Mac mini

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Todd Ruston [mailto:toddhackneyponies.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2005 10:05 AM
> To: tidbits-talktidbits.com
> Cc: tidbits-talktidbits.com
> Subject: Re: Mac mini
>
> On 1/19/05 at 10:15 PM, Tony Meyer <ta-meyerihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
> > Does the Mac mini mean the end of the eMac?

I don't think so. A Mini + 3rd party CRT is cheaper than the comparable eMac
but not by a lot and the eMac all-in-one design is still appealing to many
who can't opt to spend an additional $400 (or more) for the iMac G5. Also,
the eMac should have better performance than the Mini for many tasks because
of the hard drive difference (desktop vs. laptop).

> Possibly, but I don't think so. The education market (where
> the eMac was
> originally designed to play) likes the all-in-one form
> factor, where it has
> appeal for security (harder to steal) and durability (no
> monitor cable and
> connection to get yanked/bent/broken).

I'm in Higher Ed and while those may matter in K-12, I don't think those are
significant factors for us. We already routinely use security cables on our
lab computers so the Mini would be no different. We have more often wished
the eMac monitor *wasn't* integrated, we had a lot of monitor troubles on
the 700MHz models when they were new and I'm pretty sure there have been
occasional problems since then.

For the past 3 years our standard Mac desktop has been the eMac for faculty,
staff and labs. This summer, we'll almost certainly switch to the Mini w/ a
17" flat panel (probably from Dell) for faculty & staff. Faculty & staff
will appreciate the reclaimed desktop space and larger, superior monitor. My
department will appreciate the monitor being separate and not having to lug
more big & heavy eMacs. We would most likely opt for the 1.42GHz Mini but
even then the price difference (as we configure them) isn't *that* great
compared to the eMac, it's definitely still within our "comfort zone." One
cost caveat is the flat panel would have only a 1 year warranty whereas eMac
AppleCare would cover the CRT for 3 years.

We won't be making any purchases for a lab this summer but if we were, it
would not be as clear cut. In the lab, reclaiming desktop space w/ a Mini &
flat panel isn't as much of a benefit and I think the Mini is more likely to
come to harm than an eMac. We would almost certainly not upgrade RAM in an
office computer, it's more likely in the lab so for that the eMac would have
an edge both for cost and convenience of an upgrade. The monitor upgrade,
separation of monitor and CPU and weight difference are still pluses in the
lab.

*example configurations Higher Ed prices
$ 979 eMac 1.25GHz, 512MB, 40GB, Combo, AppleCare, Tilt & Swivel Stand
$ 697 Mini 1.25GHz, 512MB, 40GB, Combo, AppleCare, Wired Keyboard & Mouse
($282 less than eMac)
$ 797 Mini 1.42GHz, 512MB, 80GB, Combo, AppleCare, Wired Keyboard & Mouse
($182 less than eMac)

$ 349 Dell UltraSharp 1704FPV 17" Flat Panel LCD Monitor w/ Height
Adjustable Stand

$1046 1.25GHz Mini + flat panel ($67 more than eMac)
$1146 1.42GHz Mini + flat panel ($167 more than eMac)

Google Kreme wrote:
> Fromthe same thread:
>
> "The Cappuccino Mocha 7042 PC looks like a celeron 2.0 w/256MB ram
> (max 2GB), 24x cdrom drive (add $140 for a DVD burner), 20GB drive, no
> os, wireless & bluetooth $100 extra each (and can't have both in the
> same system), video with shared memory will cost $799.
>
> If you configure that system with a 40gb 4200rpm notebook drive and
> DVD-Rom/cd-rw slot loading combo, that drives the cost up to $903
> without an os. The dimensions are 6.34" x 7.8" x 2.44"
>
> Comapring a PC with as close as possible specs to the mini will get
> you a PC about twice the cost, with no OS, no iLife, and certainly no
> Mac User Experience. $500 from Apple or $903+OS+a Works package for a
> PC of similar specs (including size).

I'm not sure these comparisons are expressly helpful for determining
that the Mac mini is "better" or "worse" (though they do reaffirm the
notion that Apple isn't doing anything new from a technical
perspective). For example, the model cited has a number of features that
the Mac mini doesn't, many of which are highly desireable. Just to
highlight a few:

1) The Mocha supports up to 2GB of RAM, while the mini can't do more
than 1GB (or at least Apple won't certify that it will).

