Mac Mini

Pointer · Post by **Pointer** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 7:20 pm

Hi guys,

What are the pros and cons of the Mac Mini? Convince me not to buy one.

Pointer

Fireball · Post by **Fireball** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 7:48 pm

Why are you being asked to be convinced NOT to buy one?

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 8:32 pm

Non Macs with equal or better specs are cheaper.

You'll be using an external HDD in no time (Rumored 2.5" HDD is expensive to upgrade--either way, no room for another).

Less software.

Less games.

Less hardware.

Less connectivity (no serial or parallel ports--don't laugh, you wouldn't be laughing if you needed one and didn't have one, no optical audio, etc.).

That's just off the top of my head going off a few specs I've read today.

Clanwolfer · Post by **Clanwolfer** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 8:47 pm

Counterpoints I can think of, and this is me as someone who desperately wants to convert, not as a user, so correct me if I'm wrong:

1) Network storage.
2) POSIX compliant, right? I can recompile plenty of XWindows apps and UNIX console apps to work under OSX, right? I realize it's not everyone's cup of tea, but if I can do either of these things, there should be more software than I could possibly need available to me, generally for free.
3) Yeah, less games. But see point above: if I can play every entry in the Interactive Fiction Contests, plus Nethack and every other text-console or X11 game, plus World of Warcraft, my gaming life is going just fine. Plus, the PC upgrade cycle seems to be getting slower, so if I still have my PC, I'm set on that count.
4) What more hardware do you need, really? Sure, the form factor may not be able to handle PCI, but if you're looking at a Mac for that kind of specialized purpose, you're probably NOT looking at the base entry-level box anyway.
5) Yeah, no RS-232 connectivity sucks. But really, if you're tech-savvy enough to be using serial devices, you've probably already got a box that can do what you need.

It sounds to me like a great supplement to someone who already has a PC and wants to try out the ways of the Mac, or for a way for geeks like me to add another OS to their resume as 'competent in'. It's not a serious work machine (or maybe it is; no games would boost productivity plenty around most offices), but it would be fine for general productivity and browsing.

Meghan · Post by **Meghan** » Wed Jan 12, 2005 12:29 am

Pointer, without knowing why you want it we can't really answer the question.

It's a reasonable competant machine. But, well, this is a gaming website. Most of us won't be satisfied with Nethack and WoW.

Here's a really good discussion of it by a Mac Fan and a gamer (and fine fine writer too.)

two other points -

It's not user upgradeable. It's got an ATI Radeon 9200 32MB (and Tiger probably needs 64 mb but that's up in the air.)

edited to add:
WoW on 256 mb ram? Really? It doesn't sound pleasant.

Fireball · Post by **Fireball** » Wed Jan 12, 2005 6:42 pm

If you want a gaming machine, this isn't it. It would be a great "second computer" or a Mac that you're not going to stress out to much -- say, for office work, the Web, email, that sort of thing.

Papageno · Post by **Papageno** » Wed Jan 12, 2005 8:35 pm

I have a lot of older Mac games (vintage '91-99) that I wouldn't mind having a blazingly fast machine to run on, but I sorta doubt they would even run under whatever flavor of OS X the Mac Mini is running (unless the "classic" mode I've heard of is fairly robust). I still have an old Mac Clone from Power Computing that I bought in 1997 and upgraded with a bigger HD, faster G3 processor, System 8.6, and more RAM (I think it has 256 MB if you can believe it). But, I haven't even turned the thing on in about 2 or 3 years, and I don't know whether I can even connect it to my current router. Maybe I should just get an old used G3 tower from back in the day. At least it'll have PCI slots and maybe even a floppy drive.

gellar · Post by **gellar** » Wed Jan 12, 2005 8:36 pm

I'll probably be purchasing one for my dad in the hopes that he can't fubar it nearly as bad as he did the PC I built for him last year.

