Hi Folks,
I'm writing to ask for reactions to an item in today's Daily Telegraph "Digital Life" (in the "Review" section).
This week, they're testing "Mini-PCs", and I quote their review of the Apple Mac Mini ("From £399"):
"Apple's Mac Mini is the tiniest 'small form factor' computer in this group. It is 6.5in square, 2in high, and has a gorgeous brushed-metal finish below the iconic Apple-white lid. Unfortunately, it's also the perfect case of style over substance. The 1.66GHz version is certainly cheap, but it's also very slow. Even the faster model uses only a 1.83GHz Core Duo processor (not the nippier Core 2 Duo) and has just 512 MB of RAM. You will also have to supply the keyboard, mouse and monitor. We'd recommend the Mac for undemanding word processing, surfing the web, or impressing your friends. For amything more intensive, steer clear."
Ehh?? "very slow"?? What *do* people use computers for these days. then?
For years I've been doing word-processing (including "demanding") and web-surfing on
A: 75MHz CPU + 64MB RAM B: 366MHz CPU + 128MB RAM C: 733MHz CPU + 512MB RAM (which at the same time happily runs Win98 in VMWare)
(etc).
and I've done a lot of quite intensive computational work too (dunno about impressing my friends, though ... ); and I've never had a machine more beefy than (C).
I can see that the Apple Mac Mini could be inadequate for computing predictions of climate change, or similar; but what the hell can it be that enough of Joe Public want to do with a computer that it wouldn't be up to?
(OK I can see a case for more RAM; but that should be upgradeable).
Any comments?
Ted.
PS For comparison, the complete set of today's "Mini PC" reviews can be found at
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/digitallife/index.jhtml
and click on "on trial"
-------------------------------------------------------------------- E-Mail: (Ted Harding) Ted.Harding@manchester.ac.uk Fax-to-email: +44 (0)870 094 0861 Date: 19-May-07 Time: 17:09:17 ------------------------------ XFMail ------------------------------
I upgraded the ram in 3 Mac Minis at work, it was not a fun experience. There are no external screws and you are supposed to prise the aluminium surround off a plastic base using very thin pieces of metal, I used PCI slot covers, and I cut my hands...
Also, remember that modern processors have to be at a level where they can run Vista...
Matt
-----Original Message----- From: main-bounces@lists.alug.org.uk [mailto:main-bounces@lists.alug.org.uk] On Behalf Of Ted Harding Sent: 19 May 2007 17:10 To: main@lists.alug.org.uk Subject: [ALUG] OT, but ...
Hi Folks,
I'm writing to ask for reactions to an item in today's Daily Telegraph "Digital Life" (in the "Review" section).
This week, they're testing "Mini-PCs", and I quote their review of the Apple Mac Mini ("From £399"):
"Apple's Mac Mini is the tiniest 'small form factor' computer in this group. It is 6.5in square, 2in high, and has a gorgeous brushed-metal finish below the iconic Apple-white lid. Unfortunately, it's also the perfect case of style over substance. The 1.66GHz version is certainly cheap, but it's also very slow. Even the faster model uses only a 1.83GHz Core Duo processor (not the nippier Core 2 Duo) and has just 512 MB of RAM. You will also have to supply the keyboard, mouse and monitor. We'd recommend the Mac for undemanding word processing, surfing the web, or impressing your friends. For amything more intensive, steer clear."
Ehh?? "very slow"?? What *do* people use computers for these days. then?
For years I've been doing word-processing (including "demanding") and web-surfing on
A: 75MHz CPU + 64MB RAM B: 366MHz CPU + 128MB RAM C: 733MHz CPU + 512MB RAM (which at the same time happily runs Win98 in VMWare)
(etc).
and I've done a lot of quite intensive computational work too (dunno about impressing my friends, though ... ); and I've never had a machine more beefy than (C).
I can see that the Apple Mac Mini could be inadequate for computing predictions of climate change, or similar; but what the hell can it be that enough of Joe Public want to do with a computer that it wouldn't be up to?
(OK I can see a case for more RAM; but that should be upgradeable).
Any comments?
Ted.
PS For comparison, the complete set of today's "Mini PC" reviews can be found at
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/digitallife/index.jhtml
and click on "on trial"
-------------------------------------------------------------------- E-Mail: (Ted Harding) Ted.Harding@manchester.ac.uk Fax-to-email: +44 (0)870 094 0861 Date: 19-May-07 Time: 17:09:17 ------------------------------ XFMail ------------------------------
_______________________________________________ main@lists.alug.org.uk http://www.alug.org.uk/ http://lists.alug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/main Unsubscribe? See message headers or the web site above!
On 19-May-07 16:31:22, mephi wrote:
I upgraded the ram in 3 Mac Minis at work, it was not a fun
. experience. There are no external screws and you are supposed
to prise the aluminium surround off a plastic base using very thin pieces of metal, I used PCI slot covers, and I cut my hands...
Also, remember that modern processors have to be at a level where they can run Vista...
Point taken about the upgrading -- that looks like a design fault. Definitely "style over substance" -- there should always be screws!
