About Carbon vs. Cocoa. Both are APIs. Cocoa is implemented, at least in Mac OS X, in part on top of Carbon. Basically, Carbon is the term used for both the C API that represents the old Mac APIs as well as all the new C APIs. Therefore, speed comparisons between just the APIs is meaningless.
However, there are tons of Mac OS X apps that have roots from the old Mac OS which have not been properly re-architected for Mac OS X. Further, some don't even use the current "native" Mach-O ABI but instead use the old PEF format. There is some overhead with using the old PEF format, however PEF is also faster in in a select others areas. The fundamental problem is any application that still polls for events. Those apps - and there are quite of few of them - can consume CPU cycles when idle, both killing the performance of other apps and consuming battery life for not good reason other than the developers lack of pride in producing a good product - kidding - probably a business decision (albiet a poor one). Most Cocoa apps do not have that particular architectural problem - even those ported from very ancient code bases (remember, Cocoa is just the latest in the line of NeXTstep from 1988).
Another issue is that many older applications are still using the Metrowerks toolchain and may not produce the best G5 code. This is the case for Microsoft Office 2004. Further, since Carbon is a much lower level API than Cocoa, best practices are probably not being followed as far as making the "best" Mac OS X apps from these old code bases. Think of how Win16 apps look today in modern Windows - it's worse than that.
In any case, Cocoa brings so much to the table - developers almost have to go out of their way in order for things not to work right, like services and the color panel. On the other hand, Carbon developers have to upgrade or bring these things in - hence lots of Carbon apps just don't act or feel quite right in Mac OS X. Or worse, they just perform badly.
In the end, it's all about how good a developer ends up writing code - and the big shops just aren't putting in the effort (even though the Mac still represents a huge percentage of Adobe/Macromedia/Quark/etc. sales in the creative space).
#41 I noticed that but I wanted to see if I could get something from the wholesaler I have an account with down the road. I ended up saving $12 AU by going there :P (although I did get PB spec'd memory, but it still works, and works very well - the AHT had no problems with it). I thought Apple was picky, but I haven't run into any problems yet. This thing just runs so fast now!
BTW, iTunes is great of course, but iPhoto '04 is just meh. Hopefully iPhoto '05 is much better.
iMovie '04 is better than average, but iDVD '04 is the best consumer level DVD authoring app ever created. Nothing comes close to iDVD '04, and iDVD '05 looks even better.
Yes, it's a 2.5" laptop drive. One 1.42 GHz Mac mini has been Xbenched, and it had an 80 GB Toshiba 2.5" drive with 8 MB cache.
I agree that Apple really limited its design with the memory.
It's a shame that the memory isn't user upgradable, and it's an even bigger shame that there aren't two memory slots. Size of the unit matters, but I'm sure 99% of purchasers would have preferred having a slightly bigger mini with a second user accessible memory slot to upgrade the RAM.
256 MB on a Mac is inadequate. 384-512 is a good starting point. If they're going to ship it with 256, then they should have added the option for a second user acessible slot to make it an easy upgrade to 768 MB or 1.25 GB. Or in the very least, just make the single slot user accessible, or have two slots not user accessible. Effectively, the mini costs $574, just to make the mini usable, but there is no cheap and easy option to add enough memory to make it more than just usable.
Given the obvious memory limitations of the mini, one wonders if Apple did this intentionally to promote the iMac upsell. If so, I don't think it would have been necessary to protect the iMac in this way, since the machine is already limited by the laptop drive (which is a reasonable compromise IMO for a low end small form factor machine). Furthermore, the mini only supports DDR333 speeds, not DDR400 like the iMac.
In the meantime, I will use my *silent* 1.7 GHz Cube with 7200 rpm desktop drive. :)
P.S. I like the Notebook feature of MS Word. But Pages looks truly cool.
#37 M Lin "Any DDR SO-DIMM marked PC2100 and up will do, so PC2700, which is the most plentiful, is fine. In my experience, Macs are NOT picky with RAM"
"The memory, as I've mentioned before, is the same DDR400 that you use in PCs, but the motherboard is quite picky about the SPD programming on the modules."
