|
|
|
Comment |
Sorted by
Date Written |
Really comprehensive and thoughtful review (Reply to this comment)
by bchavers
Dj_White_Rice and others:
Thanks everyone for your insightful opinions in response to Dj_White_Rice's review of the Mac Mini. You all helped me decide that my first Apple would be the Mac Mini and not an older G4/G5. You see, my son wants a MacBook for college but he hasn't used one since middle school and I think the Mini will help get his XP/PC brain in gear for college.
Thanks again folks you've confirmed that checking this site helps one make more informed decisions.
|
Nov 27 '06
11:13 pm PST
|
|
Wanted to give a "very Helpful" rating, but couldn't... (Reply to this comment)
by pruss
95% of what this reviewer had to say was dead on...
Only thing I disagreed with was his take on XP users switching to Mac OS X due to his mistaken comments about OS X being inflexible... It's just as flexible as OS 9 was in the UI areas that count... t is somewhat less flexible in appearnce, but that is trivial... THe Finder is just as flexible as OS 9s finder, and goes MUCH further... I have multiple folders open at all times, and some are in icon view, some in hierarchical (tree - called "list") view, and some in the "new" (OS X only) Column view.
Having used Windows daily since 1990 until March of 2005, and having using Macs since 1986, I have to honestly say that Mac OS X is superior to any prior version of the Mac oS (I am specifically referring to the currently shipping Mac OS X 10.4 "Tiger" version, though I felt the same way about the 10.3 "Panther" version. I was no so enamoured out prior OS X versions, since they all left something to be desired, but not anymore).
In comparison to XP, the UI is somewhat different, but it only takes a few days of continuous use to get used to for most people, and others could benefit from a simple book for $30 to explain the differences (most long time Mac users could benefit from such books as well, I have found!).
I am a very advanced user... I have been working with computers since 1976, and have been a LONG time proponent of GUI design (before GUIs existed, or became popular), and while I always found faults in Mac OS' UI design, it was rarely anything more than a semantical disagreement of what makes more sense... With Windows, I have never felt entirely comfortable with the UI, but not because I couldn't find anything... More because things never seemed to be logically placed and there are too many silly and illogical options for doing things that merely clutter the UI up... It might sound restrictive, but in reality, consistency makes for a better UI than total flexibility (not that Windows is even close to being totally flexible - it's just more malleable.
Anyhow, I agree that OS X is not for everyone... Most people are happy with "good enough" and if their definition of Good enough is Windows XP, then so be it. Competition is good for Apple, and vice versa (which is why Microsoft has not been very innovative in, well... ever.
Otherwise, this was an excellent review, and it covers all the bases extremely well... I already have a Mac mini 1.42 with the 80GB drive, SuperDrive (CD/DVD burner), Bluetooth and Airport wireless. I bought it was 512, and immediately felt that I needed to upgrade, and bought a 1GB module from newegg.com, cracked the case open and changed the DIMM... Was a pain to open the case, but I've seen worse in CE devices, which this computer is clearly taking Apple in that direction. It now flies most of the time, and I do heavy graphics and 3D design with adobe Photoshop, Alias Maya, etc. I really push the hardware's limits and yes, a dual G5 would be better, but duh...
Anyhow, I'll be getting a dual 2.7 G5 PowerMac in October anyhow, and this little one will become the family computer to replace the year old homee-built AthlonXP 3200 system which will become a Linux server.
|
Sep 13 '05
6:42 am PDT
|
|
Thorough review, questionable XP "facts" (Reply to this comment)
by mack-dohc
Thanks for your detailed review of the Mac Mini. I did think that it was worth mentioning that some of your XP "facts" are not completely true. I have used Windows XP for some time (and I'm certainly not anti-Mac, by the way) and the "big-brother" authentication process you speak of is foreign to me. I use XP Professional, and I can do any software OR hardware changes that I desire without any authentication from Microsoft. I've installed network cards, video cards, sound cards, harddrives, RAM, CD drives - all without any call to Microsoft. XP "Home" edition supposedly has limited *hardware* changes, but my roommate at college uses XP Home edition, and he too installs software and hardware devices without hindrance.