But who would want to run Vista on a Mac? So I still wonder why this was rated "very slow"!!
Ted.
Matt
-----Original Message----- From: main-bounces@lists.alug.org.uk [mailto:main-bounces@lists.alug.org.uk] On Behalf Of Ted Harding Sent: 19 May 2007 17:10 To: main@lists.alug.org.uk Subject: [ALUG] OT, but ...
Hi Folks,
I'm writing to ask for reactions to an item in today's Daily Telegraph "Digital Life" (in the "Review" section).
This week, they're testing "Mini-PCs", and I quote their review of the Apple Mac Mini ("From £399"):
"Apple's Mac Mini is the tiniest 'small form factor' computer in this group. It is 6.5in square, 2in high, and has a gorgeous brushed-metal finish below the iconic Apple-white lid. Unfortunately, it's also the perfect case of style over substance. The 1.66GHz version is certainly cheap, but it's also very slow. Even the faster model uses only a 1.83GHz Core Duo processor (not the nippier Core 2 Duo) and has just 512 MB of RAM. You will also have to supply the keyboard, mouse and monitor. We'd recommend the Mac for undemanding word processing, surfing the web, or impressing your friends. For amything more intensive, steer clear."
Ehh?? "very slow"?? What *do* people use computers for these days. then?
For years I've been doing word-processing (including "demanding") and web-surfing on
A: 75MHz CPU + 64MB RAM B: 366MHz CPU + 128MB RAM C: 733MHz CPU + 512MB RAM (which at the same time happily runs Win98 in VMWare)
(etc).
and I've done a lot of quite intensive computational work too (dunno about impressing my friends, though ... ); and I've never had a machine more beefy than (C).
I can see that the Apple Mac Mini could be inadequate for computing predictions of climate change, or similar; but what the hell can it be that enough of Joe Public want to do with a computer that it wouldn't be up to?
(OK I can see a case for more RAM; but that should be upgradeable).
Any comments?
Ted.
PS For comparison, the complete set of today's "Mini PC" reviews can be found at
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/digitallife/index.jhtml
and click on "on trial"
E-Mail: (Ted Harding) Ted.Harding@manchester.ac.uk Fax-to-email: +44 (0)870 094 0861 Date: 19-May-07 Time: 17:09:17 ------------------------------ XFMail ------------------------------
main@lists.alug.org.uk http://www.alug.org.uk/ http://lists.alug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/main Unsubscribe? See message headers or the web site above!
main@lists.alug.org.uk http://www.alug.org.uk/ http://lists.alug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/main Unsubscribe? See message headers or the web site above!
-------------------------------------------------------------------- E-Mail: (Ted Harding) ted.harding@nessie.mcc.ac.uk Fax-to-email: +44 (0)870 094 0861 Date: 19-May-07 Time: 18:32:26 ------------------------------ XFMail ------------------------------
(Ted Harding) wrote:
But who would want to run Vista on a Mac? So I still wonder why this was rated "very slow"!!
Mac Mini's are carving a niche in data centres due to their low power consumption (rather scarce in datacenters these days)
/Lamby
[0] http://www.mythic-beasts.com/macmini.html
Actually, we run XP on ours :-)
We wanted something small, quiet, but capable of decoding HD, but they also need to present a familiar UI. They're perfect for the job.
Matt
-----Original Message----- From: main-bounces@lists.alug.org.uk [mailto:main-bounces@lists.alug.org.uk] On Behalf Of Ted Harding Sent: 19 May 2007 18:33 To: main@lists.alug.org.uk Subject: RE: [ALUG] OT, but ...
On 19-May-07 16:31:22, mephi wrote:
I upgraded the ram in 3 Mac Minis at work, it was not a fun
. experience. There are no external screws and you are supposed
to prise the aluminium surround off a plastic base using very thin pieces of metal, I used PCI slot covers, and I cut my hands...
Also, remember that modern processors have to be at a level where they can run Vista...
Point taken about the upgrading -- that looks like a design fault. Definitely "style over substance" -- there should always be screws!
But who would want to run Vista on a Mac? So I still wonder why this was rated "very slow"!!
Ted.
Matt
-----Original Message----- From: main-bounces@lists.alug.org.uk [mailto:main-bounces@lists.alug.org.uk] On Behalf Of Ted Harding Sent: 19 May 2007 17:10 To: main@lists.alug.org.uk Subject: [ALUG] OT, but ...
Hi Folks,
I'm writing to ask for reactions to an item in today's Daily Telegraph "Digital Life" (in the "Review" section).
This week, they're testing "Mini-PCs", and I quote their review of the Apple Mac Mini ("From £399"):
"Apple's Mac Mini is the tiniest 'small form factor' computer in this group. It is 6.5in square, 2in high, and has a gorgeous brushed-metal finish below the iconic Apple-white lid. Unfortunately, it's also the perfect case of style over substance. The 1.66GHz version is certainly cheap, but it's also very slow. Even the faster model uses only a 1.83GHz Core Duo processor (not the nippier Core 2 Duo) and has just 512 MB of RAM. You will also have to supply the keyboard, mouse and monitor. We'd recommend the Mac for undemanding word processing, surfing the web, or impressing your friends. For amything more intensive, steer clear."