Some years back there was a G4 firmware update that disabled a lot of third party RAM. It turned out to be a cl timing issue - exactly what Anand refered to above after his first choice of high speed RAM did not work. You'll find the full story here:
My wife is beside herself with excitement for the mini! I will have a LCD monitor with wireless kb, and mouse setup in our kitchen hutch so that she can mess around with digital pictures and surf the web. On top of that, she will not complain about how noisy my four case fans are anymore! Man that thing is cute!...G
I don't understand why there's such a negative reaction to Office 2k4. I think it's far and away the best version of Office MS has ever made, and considering the fact that each product in the suite is the best of it's class that's saying a lot. Word and Excel have loads of features not found in the PC equivalents, and Entourage has a much cleaner interface than Outlook does. They are really top notch, and I've never seen any word processor match Word in terms of ease of use + features (including what I've seen from Pages).
FYI, iTunes is Carbon, and yes, Carbon runs much faster than Cocoa does.
I'm with #33. Who gives a crap what millions of people out there with too much time on their hands have to say about stuff that they generally don't know much about?
Anand has earned his respect and reputation, which is why many people who couldn't care less about "blogs," including myself, still take time to read what he has to say.
jsares, the fact that you have a blog gives you instant credibility in my eyes. I read that post you mentioned, it really changed my mind about everything.
I think it'd be interesting to see how the Mac mini works as Apple's initial entry into the personal media server market. I understand the 80GB drive of the top-end model is small by today's standards, but it compares favorably to Tivo, and with H.264 compression it should be adequate (don't know if the GPU can handle it though?)
But imagine if Apple could build a unit with G5, 512mb RAM, built-in wireless/bluetooth, dual-layer SuperDrive, HD multichannel audio and HDMI output with a "Media Center" version of Tiger. I think that would be an instant hit and the machine to beat in the Media Center market.
For those of you who say that the Mini is not enduser upgradeable as far as memory, should go to the apple website and see the picture of the inside of the computer.
As you can see from the picture near the end of the page, there is a full size 184-pin DIMM at the side of the Mini. Simply pulling off the top of the Mini, pulling out the RAM and putting in another one would take about 3 minutes.
Unfortunately, there is only one memory slot. So you will have to replace the 256 MB with a 512 MB or 1 GB RAM stick which are both available at www.crucial.com for $81 and $227, respectively (cheaper elsewhere). The Mini uses regular DDR333 PC2700 Modules.
By the way, looking at the picture of the inside, there is no way a 3.5" drive could fit in there. It is definitely a 2.5".
#23, thanks for the tip. I'll do that if I can't get something out of begging the retailers here in Perth, Western Australia. I'm just a bit weary about shipping from the US, but DHL is ok I've heard.
I never thought I'd see the day [in my lifetime] that Apple would come out with a sub-$500 computer!
This is truly amazing, and the engineering behind this computer is absolutely astonishing!
My first apple computer was the Cube, and that was truly an engineering marvel ... but now this?!!?
My only complaints really is that it should come with 512mb RAM standard [on all their products] .... but I guess it's not TOO big of a deal to upgrade it via apple for $75. But for their other computers [iMac, Powermac, etc.] don't buy from them, and buy it 3rd party.
Hopefully this will get a lot of people interested in OS X. Though it has it's downfalls, it truly is a very fun OS experience [and powerful]
#22 hopejr What you need to do is head over to www.crucial.com
Choose your country and then find the RAM you need by using their computer model selector. All very simple, reasonably priced & guaranteed to work... it's quality Micron RAM.
Good quality RAM is important for Macs - they are very selective.
I need to put some more RAM in my iBook. It's only got the stock 256MB, but I still like it's performance. Maybe if I put more RAM in, I would like it a lot more. Problem is, I can't find the right RAM specs anywhere other than the Apple store (none of the PC retailers here stock PC2100 SoDIMM's anymore for some reason).
Haha I actually went ahead and did some Internet measurements. A CD-ROM drive is 5.75" x 1.63" x 7.48", a Shuttle SN41G2 is 7.87" x 7.28" x 11.8", and the Mac mini is 6.5" x 2" x 6.5"
18: Heh. Hmmm, a dedicated host processor for the OS (mini+OSX) which calls an AMD/Intel processor to run tasks. All packaged neatly in a SFF with multiple monitors. Now that would be a feat of engineering.
when i first read your post Mr. Smith (Agent Smith? :-) I thought you were crazy. But then i took a gander at the actual dimensions of the mini, and it seems do-able. Unforg=tunately, i dont have the money to play with such a thing, but it would certainly be an interesting article from this one Indian guy ive heard of ;-) (after it is disected for the review, of course!)
Call me when someone mods the mini to fit in a CD drive bay...