2) The Mocha has 2x as many firewire and USB 2.0 ports, in particular
it's nice that it has front-access to ports.

3) The Mocha not only has a 10/100 ethernet port, but it has an
additional 10/100/1000 ethernet port. This means you can realistically
do things like A/V editing over the network and/or use the Mocha as a
router.

4) The Mocha includes S-Video & AV-out for doing the TiVo thing we've
discussed.

5) The Mocha includes S/PIDF ports for digital audio interfaces.

6) The Mocha allows for a number of interesting configuration options,
including the use of a solid state drive, no hard drive at all (netboot,
ideally off of the GigE port), and IR receiver.

7) Don't get me started on the comparison between the processors. ;-)

In general, the Mocha 7042 is designed to be a much more flexible and
expandible than the Mac mini. Really, that model is a "curious" choice
(that makes you question the motives) for a comparison with the mini,
considering Cappuccino makes a number of other models that are both
smaller and cheaper, but still have comperable features to the Mac mini.

--Chris

On Thu, 2005-01-20 at 11:23, Johann Beda wrote:

> At 7:04 AM -0800 2005/01/20, Paul Schinder wrote:
> >The monitor
> >doesn't have a standard VGA plug (I don't think Apple ever used them),
> >and I doubt Apple has an adapter for it that could be used with a mini.
>
> The necessary adapter can be had for a few bucks (but a used
> monitor can be had for similar prices I suppose):
>
> <http://www.mac-pro.com/s.nl/sc.2/category.114/it.A/id.833/.f>
> <http://www.griffintechnology.com/products/monitor_adapters/>

I used one of these when I needed to connect my old Apple 15" monitor to
my Mac Cube (the 17" Studio Display lost its power supply). Very
simple and cheap.

--B

BTW, back in 1998, on my recommendation, my mom got her name on the list
for one of the first Bondi Blue iMacs. That machine is long in the
tooth now, and early this month she called asking what I recommended. I
mentioned the Mac Mini (which was still only a rumor at that point).
Well, it's been decided. she's getting one. She'll canibalize the
keyboard and mouse from the iMac (she has small hands, and likes the
round "puck" mouse), and has a spare monitor handy. Huzzah!

[Todd Ruston]
> The education market (where the eMac was originally designed
> to play) likes the all-in-one form factor, where it has appeal
> for security (harder to steal) and durability (no monitor
> cable and connection to get yanked/bent/broken).

Do the eMacs have security slots? If not, then isn't the mini more secure?
Durability is a plus, but on the other hand if an all-in-one's monitor
breaks, you can't just replace it with another one from the store room.

[Paul Schinder]
> I don't know. *I* don't have a keyboard/mouse/monitor lying
> around that could be used with a mini, and there six functioning
> computers in this house.

I think I have something like six keyboards/mice lying around, and maybe
three monitors. But then there's only one functioning computer in the house
:)

> So anyone who has bought only Macs in Apple's consumer line since the
> advent of the iMac doesn't have a spare monitor to use with a mini.

I wasn't really thinking of people who have previously bought Macs - I was
thinking of schools, who (at least from my experience in NZ) would rather
buy a cheap monitor to go with the mac (that's what the department here
does, with PowerMacs), or may have monitors (and certainly keyboards and
mice) from a lab that's being upgraded. Or computers for high
school/university students whose parents may have old gear lying about (and
if not, are probably after the cheap option).

If a monitor+keyboard+mouse is about US$80 (going by this thread - I would
have no idea) then a ready-to-go Mac mini would be $580. An eMac is $799.
$200 is a lot of money to the education market - I suspect enough to counter
the portability factor (aren't many of these sitting in labs or dorm- or
bed-rooms?) and if you really want a line-in, then no-doubt you can do that
via USB. (Of course, maybe Apple will drop the eMac price closer to the
mini - but then you've got two products going for the cheap market).