I haven't given Microsoft any "control" over my computer or my actions - and I certainly haven't ever had to call them just to install software. I think the opening paragraph of your review lacks credibility, since it isn't completely true. I've used countless XP machines (work, home, college labs, etc) that never required contacting Microsoft for a hardware or software change.
It's fine that you're happy with the Mac Mini, but it seems as if you have less experience with XP than you let on. Plus, Windows XP no longer runs over DOS - XP only has a 'faux' DOS command prompt now, so that is another misleading quote.
Oh, and calling Microsoft to remove SP2? Do you really know how to uninstall it, or are you just calling them for help? It isn't a terribly difficult process, and once again, you should have complete access to remove software from your XP machine. I've never heard of anyone (family, friends, etc) that had to call Microsoft as you speak of. If you need help removing software, a quick search on Google can provide a lot of help. Consider reviewing the Mac Mini's features more with less dubious 'facts' about XP. XP is certainly not perfect, but the problems you speak of are not matter-of-fact as you let on. Thanks.
|
Aug 12 '05
9:10 am PDT
|
|
In response to the comment by comrade1425 - "Two things" (Reply to this comment)
by dj_white_rice
Greetings comrade1425,
Thanks for your comments under the heading "TWO THINGS".
You will need to provide quotes to the statements I have made in the Mac Mini Epinions article that you are refering to and making your comments about since your critizing my windows knowledge.
Without your quoting specific comments that I have made that you are critizing I am unable to respond, especially since I have a number of reviews on Mac CNET, Mac Addict, a quite a few other articles on both the Mac and PC's as well as operating systems such a Windows 98 through XP, Mac OS 7.5 through Mac OS-X, Linux Xandros, Linspire, Suse, etc. Almost all of those articles provide a link back to this Mac Mini product review. For all I can tell from what you wrote, you have followed one of those links and have posted here your comments from another article.
The comments section of this Epinions section is to provide relative comments to the product being reviewed and not for random arguments and comments. If you would like to provide comments with quotes that are relevant to the Mac Mini article I have written that will help people in their decision about considering purchasing or not purchasing the Mac Mini, then I will be more than willing to respond to your comments.
Otherwise, your comments are not worth wasting my time with.
Thanks, comrade1425
|
Jul 17 '05
9:34 pm PDT
|
|
Two things (Reply to this comment)
by comrade1425
1. Windows does not run on top of DOS anymore, Windows XP is based on NT/2000 not 9x.
2. If you have an AGP video accelerator, it does have it's own RAM, it doesn't take any from the system, integrated graphics suck and they're only standard on entry level PC's, they'll get you by for old games and most office type stuff, any gamer will have something better.
You don't seem to know very much about Windows or the PC, so might I suggest looking some things up before stating them as fact?
|
Jul 16 '05
11:25 am PDT
|
|
Video and recording use - Mini Mac V.S. Windows PC (Reply to this comment)
by dj_white_rice
While Macs have and are used in Video and even recording studios, and the Mac Mini is an upgrade for many people using a Mac for these purposes, you have to look at the Mini Mac as a whole. The fall back of using a Mac Mini for these environments compared to one of the newer Windows based PC's is simply a matter of power v.s. price.
1.) The Mac Mini is only a 167 Front Bus Speed 32 bit Processor. 167 FBS is slow by todays standards even for the Mac. 800 FBS with a 64bit Processor is the new standard.
2.) The hard disk access speed has to much lag time.
3.) The Mac Mini processor is under 1.5 Gigahertz speed.
4.) The Mac Mini is limited to 32 Megs of video ram. (More video ram is better for video and audio production use) It's not upgradable
5.) Shop around and you can find a solid PC with a 3.2 gigahertz, 400 to 800 FBS, 512 Meg Ram, 32 Meg (upgradable) ram, PCI slots, and lots of room to grow for around the same price of $500.00.
Do I still reccomend the Mac Mini.... of course, but regardless of anyone elses opinion, I would rather work smarter and faster than slower and harder when it comes to Video or Audio Production regardless whether it is on a Mac or a PC. You want as much power as possible that your budget allows so you can do more complex graphics, faster and larger framerates, work faster and cleaner. It's not a matter of "I'm a Mac Cultist" or not, it's a matter of common sense. If your going to do serious work with audio or video production then your going to want a more powerful machine than the Mac Mini.... either a Mac G5 or Windows 3.2 GHZ with 400 to 800 front bus speeds, 64 bit processors, and while your at it, throw in at least 1 Gig of Ram.