/me considers:
SFF PC
Remove the drive and replace with a mini
Add an extra enet card (They do typically have 1 PCI, slot right?)
route the mini's enet to the PC's
route the mini's DVI to a hole cut in the side of the PC, and then both machine's video output to a KVM
Share the mini's CD drive with the PC over ethernet
Share the PC's net connection with the mini over ethernet
Result: A SFF hybrid Mac/PC that can change at the flip of a KVM switch
Would it work? No idea. Would it kick ass? Yup!
I also want a stack of minis to do renders and compiles on...
I'm a wannabe PC enthusiast who has shunned Apple products because of the price barrier. The mini is attractive enough for me to dip my toe in the waters, now.
This will be a really nice fit for my wife. She only uses computers for average tasks and the occassional music composition (she currently uses Finale).
If my Apple Experiment turns out well, I can easily envision myself convincing several family members to switch since they are unabashedly computer illiterate and would greatly benefit from a friendly UI.
Obviously, 512mb RAM would have been ideal, and is pretty much required for a smooth OS X experience. But considering that Apple still ships a $2000 Dual G5 PowerMac with 256mb RAM, did you really expect them to stick 512mb into a $499 machine?
Hell, i'm glad they didn't cripple the thing with 128mb!
I'm far from a die-hard Machead, but I was swayed by OSX to give it a shot a couple of years ago, and I wouldn't be without one now. The only arena where the Mac doesn't stand head-and-shoulders above Windows now is gaming--for everything else, I'd rather do it on my Mac. Especially for the kinds of tasks that everyone does--email, web, digital photos, music, word processing. $499 is a ridiculously reasonable price for this (seriously, spec out a usable small form factor PC, even a home-brew one, and see how much you can save, especially after adding software comparable to the included iLife suite).
Anand is on target when he says it's not enough memory--that's a huge mistake, IMO, especially since the machine is not end-user upgradeable. OSX needs 512mb to run even the most basic apps without swapping frequently, and it will turn people off in a hurry. I expect to either see that the majority of machines in the retail chain are pre-upgraded or for Apple to change this spec promptly.
Assuming the memory issue is resolved, this will be very big for Apple (and, in 18 months, for Microsoft). I cannot imagine recommending anything else to any of the relatives/neighbors/friends who turn to me for home system advice. Could they get more performance from a PC for the same money? Maybe, but guess who would be providing the constant support for the thing? Right.
Pure self interest will incite tens thousands of geeks like me to encourage their less tech-savvy acquaintances to get a mini.
iLife '05 is sweeeeet as!! iMovie even supports HDV and widescreen SDV now!
#10 - carbon comes from OS 9 and cocoa is derived from NeXT. From this, I would assume that cocoa would work better on OS X than carbon does. Anyway, carbon isn't properly integrated anyway. Can't use any of the stuff in the services menu from a carbon app. It's hard to drag and drop from carbon apps to cocoa apps and vice versa unless the coders have done extra work (I find this really annoying). I also find that cocoa apps are faster in my experience.
The one thing, i think, that lowers my appreciation for your work on the Macs is the fact that you have never used iMovie or iDVD. I would say that these are most definately 2 of the most significant reasons for switching to the Mac. They make tasks like video editing, that were once time consuming and difficult and has made them fast and FUN! The integration between the iLife sweet is what makes it great, not the individual programs. You can't truly appreciat iPhoto until you have made a movie or a DVD. I think you should seriously consider sitting down and trying them because they are such a big part of the mac experience..... and for many of us one of the single most important reasons we 'switched'.
Apple are heading straight at Sony with these hardware products. Sony have charged a 15% premium for jewel like products. The sort of impulse buy you can't resist because it looks so cool.
Apple has found that PC users are resistant but they also know that despite what they say about function over style PC users are not immune, they often still care about the car they drive & the clothes they wear. So Apple are ratcheting up the pressure...
Small, cool, impulse buy products... hmmm...
So, Anandtech PC diehards, how's Apple doing? Is that credit card burning a hole in your pocket yet?
I'm not saying office for mac is not slow and buggy - it could very well be. But that is not because it was written in carbon or because it is not mac osx native.
>I'd do anything to replace MS Office and Dreamweaver with better native OS X applications on the Mac
Office is written in carbon, which is as OS X native as anything else on the mac platform. Also it is typically faster than cocoa, which is why apple writes some of its own IApps in it.
I'm sick of Office 2k4. It's really annoying how it was written in Carbon and doesn't integrate with OS X properly. This also makes it slow as hell. I'm glad that Apple is bringing out a good product in competition with Word.