=Tony.Meyer

On 1/19/05 at 9:06 AM, edwardpaleo.org (Edward Reid) wrote:

> At 12:41 PM 01/17/2005 -0800, Brian Pearce wrote [regarding solid
> state transformer/rectifiers]:
> >But what do they cost?
>
> I don't know exactly. I haven't been able to find a direct retailer
> for any replacement devices. One manufacturer I'm aware of is Power
> Integrations, http://www.powerint.com. Their web site is interesting,
> but as an OEM they have no pricing information. However, I note that
> they are making a case for their devices based on (in some cases)
> saving 2W for most of the day. This comes out to about 16kW-hr/year,
> or in the general range of US$1/year. In any case, power electronics
> are not new, just underused. In some cases, I wouldn't be surprised
> if the savings in shipping cost alone justified the solid state
> transformer/rectifier. But if anyone can locate wholesale cost for
> complete power supplies -- or even better, solid state retail
> replacements for power bricks -- I'm extremely interested.

If solid state transformer/rectifiers are as superior as they sound, I'd
expect to see them everywhere. Since they don't appear to be very
common, I'd have to conclude that there's some overriding factor that
keeps them from becoming that common; price seems the most likely, since
none of what you've described so far suggests any serious technical
disadvantages.

That is the heart of the issue for me, I think - if they are so much
better, why doesn't anyone use them? Fear of new technology?
Infrastructure that's set up to use old-style power supplies, so that
switching over is too expensive?

> Some readers thought that when I talked about eliminating the brick
> (aka wall wart), I meant putting the same old device inside the case.
> Nope. I'm taking about completely replacing the transformer/rectifier
> with light-weight, high-efficiency solid state devices.

I will say that I think there's one case where a power brick is
appropriate: portable battery-powered devices, where size and weight are
at a premium. (Laptops, PDAs, iPods, cellphones, etc.) Unless a solid
state power supply is as small, light and cool as the power boards
currently inside these devices, I can't see any justification for
putting it inside the case; since they can run on batteries without the
power supply present, it doesn't make sense to force the user to carry
it around at all times.

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 22:15:18 -0800, Edward Reid <edwardpaleo.org> wrote:
> At 03:37 PM 01/19/2005 -0800, Big Steve wrote:
> >You know, I'm puzzled by all this talk about how utterly and deal-breakingly
> >disfiguring the Mac mini's power brick is.
>
> 1) Because of its size, many people are looking at the Mac mini as a
> portable system, thus weight is important.

It's not advertised as being portable. And in fact, is not.

> 2) Advertising the weight of a system excluding the power supply is dishonest.

You don't have to transport the power supply. Do laptops include the weight of the charger?

 
> 4) The energy waste of wire-wrapped iron core transformers, as I've
> discussed in another message, is another problem.

But the cost of other solutions is prohibitive.

--
<http://2blog.kreme.com/blog/2944/Twas_the_Night_Before_Christmas>

I received a mini this morning and we've posted some first looks:

<http://www.macworld.com/2005/01/news/macminihandson/>
<http://www.macworld.com/weblogs/editors/2005/01/macminiinside/index.php>

Quoting David Weintraub <davidWeintraubWorld.net>:
> Maybe Apple should get together with Phillips or Sony and produce a
> nice $150 17" CRT that can be slapped onto a Mac mini. A 17" monitor
> wouldn't eat into Apple Display sales, and it would give a
> one-stop-shopping experience to Mac mini buyers.

I'm going to get a Mac mini because my PowerBook just broke (I can pay Apple
$480 to repair it, or buy a brand new mini....)

I plan on hooking it up to the nice, but not Apple Display nice, 17" Dell flat
screen monitor I bought for about $200 (refurbished).

I think Apple sees the Mac mini as a starter drug for Windows uers. "Sure you
can use your existing peripherals" then come Christmas "but look how much
cooler this Apple monitor is. And the color matches...."

Kevin

Anyone know how many watts of power the Mini consumes (all by itself)?

At 3:37 PM -0800 1/19/05, Nik wrote:
>Tom Bihn stayed up all night building a carrying case for the Mac mini.
>How cool is that?

This reminded me of the original Mac carrying cases. You could carry
around a small supercomputer's worth of Mac minis in one of those.

--
Larry Rosenstein
lsralum.mit.edu

> Er... what? Do you have some funky old monitors or something? I
> mean, it takes VGA or DVI, what more could you possibly need? Even if
> you had an ancient Apple monitor, you can buy a VGA converter... They
> used to be all over the place. I still have one on my beige G3, for
> example. I think it cost $12.

