PC mini' that sacrifices upgradability for size is as a media centre, which puts this box into direct competition with those other recently announced small-box media centres the Xbox360 and PS3, where it's going face insurmountable competition on spec, price, and availability of games. If Intel really had the right stuff to be in this market would all 3 next gen boxes (and the Mac Mini for that matter) be using a different processor supplier?

    Time to ditch the slogan 'intel inside' in favour of 'too little too late'?

    • Re:Are we supposed to be impressed? (Score:4, Informative)

      by bani ( 467531 ) on Tuesday May 31, 2005 @09:17AM (#12683213)
      apple didn't innovate with the mac mini. they just copied what pc vendors have been doing for years with x86 PCs. (cappucino pc for example). there are even more powerful x86 PCs that are even smaller than the mini.

      so its not intel that's playing knock-off -- it's apple.

    • Re:Are we supposed to be impressed? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Ubergrendle ( 531719 ) on Tuesday May 31, 2005 @09:23AM (#12683263) Journal
      I agree. Even if this product does fairly well, Intel still loses due to the credibility gap it introduces -- we follow Apple, we don't lead PCs. Anyone who understands AMD knows this has been the case for awhile, but this is an exceedingly shortsighted move by Intel. Heck, the PC market would have provided this solution if there was a significant demand for it... I think the Mini is smart since it carves out a small niche for increased Apple sales, while not being overly revolutionary. Its like the VW Bug... some people like it alot, but everyone doesn't want to drive a Beetle.

      PS I thought the mini was a good enough idea that I seriously looked into getting one as a 'stepping stone' out of the Wintel world...couldn't quite bring myself to do it, but its a good attempt by Apple to be entry-level friendly. Maybe the next generation or two will be better.

  • I didn't by it for its size (Score:5, Insightful)

    by thogard ( 43403 ) on Tuesday May 31, 2005 @08:35AM (#12682949) Homepage
    I bought a mini mac because it ran os x, not because of its size. What I would like to buy is a not-so-mini-mac that gave me 2+ memory slots, a 3.5 inch hard drive and a dvd writer that wasn't 2002 technology and screws to hold it together.

    I don't care if the box is cute and tiny, I want some ability to upgrade the stuff inside it.

  • Hmm (Score:2)

    by DrXym ( 126579 )
    Sounds like another lawsuit waiting to happen. Remember all the blueberry iMac clones that briefly appeared a few years back.


    Still, Apple didn't invent this the small form factor space - there's been lots of 'em over the years. Therefore as long as a PC only superficially similar to a mini (i.e. they're both small), I don't think any manufacturer has anything to worry about.

  • Take a look at used laptop with a broken screen if you want a small, inexpensive, wintel box. WTB on craiglist.org should generate some leads.

  • lame clone (Score:2, Insightful)

    by ditangquan ( 526554 )
    once again Apple sets the standard of cool and the non imaginative copycats pop up out of the asian woodwork like termites. it's all about the software. sure, the Mac Mini has cool design and is dead sexy quiet, but the OS and bundled software is what makes it kick ass in features and value. yes, you can probably get 'similar' software if you go look for it for windows, but out of the box user experience, "Just Works" Apple poops on everyone.

  • Does this mean cheaper Apples? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by KrisCowboy ( 776288 ) on Tuesday May 31, 2005 @08:57AM (#12683083) Journal
    I've to confess I've never used an Apple (Mac or anything else they might've made). But when I saw a Mac for the first time, I feel insanely in love with it. The only thing stopping me from buying a Mac is it's price - it's too high (well, it would be if you convert the price to Indian Rupees. $1 ~ Rs. 43). If Intel brings an Apple clown and if we can get GNU/Linux or any other FOSS OS running on it, won't it be cheaper? Lot of if's and but's but the future sure looks coluorful :-)

  • Good news (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Mr_Silver ( 213637 ) on Tuesday May 31, 2005 @09:10AM (#12683164)
    Maybe i'm in the minority here on Slashdot, but I'm tired of a hulking great ATX tower blowing hot air everywhere and making a hell of a noise to inform me that is it on.

    Something like this would be great for sticking in a flat where space is at a premium and/or you want something that looks good and doesn't make a lot of noise.

    It would be nice if companies now concentrated on size and quietness rather than mhz. If my next PC was smaller than a shoebox (and just as expandable) then I'd be there in a shot.

    Of course I could just get a Mac Mini, but having lots of money invested in PC software, I'm not yet prepared to make the switch.

  • Mini PC's have been available for a few years (Score:4, Interesting)

    by dingletec ( 590572 ) * on Tuesday May 31, 2005 @09:18AM (#12683216)
    I have been purchasing pc's like that since at least 2002, with my total at 3 so far. I'm glad the big manufacturers have taken notice of the mac mini, it means the prices will be pushed down where they should be. In the $100 to $200 range for new systems maybe.

    http://www.thebookpc.com/index.php/cPath/68_33?osC sid=3c23d08bb22bf0f99259c3a8bd72e214/ [thebookpc.com]

    Mac hardware has always been great, but I will buy which ever is cheaper. Mac Minis (like its mini itx predecessors) are not designed to be incredibly fast, but incredibly small. Their size makes them a nice addition to the home theater system, or pretty much anywhere.