I think the Mac mini is a good product for three categories of people:
Someone who is tired of dealing with Windows exploits and only needs to browse porn, read email, and write a few documents.
Someone who wants to do pictures, play with the iPod, movies, etc, but doesn't want to deal with building a system capable of doing so. Essentially this is the perfect accessory to a digital camera, an iPod, a DV camera, a midi keyboard, etc.
A switcher who couldn't afford a Mac otherwise, can now afford the mini.
My PC-only brother in law was the first to e-mail me (I was at work so I couldn't catch this on the web) with confirmation of the xMac...err Mac Mini :-) That's probably a good sign! Honestly, I haven't made my mind up about it's appeal to me. I just picked up an iMac G5. I could see using a Mini as a server (IMAP, simple HTTP, DB, etc.). I'd also like to use one with MythTV frontend now that it's been ported to Mac OS X*. But I wouldn't actually use one as my main Mac box. I've got 1 GB of memory in my iMac and I'm looking to upgrade to 2 GB. So, a G4 with a maximum of 1 GB memory isn't too appealing. That being said, this would be a great Mac to buy if you want to experiment with OS X. I think the best way to sum this up is that this is a Mac for people who don't already own a Mac, or for those who have a much older one and couldn't afford to upgrade to the existing models. This won't be some miracle product that boosts marketshare ten-fold. But those people who deep down want a Mac and have been keeping a set of excuses for not doing so now have one less reason.
*FYI for any MythTV Mac users, there is now Altvec'd code in the CVS version that ups performance noticeably.
I agree that the mini should come standard with 512mb ram at least, but it can be ordered with that amount (I think additional $75). I don't see any cheap Dells out there with a dedicated graphics card, so I think this machine (given sufficient ram) will meet the computing needs of a bunch of folks who aren't heavy gamers or computer enthusiasts. Windows users who are looking for an affordable entry into the Apple experience now have a viable choice, imho.
What the mac mini lacks, compared to an XPC is the integrated composite and s-video output. I know it's available as a dongle, but it adds to the cost of the system.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
51 Comments
Back to Article
hopejr - Tuesday, January 18, 2005 - link
oops, I meant #49 :Phopejr - Tuesday, January 18, 2005 - link
#50, that's for clearing that up.tech010101x - Tuesday, January 18, 2005 - link
About Carbon vs. Cocoa. Both are APIs. Cocoa is implemented, at least in Mac OS X, in part on top of Carbon. Basically, Carbon is the term used for both the C API that represents the old Mac APIs as well as all the new C APIs. Therefore, speed comparisons between just the APIs is meaningless.However, there are tons of Mac OS X apps that have roots from the old Mac OS which have not been properly re-architected for Mac OS X. Further, some don't even use the current "native" Mach-O ABI but instead use the old PEF format. There is some overhead with using the old PEF format, however PEF is also faster in in a select others areas. The fundamental problem is any application that still polls for events. Those apps - and there are quite of few of them - can consume CPU cycles when idle, both killing the performance of other apps and consuming battery life for not good reason other than the developers lack of pride in producing a good product - kidding - probably a business decision (albiet a poor one). Most Cocoa apps do not have that particular architectural problem - even those ported from very ancient code bases (remember, Cocoa is just the latest in the line of NeXTstep from 1988).
Another issue is that many older applications are still using the Metrowerks toolchain and may not produce the best G5 code. This is the case for Microsoft Office 2004. Further, since Carbon is a much lower level API than Cocoa, best practices are probably not being followed as far as making the "best" Mac OS X apps from these old code bases. Think of how Win16 apps look today in modern Windows - it's worse than that.
In any case, Cocoa brings so much to the table - developers almost have to go out of their way in order for things not to work right, like services and the color panel. On the other hand, Carbon developers have to upgrade or bring these things in - hence lots of Carbon apps just don't act or feel quite right in Mac OS X. Or worse, they just perform badly.
In the end, it's all about how good a developer ends up writing code - and the big shops just aren't putting in the effort (even though the Mac still represents a huge percentage of Adobe/Macromedia/Quark/etc. sales in the creative space).