After all when your doing professional music production or video production your trying to make money and time is money. The Mac Mini was developed as a low-end Mac and not a production machine. If you want a Mac Mini you can certainly use it for whatever you want including Video or Audio use, especially if that is all that will fit in your current budget. But don't ever come back and say you were not warned in advance.
If you have a different opinion on the use of the Mini Mac for Audio and Video production, you are invited to post a link to a website article or project page discussing the matter and giving illustrated examples of how to do it and the overall results.
For example, there is an excellent article on using the Mac Mini for "HOME" recording use at Engadet: http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000563030744/
Thanks for all the opposing views on my opinion regarding the Mac Mini for Professional Music and Video use. However, please provide reads of these comments or my review of the Mac Mini with websites detailing the use of the Mac Mini for these purposes with your comments in the future as to be helpful and not just another Mac enthusiast
trying to argue in favor of a Mac over a PC. That is not very helpful.
|
May 30 '05
3:41 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not good for video work (Reply to this comment)
by za9ra22
There is a vast difference between not reccomending a mini for video editing work and telling PC users to stay away from it if that is what they had in mind. The former is a reasonable proposition, though fl;ies in the face of my personal experience of using MAcs in video work for the last 20 years, notably using systems with less power than the mini has got, and even slower hard drives in the past. The latter, however is completely nonsensical. The is no Mac currently available that does not outperform (by a wide margin) Mac systems that have been sucessfully used to author broadcast quality projects - including feature films. To suggest that PC users stay away from a Mac mini if they are intent on using it for video editing makes absolutely no sense.
I use a mini for this work - this is not supposition or generalization.
|
May 17 '05
1:16 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Not good for video work (Reply to this comment)
by dj_white_rice
Dump the standard hard drive, throw in a gig of ram and over-clock the mini and I might be willing to concede in this area. Other wise, coming from a former Mac background and more recently from a windows background, and I'd rather use my P4 system for video which cost the same but has a DVD Burner, Higher Video, Gig of Ram, 180 HD, 3.5 GHZ with 800 front side bus. When it comes to video, it's all about speed, quality, flexiblity and storage space... For video I would say go PC over the Mini if you can't swing for the upgradable G5.
I appreciate your comments, but I'd never reccomend it for that type of work and would tell PC users to stay away from it if that is what they had in mind. I guess I am just used to a lot more speed and productivity than I can squeeze out of the Mini for video.
|
Apr 20 '05
12:53 am PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Not good for video work (Reply to this comment)
by za9ra22
Hi DJ!
I think the overall recommendation that professional videographers would be better servedc with a G5 system is entirely warranted - indeed, it would be difficult to justify a $499 hardware choice as a rational decision in a professional environment. However, as someone who DOES use a mini for complex digital video editing tasks, my comments were based on the practicality of the system, not the theory of it.
In a practical sense, the mini IS capable of this kind of work, and I thought it worth pointing out that there are professionals using Mac systems of similar (or even lower) performance for video work, particularly iBooks and Powerbooks being used for capture and editing work in the field, and which render perfectly adequate results.
It may help to illustate the point by comparing the experience of the mini when editing a project to the use of my G5 tower. The mini isn't all that much slower in any tangible sense, and the spinning beachball doesn't appear to any notable extent. Where the mini shows itself as inferior is when rendering, which is certainly slower. Moving from the G5 to the mini when working doesn't create a sense of being slowed down or restricted, which I think is a reasonable testament to the mini's overall capabilities in this work. However, moving from the mini to the G5 is rather akin to putting on a silk shirt - everything feels smoother and more luxurious - basically the G5 supports good workflow while the mini impedes it slightly by almost imperceptible pauses.
For a professional, the workflow issue is the reason the G5 is the appropriate choice, but for others the issue is anything but clear.
You mention OS9, but that doesn't really come into it. iMovie HD is a viable OS X video editing tool, and Final Cut (Express and Pro versions) are also OS X applications and all work on the mini rather well. They worked on my old (much slower) G4 tower, and I still have iMovie 4 and Final Cut Express 1.1 running on my G3 350 tower and iBook 800 (all OS X). I've produced broadcast quality materials on these systems, and the mini is significantly superior in performance to them all.