Surprisingly, there are quite a few monitor cable "standards". Most
common are VGA and DVI. But Apple did release ADC monitors quite
aggressively not long ago. And they did release some monitors with
used a HD-AV port. Then there were EGA and CGA monitors. Not to
mention Apple II monitors. Some dumb terminals have their own
proprietary monitor connections as well.

Even now, single DVI by itself won't run a mundane 30" Apple display. :)

--
Chik fcchuangmail.com

Message #69: Re: Mac mini Posted by schinder on 07:04am Jan 20, 2005 Posted via email

[ ... ] or wouldn't work with the mini.

Any VGA anything should work.

The only other monitor I have is an old 14" Apple CRT that used to hang on my in-law's Performa 6360, which I kept to use with my Performa 6400 (currently boxed in the attic) [ ... ] that role.) The monitor doesn't have a standard VGA plug (I don't think Apple ever used them), and I doubt Apple has an adapter for it that could be used with a mini. [ ... ]

Apple went to "standard" VGA sockets/plugs with the biege G3's then Blue&White G3's.

Apple gave away/included the adapters from Apple "15 pin" monitors, first in beige, then in translucent/whiteish-silverish colors. MANY companies make adapters from "Apple to VGA," some with DIP switches (to set a specific resolution, match a "difficult" monitor) for less than USD$15. (google is your friend, I would look for you, but can't today)

So anyone who has bought only Macs in Apple's consumer line since the advent of the iMac doesn't have a spare monitor to use with a mini.

O.K., if it was a "one-piece," and you don't want to die with a soldering iron in your hand... mm's from the fly-back transformer.

Even if you bought high end Macs, if you used only Apple's monitors, unless you've bought one since the advent of DVI, you probably don't have a spare monitor that can be used with a mini.

No. See above, RE: adapters.

...even an old TV ...with the right adapter ... from Apple ;-)

GP

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tony Meyer [mailto:ta-meyerihug.co.nz]
> Sent: Friday, January 21, 2005 5:11 PM
> To: tidbits-talktidbits.com
> Subject: Re: Mac mini

> Do the eMacs have security slots? If not, then isn't the
> mini more secure?

eMacs do have a security slot, it's next to where the power cable plugs in
(I checked a 700MHz model but I'm sure later models have it too).

> If a monitor+keyboard+mouse is about US$80

Monitors aren't *that* cheap but as I demonstrated in another message, the
Mini + necessary in/outputs can definitely be configured to be cheaper than
the eMac.

Larry Rosenstein wrote:
> At 3:37 PM -0800 1/19/05, Nik wrote:
>
>> Tom Bihn stayed up all night building a carrying case for the Mac mini.
>> How cool is that?
>
>
> This reminded me of the original Mac carrying cases. You could carry
> around a small supercomputer's worth of Mac minis in one of those.
>

I still have one of those. My no longer working Mac Plus is inside of
it for nostalgia's sake. I used it for 10 years before I finally tired
of getting it a new power supply every year or so.

I would occasionally take the Mac Plus with me on airplane trips. The
case just barely fit in an overhead compartment of medium size jet
liners. It held the Plus, the keyboard and mouse, the external drive, a
modem, the power cord and a box or two of floppies if packed tightly.
Not nearly as pleasant as carrying a laptop, but there weren't any
laptops then.

--
Paul Schinder
schinderpobox.com

At 2:24 PM -0800 1/21/05, Chuan wrote:
>Not to mention Apple II monitors. Some dumb terminals have their own
>proprietary monitor connections as well.

One thing while we're talking monitors. I think the older monitors
were built much more ruggedly. I have an old Apple IIc Color Monitor
that I drag out every once in a while to watch some VHS tapes. (I
don't own a TV.) It still works like a charm and its 20 years old.

To tie this back to the Mac mini cost issues, if you're considering
this you might want to get a slightly more expensive monitor to save
on replacing it later. You never know, but things seem to fail at
the worst times.

Nick

At 02:24 PM 01/21/2005 -0800, Jay Schille wrote:
>Anyone know how many watts of power the Mini consumes (all by itself)?