Joe - Monday, January 17, 2005 - link
Pages, part of iWork, is more of a layout/publisher program and less of a Word Processor.If you want a really nice Word Processor for Mac, check out Nisus Writer Express.
hopejr - Monday, January 17, 2005 - link
#45, what's that got to do with the Mac mini, etc? HL2 doesn't even run on them AFAIK. You're always off topic.hopejr - Monday, January 17, 2005 - link
#41 I noticed that but I wanted to see if I could get something from the wholesaler I have an account with down the road. I ended up saving $12 AU by going there :P (although I did get PB spec'd memory, but it still works, and works very well - the AHT had no problems with it). I thought Apple was picky, but I haven't run into any problems yet. This thing just runs so fast now!The_Necromancer - Monday, January 17, 2005 - link
How about a HAlf-life 2 cpu scaling?????Eug - Monday, January 17, 2005 - link
BTW, iTunes is great of course, but iPhoto '04 is just meh. Hopefully iPhoto '05 is much better.iMovie '04 is better than average, but iDVD '04 is the best consumer level DVD authoring app ever created. Nothing comes close to iDVD '04, and iDVD '05 looks even better.
Eug - Monday, January 17, 2005 - link
Yes, it's a 2.5" laptop drive. One 1.42 GHz Mac mini has been Xbenched, and it had an 80 GB Toshiba 2.5" drive with 8 MB cache.I agree that Apple really limited its design with the memory.
It's a shame that the memory isn't user upgradable, and it's an even bigger shame that there aren't two memory slots. Size of the unit matters, but I'm sure 99% of purchasers would have preferred having a slightly bigger mini with a second user accessible memory slot to upgrade the RAM.
256 MB on a Mac is inadequate. 384-512 is a good starting point. If they're going to ship it with 256, then they should have added the option for a second user acessible slot to make it an easy upgrade to 768 MB or 1.25 GB. Or in the very least, just make the single slot user accessible, or have two slots not user accessible. Effectively, the mini costs $574, just to make the mini usable, but there is no cheap and easy option to add enough memory to make it more than just usable.
Given the obvious memory limitations of the mini, one wonders if Apple did this intentionally to promote the iMac upsell. If so, I don't think it would have been necessary to protect the iMac in this way, since the machine is already limited by the laptop drive (which is a reasonable compromise IMO for a low end small form factor machine). Furthermore, the mini only supports DDR333 speeds, not DDR400 like the iMac.
In the meantime, I will use my *silent* 1.7 GHz Cube with 7200 rpm desktop drive. :)
P.S. I like the Notebook feature of MS Word. But Pages looks truly cool.
mephisto - Monday, January 17, 2005 - link
#37 M Lin "Any DDR SO-DIMM marked PC2100 and up will do, so PC2700, which is the most plentiful, is fine. In my experience, Macs are NOT picky with RAM"You do read the articles here, don't you?
http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2232&a...
"The memory, as I've mentioned before, is the same DDR400 that you use in PCs, but the motherboard is quite picky about the SPD programming on the modules."
Some years back there was a G4 firmware update that disabled a lot of third party RAM. It turned out to be a cl timing issue - exactly what Anand refered to above after his first choice of high speed RAM did not work. You'll find the full story here:
http://www.macobserver.com/article/2001/03/24.3.sh...
So, as both Anand & I said, Macs are picky about RAM.
mephisto - Monday, January 17, 2005 - link
#27 Crucial sell direct in Australia too:http://www.crucial.com/crucial/pvtcontent/internat...
Gil - Monday, January 17, 2005 - link
My wife is beside herself with excitement for the mini! I will have a LCD monitor with wireless kb, and mouse setup in our kitchen hutch so that she can mess around with digital pictures and surf the web. On top of that, she will not complain about how noisy my four case fans are anymore! Man that thing is cute!...Ghopejr - Monday, January 17, 2005 - link
I put a 256MB PC2700 in my iBook and it flies now! Thanks for the suggestion #37bersl2 - Saturday, January 15, 2005 - link
Apple has always put less RAM in their machines than a comparable PC. This is no shocker.More RAM is always better, but Apple seems to get away with skimping on it.
M. Lin - Saturday, January 15, 2005 - link
In reply to hopejr re iBook RAM:Any DDR SO-DIMM marked PC2100 and up will do, so PC2700, which is the most plentiful, is fine.
In my experience, Macs are NOT picky with RAM. I've mixed all sorts of generics and brand names and never had a problem.
Search dealram.com for the best prices.
CompuNinja - Saturday, January 15, 2005 - link
I don't understand why there's such a negative reaction to Office 2k4. I think it's far and away the best version of Office MS has ever made, and considering the fact that each product in the suite is the best of it's class that's saying a lot. Word and Excel have loads of features not found in the PC equivalents, and Entourage has a much cleaner interface than Outlook does. They are really top notch, and I've never seen any word processor match Word in terms of ease of use + features (including what I've seen from Pages).FYI, iTunes is Carbon, and yes, Carbon runs much faster than Cocoa does.