Spyware + Viruses + Haxx0rz + Technophobe Dad = NO MORE PCs.

The mac is still a good platform for teh PC n00b, right?

gellar

Fireball · Post by **Fireball** » Thu Jan 13, 2005 12:24 am

Papageno wrote:I have a lot of older Mac games (vintage '91-99) that I wouldn't mind having a blazingly fast machine to run on, but I sorta doubt they would even run under whatever flavor of OS X the Mac Mini is running (unless the "classic" mode I've heard of is fairly robust).

Classic is quite robust. I can get programs from 1985 to run in it. However, games would probably crap out due to processor timings.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Thu Jan 13, 2005 11:17 am

gellar wrote:I'll probably be purchasing one for my dad in the hopes that he can't fubar it nearly as bad as he did the PC I built for him last year.

Spyware + Viruses + Haxx0rz + Technophobe Dad = NO MORE PCs.

The mac is still a good platform for teh PC n00b, right?

gellar

The only reason they're not rife with spyware and the like is because OSX and Macs in general aren't targeted. If they keep taking desktop market share, attacks will increase. Not saying they're not a good option for noobs, but you can't just plug one in and say, "Dad, you don't have to worry about security now..."

Jeff V · Post by **Jeff V** » Thu Jan 13, 2005 2:33 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote:If they keep taking desktop market share, attacks will increase.

Errr...don't they have to stop losing market share before you make this statement? They reported in PC Magazine a few weeks ago that Apple was down to less than 3% market share (2.8% or somesuch). They mentioned how they wished Apple would do something to increase this to the point where they aren't trivially irrelevent.

Fireball · Post by **Fireball** » Thu Jan 13, 2005 3:38 pm

They sold over a million Macs last quarter, and their quarter-over-quarter sales surges upward faster than the industry as a whole, so they gained market share for that quarter, at least.

Fireball · Post by **Fireball** » Thu Jan 13, 2005 3:44 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote:The only reason they're not rife with spyware and the like is because OSX and Macs in general aren't targeted. If they keep taking desktop market share, attacks will increase. Not saying they're not a good option for noobs, but you can't just plug one in and say, "Dad, you don't have to worry about security now..."

That's not entirely true. Unlike on Windows XP, default Mac user accounts are not administrator accounts. And even administrator accounts do not have root access, and cannot delete operating system files. Because of the Unix permissions model, there is a limit to what sort of damage malware could do.

Programs require user confirmation before running the first time. And they require an administrator password before they can do most destructive functions. There is no ActiveX equivalent on the Mac, so web pages cannot install malware on an Apple system just because a user browses to that page.

It's not a perfect security model. It can still break at the user level. A person could go, find a virus, download it, double click it, authorize it to run the first time and then give it an administrator password clearance which could then let it, say, delete the user's home directory. BUt in the end, that is totally the user's fault.

The model Apple uses is inherently more secure than the run-everyone-as-root model Microsoft defaults to. It's not perfect, but it is demonstrably better.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Thu Jan 13, 2005 3:56 pm

Fireball1244 wrote: That's not entirely true. Unlike on Windows XP, default Mac user accounts are not administrator accounts. And even administrator accounts do not have root access, and cannot delete operating system files. Because of the Unix permissions model, there is a limit to what sort of damage malware could do.

Programs require user confirmation before running the first time. And they require an administrator password before they can do most destructive functions. There is no ActiveX equivalent on the Mac, so web pages cannot install malware on an Apple system just because a user browses to that page.

It's not a perfect security model. It can still break at the user level. A person could go, find a virus, download it, double click it, authorize it to run the first time and then give it an administrator password clearance which could then let it, say, delete the user's home directory. BUt in the end, that is totally the user's fault.

The model Apple uses is inherently more secure than the run-everyone-as-root model Microsoft defaults to. It's not perfect, but it is demonstrably better.