In summary: would a mini be my choice for professional work? I would not pick a mini as a primary, or only, system. It can handle the work and of course it makes no difference what Mac the project is produced on because the results are the same whether G3, G4 or G5 based systems are used, but the momentary pauses in workflow that are so imperceptible in themselves that they aren't noticable do tend to impede creative thought. However, as a secondary system, or for users who are looking for video capabilities that are not at the professional level, a Mac mini works, and works well.
Incidentally, what impresses me about the mini is that when I bought one to replace my old G4 450, I did expect it to be usable in areas of work I'd moved to the G5 - magazine production and video work in particular. In the 2 months of use, I've yet to discover any serious limitations in the system - and given that I move from my G5 to the mini every day, I find that quite remarkable. This isn't the absolute zenith of Apple's technical development, but it is a remarkable system when you get the chance to exercise it a bit!
|
Mar 29 '05
9:07 am PST
|
|
Re: Not good for video work (Reply to this comment)
by dj_white_rice
Greetings za9ra22,
I'll clarify my stance on the Mac Mini for Video use.
First of all, In this review I approached the Mini Mac from the perspective of someone who is potentially a new Macintosh Computer user. Either a person with no prior experience or coming from a Windows or Linux based system of equal or greater processing speed.
My assumption and statement is based on the idea that any new user to the Mac Mini is only going to have Mac OS-X based software and not Classic Mac OS-9 or lower versions of system based software.
My assumption and statement was also based on the idea that there might be advanced or professional video editors looking at the Mini Mac as a viable option for production use for semi-commercial or commercial (video jobs being produced for sale) use.
For such individuals I do not recommend the Mac Mini running OS-X based video editing software. There are a number of reasons for this some of which I already mentioned.
However, for a home user who just wants to make some home videos of friends or school projects or any non-commercial editing and none advanced editing projects I am sure as you mentioned they could use the Mac Mini.
However for those serious about video editing I have to stick with my recommendation that they buy a Mac with the newer G5 processor or a upgradable G-4.
Those doing advanced or professional video editing using a Mac OS-9 based software who do not intend to upgrade to a Mac OS-X based software in the future will be quite happy with the Mac Mini since OS-9 based applications as I mentioned are super quick.
However, I think it would be short sighted to imagine that every person buying a Mac Mini has OS-9 based video software. It would also be short sighted to imagine that every person buying a Mini Mac has owned a Mac before or even used a Mac before.
In fact, there are a lot of non-Mac users switching over to the Mini-Mac from Windows computers. Windows users have very high expectations for a computer, because they have had continuous processor speed boosts yearly, unlimited software options, and unlimited hardware options from multiple companies at lower prices. Where as, Mac users have been fully dependant on Apple for processor upgrades, faster processor technology, limited companies supporting the Mac, and limited companies providing hardware support for the Mac. (Though with the introduction of MAC OS-X that is changing quickly)
The point is this, as a reviewer I would be doing a discredit to everyone who reads this review on the Mini Mac to suggest that the Mini Mac is a viable video editing computer except for the home user or pre-college educational classes.
The reality is that G4 Processor is on it's way out. Based on apples history, the G4's will probably be dropped next year once they begin pumping out the new G5 models and there is no upgrade expected for the Mini-Mac to a G5 processor.
Second, I am both a Windows user and a Mac user. I have a P4 3GHZ Pentium Computer with a G4 Mini Mac sitting on top of it. Since I built the P4 from scratch it cost the same as the Mini Mac and unlike the Mini Mac, the P4 is a 64 Bit processor with an 800 MHZ bus, where as the Mini Mac is a 34 Bit processor with 166 MHZ bus. If I were going to do professional editing on one of the other, I would use the Windows based P4 - since it is closer to a G5 for a similar price as the G4 Mini Mac.
Why I do not recommend the Mini Mac for Video Editing.