    They both run linux, so other than price, there really isn't much difference between them to me.
    • Wow, bookpcs are pretty expensive. The cheapest one is still $200 more expensive than a mini, and it doesn't come with a CD-RW, lacks an OS, software, and it uses integrated video!

      I suspect that the introduction of the Mac mini will push down the price of systems like these; how else are they going to compete? On raw CPU speed?

  • A pointless exercise? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by AtariAmarok ( 451306 ) on Tuesday May 31, 2005 @09:18AM (#12683219)
    I remember when the first iMac made a big splash, the Intel side announced with huge fanfare the "Aztec" computer which looked like a part of the city set from Logan's Run. This one never went anywhere.

  • How is this different... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Evro ( 18923 ) * <evandhoffman.gmail@com> on Tuesday May 31, 2005 @09:24AM (#12683278) Homepage Journal
    I don't see why the Mac Mini is so revolutionary other than for the fact that Apple made it and it's $500. The size isn't the selling point. Small-form-factor PCs have been around for years. I remember seeing ads for the Cappucino [cappuccinopc.com] PC at least 2 or 3 years ago on Slashdot/Thinkgeek. The form factor isn't the selling point, it's the fact that you can get an OSX system for $500.

  • Kinda reminds me of the memorial day parade (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hey! ( 33014 ) on Tuesday May 31, 2005 @10:28AM (#12683800) Homepage Journal
    I took my kids to the Memorial day parade. As usual, there were a lot of people riding in "classic" cars, which when I was a kid meant model Ts and old 50s era Chevy sedans. Now the cars we rode in to the parade are in the parade: late 60's Chevy Impalas, Plymouth Furies, and the like.

    Several things struck me about these cars. First, the overwheliming impression is that they were huge. I bet that Impala weighs more than a Lincoln Navigator, and takes up more road space. Granted, we're only seeing the cars that were somebody's pride and joy; the Novas of this world are all in junk yards. But no doubt, these cars were the dominant automotive species of my childhood.

    Second, despite quite a bit of creativity in the application of chrome and paint, to modern eyes these cars are strikingly uniform in their primitiveness. They project ponderous massiveness, not refinement. A modern economy car such as a Honda Civic boasts elegance beyond any but the most luxurious of the 60s cars. SUVs like the Ford Explorer that by modern standards are clumsy and bulky have a lightness and agility that only a sports car of 60s era could match.

    My point here is that we're at the end of the muscle car era of computer workstations. We can choose between the equivalent of a massive Plymouth Fury or a "small" alternative like the Chevy Nova. A few odd people are driving the equivalent of the original Beetle, which was too cramped and underpowered for most peoples' tastes. In thirty years or so, we'll look at the computers we use today, and we'll scoff at how inconveniently bulky and primitive they are.

    And we'll expect these small, powerful, elegant computers to be far cheaper in real terms.

    What Apple has done with the Mini is introduce the equivalent of the Datsun (now Nissan). It was a car that combined economy with refinement, fun and quality. The Japanese invasion of the US car market raised the bar such that there is no comparing a car from 1975 and 1985. Detroit was slow to respond because this kind of innovation wasn't in their business genes, and they paid. Intel is trying to keep its customers from making the same mistake.

  • Mac OS X? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by miffo.swe ( 547642 ) <daniel@hedblom.gmail@com> on Tuesday May 31, 2005 @11:07AM (#12684164) Homepage Journal
    I smell "mee too!" in the air.

    I always thought the biggest advantage with Mac was the OS. Having a Mac Mini lookalike with Windows does not a Mac Mini do. Unless Intel do some serious shaping up on Windows too this is just an ordinary crappy PC with Windows on it in a smaller package.

  • Major Missing Feature: Firewire (Score:3, Informative)

    by Ralph Spoilsport ( 673134 ) on Tuesday May 31, 2005 @12:28PM (#12684929) Journal
    If you look at the back panel HERE you will notice that it has 3 USB ports, but NO Firewire. My Video camera has Firewire, and my external video drives (which are about the size of a MacMini each) are Firewire drives, as I find USB, even USB2, less reliable.

    Just having the Firewire vaults even the cheeeeepy MiniMac ahead of the Intel box. Combine that with having to deal with the ugliness of MS Windows, and basically, this Intel box is a dud. It will fail.

    Next, I want to see a MacMini with a low-end G5 in it...

    HW

  • They're missing the point (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Locke2005 ( 849178 ) on Tuesday May 31, 2005 @01:30PM (#12685519)
    People buy Mac Mini's because it is the cheapest way to get all the included software, not because it is the same size as a CD-ROM drive. If you're going to offer a system with zero expandability, it had better be able to do everything that people want to do right out of the box.

Slashdot Top Deals

One man's constant is another man's variable. -- A.J. Perlis

Close