M. T. MacPhee - Friday, January 14, 2005 - link
Anand! Wanting to get rid of MS apps on your Mac! You really *are* turning into a Machead!ProviaFan - Friday, January 14, 2005 - link
I'm with #33. Who gives a crap what millions of people out there with too much time on their hands have to say about stuff that they generally don't know much about?Anand has earned his respect and reputation, which is why many people who couldn't care less about "blogs," including myself, still take time to read what he has to say.
msva124 - Thursday, January 13, 2005 - link
jsares, the fact that you have a blog gives you instant credibility in my eyes. I read that post you mentioned, it really changed my mind about everything.nowayout99 - Thursday, January 13, 2005 - link
#28, Apple says it has to be upgraded by a certified tech or the warranty is voided. It's not an easily opened case.jsares - Thursday, January 13, 2005 - link
Read my post on why comparing the Mac mini to cheap and used PCs is crazy.http://macmini.blogspot.com
Jigga - Thursday, January 13, 2005 - link
I think it'd be interesting to see how the Mac mini works as Apple's initial entry into the personal media server market. I understand the 80GB drive of the top-end model is small by today's standards, but it compares favorably to Tivo, and with H.264 compression it should be adequate (don't know if the GPU can handle it though?)But imagine if Apple could build a unit with G5, 512mb RAM, built-in wireless/bluetooth, dual-layer SuperDrive, HD multichannel audio and HDMI output with a "Media Center" version of Tiger. I think that would be an instant hit and the machine to beat in the Media Center market.
yelo - Thursday, January 13, 2005 - link
Has Cnet used quoted this blog in their article?See page 2 of this article(the link goes directly there for your convience):
http://news.com.com/Mac+Mini+a+maxi+deal+Depends+w...
And, search the page for "Shimpi"...seems to be a reworked quote from this blog.
mlittl3 - Thursday, January 13, 2005 - link
For those of you who say that the Mini is not enduser upgradeable as far as memory, should go to the apple website and see the picture of the inside of the computer.http://www.apple.com/macmini/design.html
As you can see from the picture near the end of the page, there is a full size 184-pin DIMM at the side of the Mini. Simply pulling off the top of the Mini, pulling out the RAM and putting in another one would take about 3 minutes.
Unfortunately, there is only one memory slot. So you will have to replace the 256 MB with a 512 MB or 1 GB RAM stick which are both available at www.crucial.com for $81 and $227, respectively (cheaper elsewhere). The Mini uses regular DDR333 PC2700 Modules.
By the way, looking at the picture of the inside, there is no way a 3.5" drive could fit in there. It is definitely a 2.5".
hopejr - Thursday, January 13, 2005 - link
#23, thanks for the tip. I'll do that if I can't get something out of begging the retailers here in Perth, Western Australia. I'm just a bit weary about shipping from the US, but DHL is ok I've heard.Bob - Thursday, January 13, 2005 - link
Yeah, there's a USB-TOSlink adapter listed on the accessories page for the mini. Apple Store price $99, less elsewhere.Ed - Thursday, January 13, 2005 - link
SFF -- checkDVD player -- check
Available TV Tuner + DVR software-- check (ATI announced one)
DVI -- check
S-Video -- check (available seperately)
SPDIF -- ????
Whisper quiet -- supposedly
Seems like we almost have a really really good HTPC here... Does anyone know if there is an USB to SPDIF adapter that Mac OS X supports?
Ed
... : - Thursday, January 13, 2005 - link
I never thought I'd see the day [in my lifetime] that Apple would come out with a sub-$500 computer!This is truly amazing, and the engineering behind this computer is absolutely astonishing!
My first apple computer was the Cube, and that was truly an engineering marvel ... but now this?!!?
My only complaints really is that it should come with 512mb RAM standard [on all their products] .... but I guess it's not TOO big of a deal to upgrade it via apple for $75. But for their other computers [iMac, Powermac, etc.] don't buy from them, and buy it 3rd party.
Hopefully this will get a lot of people interested in OS X. Though it has it's downfalls, it truly is a very fun OS experience [and powerful]
Mephisto - Wednesday, January 12, 2005 - link
#22 hopejr What you need to do is head over to www.crucial.comChoose your country and then find the RAM you need by using their computer model selector. All very simple, reasonably priced & guaranteed to work... it's quality Micron RAM.