1. Uses a Lap Top hard drive which has some Lag in reading.
2. Only has 1 Memory Stick Slot so it is limited to 1 gig of ram.
3. Has no built in Audio-In port. (Must purchase optional USB device to get audio in)
4. Has no PCI Card Slot for Video Editing Cards (Can only use USB or firewire) (Only has one firewire port)
5. G4 Processor - though it's a great upgrade for older Mac users, it is not the newest processor available. (The New G-5 processor is 64 Bit like the new AMD and Intel Processors. The G-5 Front Side Bus is 450 to 600 times faster the the G-4 processor on the Mini Mac depending on which G-5 you look at)
6. No future G-5 upgrade available. (Even if a G-5 upgrade became available, you would not be able to obtain the 600 or 800 Frontside bus speed that a G-5 has)
So, again... for anyone doing video editing for advanced projects or commercial use, I have to recommend a G-5 computer or at least one of the upgradable G-4's that has a PCI slot, more Firewire Ports, expandable memory beyond 1 Gigabyte, etc.
Homeusers, those using OS-9 editing software, and highschool or under educational institutions who do not need the ability to upgrade, who are not effected by the lag time or front bus processor speed, etc... the Mini Mac will serve your needs.
Thanks for your feedback. I appreciate your comments za9ra22. It sounds like you have been a Mac user for a long time. I was a Mac user for years up until 1990 myself and though I have two G3 Macs, I never used them since I had a faster Windows based PC with more options and lower upgrade and hardware options available. However, now 15 years later, as with other Mac users who abandoned the Mac for Windows or as a Windows user who was impressed enough with OS-X operating system, there are many of us Windows users who are honestly sick of Windows and want something different. I love my Mini Mac computer and had never expected to use a Mac Again. I mainly use it for Pagemaker and Macromedia Dreamweaver and Fireworks projects. The overall Mac desktop makes working with graphics applications and software so much simplier and time consuming I am finding than on my Windows computer. The only thing I don't like about the Mac OS-X is that the desktop is not as customizaable (at this time - at least with my experience) as Windows XP. I tried programs such as Shape-Shifter and all that does it allow me to change menu colors as such. Personally, I would like to be able to move the top menu bar some place else and have more menu bar configuration options. Also, I don't like the way that the folders have the menu list inside of them and how folders open inside of other folders in a new list. I think Windows XP is more customizable in that sense, however.... the simple fact that Mac OS-X is not Windows, makes me happy since at least at this time, Apple is not trying to control it's users by making them authenticate everything in order to update the computer or download new features... Nor does Apple make OS-X retrieve hardward configuration data in order to track your computer usage or for authentication purposes. I personally do not want anyone, no matter how easy it is via the Internet to poke around in my computer or require me to allow them to do so in order to use their software.
Go Mini-Mac!
|
Mar 24 '05
1:19 pm PST
|
|
Not good for video work? (Reply to this comment)
by za9ra22
I just read your updated comments regarding the lack of suitability of the Mac mini for serious video work, and frankly it surprises me.
As a person who actually uses a mini for semi-professional DV editing I find the system very responsive and entirely suited to this use. The drive speed doesn't appear to be any kind of issue, and aside from the need to use an external FW drive for large capture use, it's hard to fault the mini in this application.
Since there are many, many people involved in professional video work who have used a range of Macs prior to the release of the mini and with lower specifications (my G4 450 sawtooth model for example, which has an ATI 2xAGP card with 8Mb VRAM and which is about 1/3rd the speed of the mini) it would be a great surprise if the mini was NOT able to handle prosumer level video tasks with relative ease and comfort.
Incidentally, there are plenty of production houses using older G3 and G4 systems with software such as Final Cut Pro, who turn out broadcast-standard material. There's no reason to assume a mini with appropriate RAM won't be capable of the same. You could argue that iMovie has issues on larger projects (which it does) but iMovie isn't intended for semi-professional work, and has the same issues on G5 dual processor towers, so it's not a mini issue.
|
Mar 21 '05
9:19 am PST
|
|
About new comments (Reply to this comment)
by dj_white_rice
Hi, Tipps and Inspectortb;
I appreciate your comments and I am pleased that you found my review of the Mini Mac useful.... I know I use epinions reviews frequently to influence things I am considering buying. The cool thing about epinions.com and the associated websites is that people write reviews from different prespectives. Some are more technical while others are more narrative. I often find the reviews of others make me envious of their writing abilities and talents where as my writing style is similar in all of my reviews.
Comments like yours are helpful whether positive or negative, because they help me learn about my approaches to writing and how to effective communicate what needs to be said.
