48 replies to this topic

[Foggy]

joeybloggs, on Dec 6 2005, 10:21 AM, said:

Nonsense about the pricing, I'll accept your word about the sw integration.

my comparison assumes that you purchase all the equivalent software... it certainly adds up.

joeybloggs, on Dec 6 2005, 10:21 AM, said:

Oh you mean like every version of windows since Win2000 at least

Well, this is not exactly true. The Color Control Panel is an additional download from Microsoft, and it requires SP2.

joeybloggs, on Dec 6 2005, 10:21 AM, said:

Nope AFAIK they still tend to be owned by people without a clue ~ regardless of what you want to call them (the computer not the people). Because rational people don't buy them

That could be because you hang around with people like yourself. I know a heap of very technically literate people who own macs.

I am not a macophile, but I am adaptable enough to look at the latest offering rather than keep my head in the sand and attempt to belittle those who dare to go down that path. Do yourself a favour, and be open-minded enough to go and take a detailed look at the new mac mini when it's released, then your feedback will contain some substance.

You should also note that I am considering it purely as a robust multimedia centre that is easy enough for my wife to use. I don't want to use it for gaming or business applications, and in this role, a HTPC in the same price range just does not compare.

[John_Barber]

Foghorn17, on Dec 6 2005, 12:10 AM, said:

stay exactly as you are.... ignorance is bliss   

joeybloggs, on Dec 6 2005, 10:21 AM, said:

stay exactly as you are.... delusion is the real bliss

Oooh goody, more cable wars!!!!!  

If I may, add my 2c worth.

I have PCs only at home and use Mac and PC at work.
The MACs have Final Cut Pro HD and other graphics applications, and we also have PCs running graphics apps, as well as AVID on PC.

Personally I find the "usability" claims from the MAC set rather stupid.
Apple computers are no more "user friendly" than PCs and in some ways their "usability" functions detract from the operator having control over exactly what's going on.
One of our editors complained about the system drive being full. Turned out the iTunes software was doing a bit of empire building.

Apple does have some good software, eg Final Cut Pro which is surely a "loss leader" to get people to buy the hardware. I have, however, found FCP no more reliable than editing apps on a PC.

A colleague who is a professional sound engineer uses Mac and PC in his work and also jokes about the Mac "fundamentalists" who will see no evil hear no evil on the Mac platform.
Crashes, software bugs etc are due to "non Mac" hardware or software, and not the Mac itself!

What I don't like about the bloody Mac is that "Control C" on a PC becomes "Alt-C" on a Mac and the stupid symbols Apple use for Alt, Shift and Control (I can never remember them all).
The one button mouse is another astounding piece of Mac stupidity, however it is nice that they support multi button mice in the OS.

All in all they are both just tools and not religions and that's the way they should be treated.

Cheers
JB

[joeybloggs]

Quote

my comparison assumes that you purchase all the equivalent software... it certainly adds up.

So your DTV Application software comes bundled with your DTV device, DVD Burning sofware comes bundled with your DVD writer. That leaves a video editor, say VideoReDo at AUD 65.00 That's not going to go far towards your comparible Mac purchase

Quote

Well, this is not exactly true. The Color Control Panel is an additional download from Microsoft, and it requires SP2.

Selectable ICC color profiles have been available at least since Win2000

Quote

I am not a macophile, but I am adaptable enough to look at the latest offering rather than keep my head in the sand and attempt to belittle those who dare to go down that path. Do yourself a favour, and be open-minded enough to go and take a detailed look at the new mac mini when it's released, then your feedback will contain some substance.

As opposed to your speculations huh I can't believe we are at loggerheads over an imaginary product with spec's based on rumour and innuedo. Happy to look at something if it emerges but I have absolutely no interest in a purchasing proprietry hardware system regardless of how good it might or might not be (not that I suspect it will be anything particularly fabulous anyhoo~)

Quote

You should also note that I am considering it purely as a robust multimedia centre that is easy enough for my wife to use. I don't want to use it for gaming or business applications, and in this role, a HTPC in the same price range just does not compare.

At last something we can agree on, there is no comparision

Quote

All in all they are both just tools and not religions and that's the way they should be treated.

For sure, Peace

[FMB]

John_Barber, on Dec 6 2005, 10:44 AM, said:

All in all they are both just tools and not religions and that's the way they should be treated.

Very well said JB. It's just a computer. As long as it does the job you purchased it to do and does so in an efficient manner that enables you to acieve the desired result in a timely manner, it simply doesn't matter what the badge on the front reads.

I was one of the first people in Oz to start using Macs back in 1984. I spent years in Mac tech support and repaired more than I care to think about. Now I use PC's almost exclusively. I have a Mac, but it sits in the corner and gets plugged in when I need to test cross-platform funtionality.

[ianmcginley]

Well for those that would like to see something which is showing REAL promise as far as HTPC on an Apple Mac is going check out the Center Stage Project @ http://www.centerstageproject.com/ I wish I was a developer as I would be helping out on this project!

[joeybloggs]

http://www.theregist...open_minipc_win

http://www.theregist...2/mini_vs_mini/

[kenneth]

I wonder what AOpen was thinking with the price point. I am still waiting to see them get sued by Apple as AOpen did copy the design quite a bit.