Good quality RAM is important for Macs - they are very selective.
hopejr - Wednesday, January 12, 2005 - link
I need to put some more RAM in my iBook. It's only got the stock 256MB, but I still like it's performance. Maybe if I put more RAM in, I would like it a lot more. Problem is, I can't find the right RAM specs anywhere other than the Apple store (none of the PC retailers here stock PC2100 SoDIMM's anymore for some reason).killaz - Wednesday, January 12, 2005 - link
Haha I actually went ahead and did some Internet measurements. A CD-ROM drive is 5.75" x 1.63" x 7.48", a Shuttle SN41G2 is 7.87" x 7.28" x 11.8", and the Mac mini is 6.5" x 2" x 6.5"Are We There Yet? - Wednesday, January 12, 2005 - link
18: Heh. Hmmm, a dedicated host processor for the OS (mini+OSX) which calls an AMD/Intel processor to run tasks. All packaged neatly in a SFF with multiple monitors. Now that would be a feat of engineering.ksherman - Wednesday, January 12, 2005 - link
when i first read your post Mr. Smith (Agent Smith? :-) I thought you were crazy. But then i took a gander at the actual dimensions of the mini, and it seems do-able. Unforg=tunately, i dont have the money to play with such a thing, but it would certainly be an interesting article from this one Indian guy ive heard of ;-) (after it is disected for the review, of course!)David Smith - Wednesday, January 12, 2005 - link
Call me when someone mods the mini to fit in a CD drive bay.../me considers:
SFF PC
Remove the drive and replace with a mini
Add an extra enet card (They do typically have 1 PCI, slot right?)
route the mini's enet to the PC's
route the mini's DVI to a hole cut in the side of the PC, and then both machine's video output to a KVM
Share the mini's CD drive with the PC over ethernet
Share the PC's net connection with the mini over ethernet
Result: A SFF hybrid Mac/PC that can change at the flip of a KVM switch
Would it work? No idea. Would it kick ass? Yup!
I also want a stack of minis to do renders and compiles on...
Houdani - Wednesday, January 12, 2005 - link
I'm a wannabe PC enthusiast who has shunned Apple products because of the price barrier. The mini is attractive enough for me to dip my toe in the waters, now.This will be a really nice fit for my wife. She only uses computers for average tasks and the occassional music composition (she currently uses Finale).
If my Apple Experiment turns out well, I can easily envision myself convincing several family members to switch since they are unabashedly computer illiterate and would greatly benefit from a friendly UI.
DOACleric - Wednesday, January 12, 2005 - link
Obviously, 512mb RAM would have been ideal, and is pretty much required for a smooth OS X experience. But considering that Apple still ships a $2000 Dual G5 PowerMac with 256mb RAM, did you really expect them to stick 512mb into a $499 machine?Hell, i'm glad they didn't cripple the thing with 128mb!
sean - Wednesday, January 12, 2005 - link
I'm far from a die-hard Machead, but I was swayed by OSX to give it a shot a couple of years ago, and I wouldn't be without one now. The only arena where the Mac doesn't stand head-and-shoulders above Windows now is gaming--for everything else, I'd rather do it on my Mac. Especially for the kinds of tasks that everyone does--email, web, digital photos, music, word processing. $499 is a ridiculously reasonable price for this (seriously, spec out a usable small form factor PC, even a home-brew one, and see how much you can save, especially after adding software comparable to the included iLife suite).Anand is on target when he says it's not enough memory--that's a huge mistake, IMO, especially since the machine is not end-user upgradeable. OSX needs 512mb to run even the most basic apps without swapping frequently, and it will turn people off in a hurry. I expect to either see that the majority of machines in the retail chain are pre-upgraded or for Apple to change this spec promptly.
Assuming the memory issue is resolved, this will be very big for Apple (and, in 18 months, for Microsoft). I cannot imagine recommending anything else to any of the relatives/neighbors/friends who turn to me for home system advice. Could they get more performance from a PC for the same money? Maybe, but guess who would be providing the constant support for the thing? Right.