Ehh?? "very slow"?? What *do* people use computers for these days. then?
For years I've been doing word-processing (including "demanding") and web-surfing on
A: 75MHz CPU + 64MB RAM B: 366MHz CPU + 128MB RAM C: 733MHz CPU + 512MB RAM (which at the same time happily runs Win98 in VMWare)
(etc).
and I've done a lot of quite intensive computational work too (dunno about impressing my friends, though ... ); and I've never had a machine more beefy than (C).
I can see that the Apple Mac Mini could be inadequate for computing predictions of climate change, or similar; but what the hell can it be that enough of Joe Public want to do with a computer that it wouldn't be up to?
(OK I can see a case for more RAM; but that should be upgradeable).
Any comments?
Ted.
PS For comparison, the complete set of today's "Mini PC" reviews can be found at
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/digitallife/index.jhtml
and click on "on trial"
E-Mail: (Ted Harding) Ted.Harding@manchester.ac.uk Fax-to-email: +44 (0)870 094 0861 Date: 19-May-07 Time: 17:09:17 ------------------------------ XFMail ------------------------------
main@lists.alug.org.uk http://www.alug.org.uk/ http://lists.alug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/main Unsubscribe? See message headers or the web site above!
main@lists.alug.org.uk http://www.alug.org.uk/ http://lists.alug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/main Unsubscribe? See message headers or the web site above!
-------------------------------------------------------------------- E-Mail: (Ted Harding) ted.harding@nessie.mcc.ac.uk Fax-to-email: +44 (0)870 094 0861 Date: 19-May-07 Time: 18:32:26 ------------------------------ XFMail ------------------------------
_______________________________________________ main@lists.alug.org.uk http://www.alug.org.uk/ http://lists.alug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/main Unsubscribe? See message headers or the web site above!
On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 05:09:39PM +0100, Ted Harding wrote:
Ehh?? "very slow"?? What *do* people use computers for these days. then?
Running Mac OS X with all the eye candy isn't going to use a small amount of resources. Playing video, managing a large iTunes library and doing mail+running a web browser etc. isn't going to leave many resources on that machine. Also with the gfx chipset and hard disk in that machine it won't be much of a gaming machine.
I can see that the Apple Mac Mini could be inadequate for computing predictions of climate change, or similar; but what the hell can it be that enough of Joe Public want to do with a computer that it wouldn't be up to?
From reading the spec of machines you're running they're not anything
I'd really want to be using now. Given the price/availability of new hardware the 75Mhz one I'd class as seriously obsolete even the embedded wireless routers on my lan are running at ~200Mhz :) I'd only want machines as "slow" as the other 2 you are running if they were exceptionally low power (my home server is a 533Mhz Via epia).
Given the price of electricity vs. how many machines you've got and how much you can do on each at once... personally I'd be replacing them all with a single more powerful machine, ok this depends on what you are doing but to me it'd seem the way forward. People routinely bin machines that are twice the speed of your fastest machine. I was looking the other day and Dell were selling a brand new 1.8Ghz dual core machine with 2 gigabytes of ram, 160GB disk with a 19" tft monitor for 350 quid delivered.
I honestly think your argument could be applied to saying that you /could/ still do useful work on an 8 bit computer from the early 1980's but it's not something you'd want to do if you wanted to keep your sanity for any length of time compared to what you could use instead.
The only reason your machines are still useful is that Linux isn't that picky about what it will run on compared to other operating systems. When you are selling non-free software you want to fit the hardware that is currently available to try and trap people into the continuous upgrade cycle and also make it do more "stuff" so that people have a reason to buy it.
Adam
On Saturday 19 May 2007 17:09, Ted Harding wrote:
Hi Folks,
I'm writing to ask for reactions to an item in today's Daily Telegraph "Digital Life" (in the "Review" section).
This week, they're testing "Mini-PCs", and I quote their review of the Apple Mac Mini ("From £399"):
"Apple's Mac Mini is the tiniest 'small form factor' computer in this group. It is 6.5in square, 2in high, and has a gorgeous brushed-metal finish below the iconic Apple-white lid. Unfortunately, it's also the perfect case of style over substance. The 1.66GHz version is certainly cheap, but it's also very slow. Even the faster model uses only a 1.83GHz Core Duo processor (not the nippier Core 2 Duo) and has just 512 MB of RAM. You will also have to supply the keyboard, mouse and monitor. We'd recommend the Mac for undemanding word processing, surfing the web, or impressing your friends. For amything more intensive, steer clear."
Ehh?? "very slow"?? What *do* people use computers for these days. then?
Frankly, you could probably saturate a reasonably sized BOINC project with either iTunes or Aero.
Not that I'll be running either (it's not the resources, it's the ebil) but I expect these things are considerations for a newspaper review.
-
Adam Bower -
Chris Lamb -
mephi -
ted.harding＠nessie.mcc.ac.uk -
Ten