No doubt it's more secure. No doubt at all. But "more secure" doesn't mean noob-proof. Replace every Windows box with OSX (or even Linux) and ingenious programmers, hackers, and the waves of script kiddies will still find ways to waste our time.

ChrisGwinn · Post by **ChrisGwinn** » Thu Jan 13, 2005 4:22 pm

Windows machines are also POSIX compliant (or the NT series used to be - I haven't checked in years). I think being BSD compatible is a better reason to go for the mac.

Pointer may be in the same boat I am. I already have a couple of computers, but I don't have a mac or a decent UNIX workstation. I do own a KVM, have a few hundred dollars I could spend, and have (just) enough space on my desk for a box that size. I do own an iPod and already use iTunes. Everything I've seen or heard about OSX makes me think it's wicked slick.

I know there's some cool software for a mac, and all the "it won't do X that windows can do" arguments are irrelevant - I already have a PC that will do those things. Likewise, I'm not going to buy an equivalently-priced PC instead - I'd have no use for them. So should I buy a mini mac? Maybe, except I'm not convinced they're as good a deal as they look.

First, there's no audio-in. Now I've never actually used the audio-in on a computer, but it does make me worry about how useful it could be in an entertainment center context. Second, the default config includes only 256 MB of RAM. I have no idea if that's enough or how that impacts the price. Third, I don't know enough about the hardware needs of mac applications to know if they'll be adequately served by the processor speed in this thing - the cheap one is slower than their slowest PowerBook. I'd want the wireless Ethernet.

So if I end up needing more RAM, the faster processor, and the wireless Ethernet, that puts it at $750, which is past the amount of money I'd be willing to pay because it would be cool to have a mac.

I'll wait for reviews, but I'm certainly considering one.

If it would run old Apple ][e games, I would buy it in a second.

Fireball · Post by **Fireball** » Thu Jan 13, 2005 5:30 pm

ChrisGwinn wrote:Windows machines are also POSIX compliant (or the NT series used to be - I haven't checked in years). I think being BSD compatible is a better reason to go for the mac.

Plus, the Mac ships with the Apple X11 implementation which lets X11 apps coexist cleanly (if not attractively) with Mac OS X applications. They'll even minimize to the Dock.

Pointer may be in the same boat I am. I already have a couple of computers, but I don't have a mac or a decent UNIX workstation. I do own a KVM, have a few hundred dollars I could spend, and have (just) enough space on my desk for a box that size. I do own an iPod and already use iTunes. Everything I've seen or heard about OSX makes me think it's wicked slick.

OS X version 10.1 brought me back to the Mac in 2001, and it's only gotten better since then. Tiger looks to be fabulous. It's a very strange world that we're living in, where Apple is the volume sales leader for Unix-based desktop computers.

First, there's no audio-in. Now I've never actually used the audio-in on a computer, but it does make me worry about how useful it could be in an entertainment center context.

Audio in is available through USB devices. But I've never seen a need for it. Apple sold systems for years without audio in, and it didn't seem to hurt them.

Second, the default config includes only 256 MB of RAM. I have no idea if that's enough or how that impacts the price.

It depends on what you're doing with the system. I'd bump it to 512 MB myself. I intend to when I buy a Mini for my mom.

Third, I don't know enough about the hardware needs of mac applications to know if they'll be adequately served by the processor speed in this thing - the cheap one is slower than their slowest PowerBook. I'd want the wireless Ethernet.

The processor needs depend entirely on what you'll be doing with it. I comfortably did graphic design, page layout and video editing on an 800 MHz G4 system. My current 600 MHz G3 laptop is very capable at office and Internet related tasks.

What would you use the system for?

With AirPort and extra RAM, the Mac mini clocks in at about $650, unless you're a student, which can get you a better price.

ChrisGwinn · Post by **ChrisGwinn** » Thu Jan 13, 2005 6:27 pm

Fucked if I know what I'd use it for. It is shiny though.