Pure self interest will incite tens thousands of geeks like me to encourage their less tech-savvy acquaintances to get a mini.
hopejr - Wednesday, January 12, 2005 - link
iLife '05 is sweeeeet as!! iMovie even supports HDV and widescreen SDV now!#10 - carbon comes from OS 9 and cocoa is derived from NeXT. From this, I would assume that cocoa would work better on OS X than carbon does. Anyway, carbon isn't properly integrated anyway. Can't use any of the stuff in the services menu from a carbon app. It's hard to drag and drop from carbon apps to cocoa apps and vice versa unless the coders have done extra work (I find this really annoying). I also find that cocoa apps are faster in my experience.
derek - Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - link
Anand...The one thing, i think, that lowers my appreciation for your work on the Macs is the fact that you have never used iMovie or iDVD. I would say that these are most definately 2 of the most significant reasons for switching to the Mac. They make tasks like video editing, that were once time consuming and difficult and has made them fast and FUN! The integration between the iLife sweet is what makes it great, not the individual programs. You can't truly appreciat iPhoto until you have made a movie or a DVD. I think you should seriously consider sitting down and trying them because they are such a big part of the mac experience..... and for many of us one of the single most important reasons we 'switched'.
Mephistopheles - Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - link
Apple are heading straight at Sony with these hardware products. Sony have charged a 15% premium for jewel like products. The sort of impulse buy you can't resist because it looks so cool.Apple has found that PC users are resistant but they also know that despite what they say about function over style PC users are not immune, they often still care about the car they drive & the clothes they wear. So Apple are ratcheting up the pressure...
Small, cool, impulse buy products... hmmm...
So, Anandtech PC diehards, how's Apple doing? Is that credit card burning a hole in your pocket yet?
msva124 - Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - link
I'm not saying office for mac is not slow and buggy - it could very well be. But that is not because it was written in carbon or because it is not mac osx native.msva124 - Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - link
>I'd do anything to replace MS Office and Dreamweaver with better native OS X applications on the MacOffice is written in carbon, which is as OS X native as anything else on the mac platform. Also it is typically faster than cocoa, which is why apple writes some of its own IApps in it.
hopejr - Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - link
I'm sick of Office 2k4. It's really annoying how it was written in Carbon and doesn't integrate with OS X properly. This also makes it slow as hell. I'm glad that Apple is bringing out a good product in competition with Word.Michael2k - Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - link
I think the Mac mini is a good product for three categories of people:Someone who is tired of dealing with Windows exploits and only needs to browse porn, read email, and write a few documents.
Someone who wants to do pictures, play with the iPod, movies, etc, but doesn't want to deal with building a system capable of doing so. Essentially this is the perfect accessory to a digital camera, an iPod, a DV camera, a midi keyboard, etc.
A switcher who couldn't afford a Mac otherwise, can now afford the mini.
GL - Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - link
My PC-only brother in law was the first to e-mail me (I was at work so I couldn't catch this on the web) with confirmation of the xMac...err Mac Mini :-) That's probably a good sign! Honestly, I haven't made my mind up about it's appeal to me. I just picked up an iMac G5. I could see using a Mini as a server (IMAP, simple HTTP, DB, etc.). I'd also like to use one with MythTV frontend now that it's been ported to Mac OS X*. But I wouldn't actually use one as my main Mac box. I've got 1 GB of memory in my iMac and I'm looking to upgrade to 2 GB. So, a G4 with a maximum of 1 GB memory isn't too appealing. That being said, this would be a great Mac to buy if you want to experiment with OS X. I think the best way to sum this up is that this is a Mac for people who don't already own a Mac, or for those who have a much older one and couldn't afford to upgrade to the existing models. This won't be some miracle product that boosts marketshare ten-fold. But those people who deep down want a Mac and have been keeping a set of excuses for not doing so now have one less reason.*FYI for any MythTV Mac users, there is now Altvec'd code in the CVS version that ups performance noticeably.
brichpmr - Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - link
I agree that the mini should come standard with 512mb ram at least, but it can be ordered with that amount (I think additional $75). I don't see any cheap Dells out there with a dedicated graphics card, so I think this machine (given sufficient ram) will meet the computing needs of a bunch of folks who aren't heavy gamers or computer enthusiasts. Windows users who are looking for an affordable entry into the Apple experience now have a viable choice, imho.Anand Lal Shimpi - Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - link
xypeOne step ahead of you... :)
Take care,
Anand
xype - Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - link
How about getting a Mac mini with iWork and writing a short article about it, maybe 4-5 pages? :o)ProviaFan - Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - link
The mac mini looks neat in some ways, but I would have liked to see some sort of dual-display option, at least for the more expensive model. :(kuk - Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - link
What the mac mini lacks, compared to an XPC is the integrated composite and s-video output. I know it's available as a dongle, but it adds to the cost of the system.david - Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - link
I think the mac mini has a 2.5 inch laptop drive.