[joeybloggs]

I really doubt even the US Patent office would grant a patent for the concept of a computer in a square box But you really can't be too sure of that

Edited by joeybloggs, 12 December 2005 - 08:30 PM.

[renura]

joeybloggs, on Dec 12 2005, 09:29 PM, said:

I really doubt even the US Patent office would grant a patent for the concept of a computer in a square box But you really can't be too sure of that

That box is not patentable, it has none of the fundamental requirements for a patent, no new idea, no innovation, no inventive steps, etc.

The name/logo and what is inside, of course, is another story, and could very well be protected under other types of intellectual property rights

[Foggy]

joeybloggs, on Dec 12 2005, 08:13 PM, said:

http://www.theregist...open_minipc_win

http://www.theregist...2/mini_vs_mini/

LOL. I stopped arguing with you joey because, as you said, there's no point until we see one in the flesh. But this is classic Asian rip-offitis, just like the A-Link KVM switch that I bought the other day, the logo even used the same font and tick as D-Link

[DeeVee]

Almost double the price and no OS X.  Bizarre.

[joeybloggs]

You're comparing apples with well oranges <doh>

1.25GHz PowerPC G4    VS    2GHz Pentium M 760 processor

Built-in 10/100BASE-T    VS     Gigabit Ethernet

DVD-ROM/CD-RW           VS    dual-layer DVD-RW drive

[DeeVee]

OS X v Windows

[ajm]

DeeVee, on Dec 13 2005, 08:39 PM, said:

OS X v Windows

Que?

[kenneth]

Both are comparable. They both are open for development, games can be played on both (although PC's have more), Digital TV can be viewed and recorded on both.

It's really only preference these days on what exactly you want. Do you want an all-in-one desktop computer? Then you might as well go for the iMac (unless you can find a good all-in-one desktop computer). Do you want a games machine? Go for a PC. Do you want a machine for video editing/graphic design/audio editing/any other multimedia? Then go for either a top-end PC or a PowerBook, iMac or PowerMac G5.

I use a IBM-Compatible PC as my desktop with Windows XP and I sometimes go into Linux. I also use an iBook. Really, it's a case of looking at what suits your needs.

[joeybloggs]

The point I was making was that if you want to compare the pricing then it needs to be on comparable hardware. The machines for which pricing is known are NOT comparable in terms of their hardware performance. To state as DeeVee did that the Windows Mini PC was almost twice as expensive is meaningless. If Apple do bring out a Mini Mac II with comparable performance to the AOpen Mini PC you can be assured that it will be more expensive than the current Mini Mac and in all likelyhood more expensive than the comparable Windows Mini PC.

Edited by joeybloggs, 13 December 2005 - 09:44 PM.

[DeeVee]

Yes, and you conveniently qouted the spec of the cheapest mini.  The article qoutes the price of the clone at 699 pound, while the minis range from 359 to 499 pounds.  The most expensive mini has the (albiet only slightly) faster clock speed, a larger HD, plus has a DVD RW as standard.  Its still 200 pound cheaper and has a better OS.  

You were the one that originally said Macs were overpriced.

[surroundfan]

One catch with the Mac Minis (and indeed most Apples) is that they use Matshita drives, most of which don't have hacked region free firmware available (and the newer ones don't work with VLC either). You'd need to swap it out for a Pioneer DVD drive which does...

[joeybloggs]

DeeVee, on Dec 14 2005, 09:56 AM, said:

Yes, and you conveniently qouted the spec of the cheapest mini.  The article qoutes the price of the clone at 699 pound, while the minis range from 359 to 499 pounds.  The most expensive mini has the (albiet only slightly) faster clock speed, a larger HD, plus has a DVD RW as standard.  Its still 200 pound cheaper and has a better OS.

IIRC I simply linked to the article, I didn't quote prices and as you just pointed out it was a range for the Mac Mini. You where the one who compared at almost double the price, which by inference was the low end model..

Still despite all that, the "high end" G4 1.4 still just doesn't compare to the Pentium M  2.0

DeeVee, on Dec 14 2005, 09:56 AM, said:

and has a better OS

Oh crap

Edited by joeybloggs, 14 December 2005 - 11:10 AM.

[DeeVee]

joeybloggs, on Dec 14 2005, 11:05 AM, said:

Oh crap

Don't be hard on yourself

[joeybloggs]

ha ha

[kenneth]

I laugh at the better OS story

Anyone should know that Mac OS X, Linux, Unix and Windows are better OS's than Windows, Unix, Linux or Mac OS X.

It just depends on what you use the computer for.

Of course, I like the way the Mac OS X interface is designed. I also like how it is based on Machs/BSD (ie. Unix).

[princi]

Why do Mac mice only have one button?

Because any thing more would require a decision.

[kenneth]

princi, on Dec 14 2005, 08:42 PM, said:

Why do Mac mice only have one button?

Other than your poor joke (it really doesn't make sense), they stayed with one button mice as most tasks on a Mac used to (this has changed a bit as context menu's have more content in them now) need only one button. If you needed a context menu or another second button operation, you would do Ctrl+Click.

These days though you can just use any USB mouse if you want more than one button or in the case of the new iMac's and I think, the PowerMac G5's, they come with the Mighty Mouse which is equiv. to 4 buttons (IIRC).