Apple's Mac mini - Tempting PC Users Everywhere
by Anand Lal Shimpi on January 25, 2005 7:39 AM EST- Posted in
- Mac
Final Words
Three points for mini purchasers:
As I've sternly recommended before, do not purchase the Mac mini with 256MB of memory - 512MB is not only the sweet spot, but it's absolutely necessary.
Second, save yourself the headache and either purchase Apple's keyboard or a keyboard with Mac OS specific key labels on it. If you're a keyboard junky, you will appreciate it. Apple's keyboard has two low-powered USB ports on the keyboard, which do come in handy, and it's actually pretty decent to type on. It does get dirty quickly, so if you eat around your computer, you may want to be a bit more careful. You also get the benefit of the Eject button on Apple's keyboard.
Third and final, don't purchase Apple's mouse. Bluetooth or not, just don't do it. Get a good two-button mouse and be done with it. My personal preference is the Logitech MX1000 not only because it tracks extremely well on high resolution displays, but the additional buttons on the mouse work under OS X.
The three points above are obviously assuming that you're looking to buy the mini, which brings us to the next point - what is a PC user to think of the mini?
As a means to play around with Mac OS X, you can't beat the Mac mini in terms of affordability. Armed with 512MB of memory, the mini is an excellent platform to gain experience with and get exposed to Mac OS X. With OS X Tiger due out by the middle of this year, the platform will become even more attractive, introducing features like a fully GPU rendered GUI as well as fully indexed system-wide search. My recommendation still stands that if you are a notebook user, you are better suited to get your exposure to Mac OS X through a PowerBook; but if you aren't in the market for a notebook, then the Mac mini is the next best thing.
The performance of the Mac mini with 512MB of memory (or more) is more than enough for OS X and the majority of tasks involving the iLife suite. Once you get into more serious video editing, however, you'll quickly outgrow the power of the G4.
As a machine to recommend to the computer illiterate, you'll find that many will appreciate the styling of the mini and thus, will be more willing to give it a try. The OS itself can be just as intimidating as Windows (while looking prettier), but it is less prone to the issues that often corrupt beginner systems - mainly becoming infected with spyware, malware, etc., which in turn reduces the burden on you to provide tech support.
Apple did a very good job with the mini. They effectively completed the transition of the entry-level computer into a commodity. To the average joe, the Mac mini isn't a computer - it's another iPod or DVD player, just a lot better and a lot more feature-filled. It's a DVD player that can edit and create DVDs, and it's an iPod that can make and play music, and it's a box that you can retrieve your email.
To the rest of us, it's a small, quiet, stylish looking box that finally breaks down the price barrier to Mac OS X. As a second system for any PC user, the Mac mini can't be beat.
And to any PC users who happen to give the Mac mini a try, have a look at our first two Mac articles for some pointers on things to do and try when using OS X for the first time.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
198 Comments
View All Comments
JeffDM - Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - link
"and remember that the shuttle has an Internal PSU. Without that unit, it would likely be fairly close to the mini's size."That depends on what "fairly close" means. A desktop internal DVD drive is about as big in volume as the mini. The Shuttle cases are about twice as deep, four times taller and a third wider (12" x 8" x 8"). They aren't really in the same order of magnitude in volume, even when you include the power supply. That, and the three Shuttles I've had the pleasure of being around were obnoxiously loud. Otherwise, Shuttles don't seem to be too bad.
tinydancer - Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - link
#1011st read #18
2nd read #23
then read this: http://www.macworld.com/weblogs/editors/2005/01/mi...
Maybe you'll have some perspective after that!
msva124 - Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - link
We must not be visiting the same websites. Viruses have never been an issue for me, I haven't had an AV program installed since maybe Windows 95. As for spyware, running Ad-aware once every week or two will usually find nothing. I am using XP SP1.I agree that macs are free of spyware and viruses, and that is a huge convenience for most users. But for someone who has been using pc's and macs for over 10 years? Please.