The tech specs -- finally online at http://www.apple.com/macmini/specs.html
-- say "Maximum continuous power: 85W". However, computers are notorious
for having power ratings MUCH higher than normal usage. The rating is the
amount of power the computer might use for a few seconds with all extras
installed while all disks are spinning up. (Acceleration requires much more
power than just spinning.) Even then, the rating is often way high. It's
really the rating of the power supply and possibly the cooling capability.

On the other hand, a CPU can easily use 85W; some drop power use when idle
and some do not. (Most personal computers are idle almost all the time.) I
don't know the power profile of a G4.

So the only way really to tell is to hook one up to a watt meter. Maybe
someone with a watt meter will do this. Alternatively, someone could send
me a Mac mini and I'll put it on my watt meter. Might take me a few months
to get an accurate average reading though, if one just happened to land in
my hands for that purpose. After all, I'd be obligated to determine whether
it degraded over time.

Edward Reid

On 22/1/2005 11:24 AM, "Larry Rosenstein" <lsralum.mit.edu> spake thus:

> This reminded me of the original Mac carrying cases. You could carry
> around a small supercomputer's worth of Mac minis in one of those.

Heh, I have a couple of those sitting in the corner of my office (a "tall"
one and a "short" one), and I could just about fit my brand-new G5 tower
into either of them :) (The "tall" one has a Classic and an ImageWriter in
it, fromn memory.)

--
Nigel Stanger, Dunedin, NEW ZEALAND.
http://public.xdi.org/=nigel.stanger

Anybody know if the Mac mini requires Error Correcting (ECC) memory or not?
I've bought a Mac mini from the online store (the only way to currently get a
model with a superdrive) and while I'm waiting for that thought I would price
out a memory upgrade.

I know the memory type is DDR 333MHz or PC-2700. A 1 GB chip from Crucial is
$227 for non-ECC or $299 for ECC (Apple wants $425 for their 1GB upgrade.)

If anyone wants to test if the Mac mini will do 2GB, the chip is a staggering
$870, crucial only offers ECC of that size.

<http://www.crucial.com/store/listModule.asp?module=DDR+PC2700&cat=RAM&package=allModules>

Alternate suggestions for places to buy reliable memory would be
welcome (after
all the problems I've seen Mac's have with inferior memory I'm
reluctant to buy
the absolute cheapest around.)

Kevin

Quoting kevinvanhaaren.net:

> Anybody know if the Mac mini requires Error Correcting (ECC) memory or not?

Found the answer to my own question. Apple has posted the exact specification
for upgrade memory on the Mac mini:

<http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=300572>

It specifically says "unbuffered?do not use registered or buffered SDRAM" all
the ECC memory on Crucial's web site is registered. So non-ECC memory it is.

Oh and the Mac can use PC3200 memory, although it runs at the slower speed.
When I was at MicroCenter checking memory prices they had a 1GB stick
of PC3200 for cheaper than the PC2700 version (after rebate.)

Kevin

On Monday, January 24, 2005, at 12:30 PM, Paul Schinder wrote:

> Larry Rosenstein wrote:
>> At 3:37 PM -0800 1/19/05, Nik wrote:
>>
>>> Tom Bihn stayed up all night building a carrying case for the Mac
>>> mini. How cool is that?
>>
>>
>> This reminded me of the original Mac carrying cases. You could carry
>> around a small supercomputer's worth of Mac minis in one of those.
>>
>
> I still have one of those. My no longer working Mac Plus is inside of
> it for nostalgia's sake. I used it for 10 years before I finally tired
> of getting it a new power supply every year or so.
>
> I would occasionally take the Mac Plus with me on airplane trips. The
> case just barely fit in an overhead compartment of medium size jet
> liners. It held the Plus, the keyboard and mouse, the external drive,
> a
> modem, the power cord and a box or two of floppies if packed tightly.
> Not nearly as pleasant as carrying a laptop, but there weren't any
> laptops then.
>

I used to carry an SE30 in a ski boot bag. It worked very well, and at
airports, people didn't think there was a computer in it, and I didn't
have to worry about getting ripped off as much at a time when computers
had an extremely high street value.

[OK, this thread is getting big enough, so let's keep it to things specifically related to the Mac mini. -Adam]

Marilyn