$650 is more than I'll pay for something cool and shiny, unless I have an actual use for it. My wife works for a college, so I expect we can get some sort of deal on these eventually.

Fireball · Post by **Fireball** » Thu Jan 13, 2005 7:59 pm

Yeah. Or, if you're only mildly curious, wait about six months. When they revise the Mac mini, they'll clearance blow out the older models. Don't know how low they could take the price on a $500 machine, but I'd imagine it'll fall some.

gellar · Post by **gellar** » Thu Jan 13, 2005 8:51 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote:
gellar wrote:I'll probably be purchasing one for my dad in the hopes that he can't fubar it nearly as bad as he did the PC I built for him last year.

Spyware + Viruses + Haxx0rz + Technophobe Dad = NO MORE PCs.

The mac is still a good platform for teh PC n00b, right?

gellar
The only reason they're not rife with spyware and the like is because OSX and Macs in general aren't targeted. If they keep taking desktop market share, attacks will increase. Not saying they're not a good option for noobs, but you can't just plug one in and say, "Dad, you don't have to worry about security now..."

Yeah I definitely understand that. At least for the time being though, it's less likely to come under attack.

gellar

Misguided · Post by **Misguided** » Fri Jan 14, 2005 5:52 pm

gellar wrote:At least for the time being though, it's less likely to come under attack.

gellar

You could probably count on one hand the number of serious threats to macs in the last 20 years.

One of the other reasons for that is that the lack of market share makes for a sort of herd immunity. Think of every person that doesn't use a mac as having been vaccinated for a mac-targeted virus. Now, how quickly is thhat going to spread across the net compared to a windows-based virus?

Understand what the mac mini is and what it isn't. It's Apple's first sub-500 dollar computer...ever...if I'm not mistaken. It's a basement-level entry into the Apple family for people who are intrigued by the brand after being exposed to it by iTunes/iPod, or for people who might be interested in switching but don't want to break the bank on an iMac. I might buy one for the kids so I can set them up on a machine that can run OS X instead of the old PM 9600 I got back there. I've already got a monitor and keyboard. It isn't a gaming machine.

baron calamity · Post by **baron calamity** » Mon Jan 17, 2005 12:54 am

I am going to get a mac mini. Going to wait till spring though. One for an os upgrade and two, for an after market kit to come available so I can bry the thing open and add third party ram. Apple's stuff is too expensive.

Fireball · Post by **Fireball** » Mon Jan 17, 2005 1:02 am

I'm going to get my mom a Mac mini, but I may wait until the first revision (or until the middle of the year). Definitely bump to 512 MB of RAM, though. Mac OS X is RAM thirsty.

baron calamity · Post by **baron calamity** » Mon Jan 17, 2005 1:13 am

I want to hook it up to my TV. Just sort of whip out some web browing on un expecting guest.

Papageno · Post by **Papageno** » Mon Jan 17, 2005 4:11 am

I agree about Apple's stuff being too expensive. I was a Mac user from the late 80's to '99, but when the Mac port of Half Life was cancelled I finally threw in the towel. Right around then Win98SE was coming out, and since it worked reliably with USB and appeared to be significantly better and more stable than '95, I went for the P2 400 with a 16 MB Voodoo 3 3000. That thing was a screamer in its day, but I digress.

A couple of years before I had bought one of the Mac clones from Power Computing and it was a great little machine, and reasonably priced compared to the equivalent one from Apple. But then Apple cancelled that program and we all had to bend over and buy their machines again, and for what they wanted and not a penny less. Even with this Mini, it steams me that they chintz you out on the RAM and the HD. They could easily afford to put a half gig in there and a 60 Gig drive for that 499 price. Come on, who even makes 40 Gig drives nowadays? Anyway, I think if I want to get a machine for my old software, just for nostalgia's sake, I'll buy an old used G3 tower and install 8.6 on it. At least then I'll still have a floppy drive.