cryodude - Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - link
I just love reading the rants, the nice responses and the clueless ridicules. Unfortunately, most people have never used a mac, will never understand that most people really do not want to have to mess with their computers, they simply want them to work. I'm a dual user, pc's and mac's both for over 10 years beginning with windows 3.1 and mac system 7. Both have come a long ways, but having windows at work, and a high end AMD machine at home, (strictly for playing games) and then having my macs, I can from many years on both platforms tell you that there truly is no comparison between the systems when it comes to downtime, system maintenance, ease of use, and the big one, "Peace of Mind". Until you understand that you really have an alternative, although it will cost you more in $$'s up front, never ever having to deal with spyware/malware/addware/virus protection, blah blah blah, is worth 4 or 5 times the cost in a machine. Now I'm not advocating that you go spend that much, or even close to that, but honestly, if you could get something that just did the things u want to do with ease, without heartache, headache and frustration, is that such a bad thing? If your answer is yes, ( or you are stuck on the money issue) then there is no hope for you to ever understand what macs have always been about. Simply a choice, to do things easier and in many ways, better in the long run when you consider the big picture of computing.JeffDM - Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - link
Anand didn't compare the warranty lengths (the cheapest Dells have only 90 days, vs. mini's 1 year) or support when comparing with a Dell. According to a big PC Magazine survey, Apple rates noticibly better than Dell in support quality and how often people need to call support.Burbot - Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - link
#71: I am recording and mixing a community radio program. Thus, I need at least one input and one output with decent sound quality. Mac Mini has only one output, so an external sound card is needed.On programming: I am mostly interested in SWT/JFace for GUI, and various stuff (Perl, Python, Java, AspectJ) for anything else. I am not interested in win32-specific stuff, so pretty much any machine and OS will work fine for me in this area.
WaltC - Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - link
I am constantly amazed at the bias Anand obviously feels compelled to demonstrate when comparing Wintel to Apptel....this particular comparison could have been penned by the RDF gang at Apple PR--no doubt about it...;) (I'm sure it rates their stamp of approval for being so masterful in failing to actually reveal any pertinent facts while wandering heavily into crass product promotion and PR. Good for Apple, no doubt--but I think not so good for the consumers who read Anand's site.)First, does the $499 Apptel actually cost the same as the contrasted $499 Wintel?
Well, let's see...by the time you add for the keyboard, mouse, 15" lcd monitor and the 256-mbs of extra ram Anand states is needed to make the mini something useful, all of which is built in to the compared Wintel box...gosh, I guess we're talking at least $1,000 for the actual MiniMac Anand likes--which makes it--oh, 2x the cost of the contrasted Dell consumer box. This is leaving all other considerations as to processing power, graphics horsepower, 3.5" desktop IDE hard drive perfomance, expansion capacity, and the rest of it, aside, give or take the $40 more you might have to spend to put a DVD/CD-RW *of your choice* into the Wintel box.
I was delighted to see how petite and quiet the $1,000 mini appears to Anand--no doubt courtesy of the *external power brick* it requires--whereas the contrasted Dell box athalf the price, I'll bet, not only includes a lot more expansion room but also something as exotic as an *integrated power supply* so that sans monitor, keyboard, and mouse the Dell comes in one piece as opposed to the two pieces required for the mini. (My HP Deskjet 722C has an external power brick, too, so I hardly feel left out...;))
And of course, only Anand would pair a "$500" minicomputer with a ~$2,000 monitor, and then declare how great the graphics on the "$500" computer looked, as if the far more expensive monitor had nothing to do with anything...;) Nothing like testing a $3000 + system while telling your readers--over and over again--that it costs "$499"...;) And then there's the whole prospect of "taking the miniMac apart to see what's inside" that I find very amusing--as if this is exactly what the "computer illiterates" Anand recommends consider a miniMac are ever apt to do...;)
I'll never understand why Anand is so shy and timid about publishing a "price as tested" sticker along with the MSRP for the base package! Seems like nothing except common sense and good ethics, to me. There's much more I could say but I think this covers the basics pretty well. You know, I'd have much more respect for this kind of superficial "comparison" if Anand would say something like: "Well--compared to the Dell box the mini is literally 2x it's price, so it's certainly no bargain. Even so, I liked it a lot, and if novelty gadgets or conversation pieces trip your trigger you can't go wrong with the MiniMac." That would certainly be much closer to the mark.
semo - Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - link
post 100!uuhh what was the topic again?
pringlis - Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - link
eek.. I should note that it wasn't on a Mac mini but on a PowerBook with specs a little lower than the mini (except the RAM which was 512megs).pringlis - Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - link
#75 - I used Microsoft Remote Desktop to work from home for several months and I've never had any problems with it. Fairly speedy and no crashes.