Thanks again to both of you for taking the time to write me your feedback comments.
Sincerely,
dj_white_rice
|
Feb 28 '05
7:57 pm PST
|
|
Thank You - A Great Review (Reply to this comment)
by tipps
Thanks for taking the trouble to write a thoughtful review. I found it really helpful.
|
Feb 27 '05
8:44 am PST
|
|
Awesome review! (Reply to this comment)
by inspectortb
Your very thorough review is a big help to this computer shopper.
As the owner of an aging Pentium PC running Win98 (groan), I've been debating whether to upgrade to an XP PC or take the leap to Mac and I'm really not looking forward to all the patches and other hassles I hear about from XP owners. That's why I'm looking at eMacs or the new Mac Mini. (Of course I'd just *love* a new iMac G5 --- sigh).
Thanks for providing me with a lot of food for thought!
|
Feb 22 '05
6:22 pm PST
|
|
Mini Mac Memory Upgrades (Reply to this comment)
by dj_white_rice
Regarding the Mini Mac Upgrades.
Yes, you are correct. It is best to buy the Mini Mac with the upgrade already, since in reality you lose whatever memory is currently installed since there is only one memory slot. So if someone is going to upgrade, I suggest upgrading to the full 1 Gig Ram if possible if you intend to eventually go that high. Otherwise you will end up with an extra 256 Meg Ram stick sitting around that originally came with the machine, and if you went from 256 Megs to 512 Megs then to the 1 Gig, you end up with two memory sticks that won't be used.
It's two bad that Apple doesn't come up with a upgrade trade in policy so you get some cash back by selling them the original memory stick.
Oh well.
|
Feb 07 '05
8:53 pm PST
|
|
Reply to recent comments (Reply to this comment)
by dj_white_rice
Hi Guys, thank for all of the fine comments.
About the Firewire cost, I'll have to update that since I was in Fry's Electronics the other day and saw that they had indeed come down in cost considerably. I never needed firewire for my PC so I hadn't check the prices for awhile. Sorry about that. I'll update it soon.
About the bluetooth Ipod, again I apologize... I thought I had read on the box of the new Ipod coming out that it was bluetooth compatible. Guess I must have mixed it up with something else I was looking at. I guess that is what I get from spending to many evenings hanging out in computer stores.
Another thing I will be restoring to the review is AppleWorks. The original review had mentioned AppleWorks as a standard item included with the Mini Mac. I removed those comments shortly after I wrote the review because after I reinstalled Mac OS-X AppleWorks was not present. I had wondered if it was perhaps because the install was taking so long that I fell asleep during the option to reinstall it, but I was not sure so I deleted it off the original review. As you may know AppleWorks is similar to Office and cost $80.00 on it's own if purchased separately.
I spent the past several days on Mac based forums and was able to find out that AppleWorks is actually installed on the Max OS-X disk. I used my Windows PC with MacDrive6 which allows me to read, write, burn, usb, scsi, etc. Mac formats on my PC and when exploring the Mac OS-X disk found AppleWorks hiding on it. So that is good news.
About the feedback about the scsi ports on the Mac..... I honestly did not know that Apple had stopped including them on their computers. That just goes to show you how long I have been gone from the Mac and into Windows PC's which I build and refurbish. I had sworn I would never use a Mac again, but time has ended up telling a different story. To bad about the scsi port, but I guess with USB and Firewire, it's not needed anymore. Thanks for the feedback and update on the Scsi.
About the floppy drives.... Are you serious? They have not been including those on the Macs either? Again, that just goes to show how long I have been away. I stopped using Macs in 1991 when I sold my Mac Classic and Broke the Powerbook Duo 230 I owned. I had grown tired of Apples pour decision making which ended up costing me a lot of money at that time. I swore I would never use a Mac again, so buying the Mac Mini here in 2005 was really an unexpected purchase.
Again, many thank you's to everyone who has responded with feedback. I appreciate the comments.
|
Feb 07 '05
8:47 pm PST
|
|
Firewire card for $100? Yeah, like 5 years ago! (Reply to this comment)
by ellesboro
Ummmmm...unless you live in a technological dry area, a firewire card for a PC doesnt cost CLOSE to $100 anymore. You can purchase a 4-port firewire 400 card for about $25 Cnd. In the US, you're looking at $15. The only time you would pay $100 is for a real-time render firewire card, like a maxtor for video editors, or when it's packaged into a DV editing kit.
Although I agreed with you on most things with Windows XP, it's not a bad OS overall. If you keep it clean, and have the right software, you should be fine. I've used XP for 2 years now and haven't had any real problems. Granted, I haven't had alot of MAC use, but Win XP isn't as bad as you make it seem it is. Oh, one more thing...I would add that the Mini Mac only has one memory slot, so if you want to upgrade to 512mb of RAM, you have to remove the 256mb completely (I understand that though, it is in such a small case!!) Overall though, good review, lots of good information.
James
|
Feb 06 '05
11:21 pm PST
|
|
A couple of minor corrections! (Reply to this comment)
by za9ra22
Firstly, you draw a connection between Bluetooth and iPod use a couple of times, but in fact iPods (and iPod Minis) connect via Firewire or USB - they don't have Bluetooth at all. The new iPod Shuffle connects via USB only of course.
Secondly, you complain that the Mini doesn't have SCSI (which is true) but imply that other Macs do. In fact no Mac model has shipped with SCSI for a number of years, indeed, not since Apple stopped useing internal SCSI hard drives. Given that USB 2.0 and Firewire are both capable of high bandwidth data transmission, external drives, scanners etc that might previously have been SCSI based are now typically connected via firewire or USB anyway.
You also mention the lack of floppy drive. Again, Macs have not have floppy drives since the first iMac was released in 1997. External floppies can be added via USB as you have done, but since they are limited to 1.2Mb total file space, they don't provide the flexibility that a re-writable CD drive offers. The Mini of course comes as standard with a CD-RW/DVD playback drive.
Other than that - a good review that contains a lot of useful background!!
|
Feb 02 '05
10:42 am PST
|
|
Re: Re: Windows XP not that bad... (Reply to this comment)
by ivplay,  in Computer Hardware
First off, great review. I had heard of these, but not read much in the way of first-hand user information.
As to the having to reactivate Windows XP, I have had to do that so many times on my PC's at my house it isn't even funny. They have a numbering system for components, and after your system changes by up to seven counts (I believe) you have reactivate. A motherboard is 1 count, processor three counts and network connection 2 or 3 if I remember rightly. Anyway, long story short is that you will have to reactivate at some point, although I have never had any hassles with doing so.
Once again, great review!
IVplay
|
Feb 01 '05
5:57 pm PST
|
|
Confused by one of your comments (Reply to this comment)
by yusakugo
about the Mac Mini being IPOD Ready?
What did you mean by that? You had mentioned it in the same sentence with the Bluetooth option. I'm not aware of the iPod having built-in Bluetooth. Did you mean that iTune was already loaded into the system so you can plug in the iPod via USB or Firewire?
Rich
|
Feb 01 '05
10:20 am PST
|
|
Re: Windows XP not that bad... (Reply to this comment)
by dj_white_rice
Greetings vemartin thanks for the feedback. I wish I had your luck with Windows XP, I've had to reactivate a number of times as I have made upgrades to the computers I manage and upgrade for different people. I wonder why I have had that problem?
Anways, thanks again for your comments and feedback, I am still happy to be leaving in a way XP with the Mini Mac. Os-X is really sweet and plug in play friendly compared to the old Mac operating software. My Mini Mac is sitting on top of my pc with a switcher allowing me to pop back and forth between the too. I took it into Frys Electronics today to have the administrative password removed and all of their techies were obsessing over it could not believe that it was an actual computer.
For the price, I feel like I am in love all over again.... I hope I was not to hard on Microsoft... :-)
|
Jan 31 '05
10:14 pm PST
|
|
Windows XP not that bad... (Reply to this comment)
by vemartin
It is a common misnomer that Windows XP requires one to re-activate the software after major hard war changes. I have server computers running Windows XP Home and Professional. I have made major changes to them including swapping out motherboards, CD-ROM, and hard drives with no effect on the OS. And it you have an Internet connection, activating the OS is inconsequential.
That said, I wish I had a Mac! But…Thank you for the very through review; excellent work.
Vincent
|
Jan 31 '05
9:32 am PST
|
|
|
|
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.