Alan Baker
In article <af4a3$482cb18b$28745@news.teranews.com>, Glorb <Glorb@orb.com>wrote:

Glorb
George Graves wrote:

George Graves
On Thu, 15 May 2008 11:54:27 -0700, Glorb wrote (in article <d4cd0$482c86e3$5408@news.teranews.com>):

Glorb
Keith Ream wrote:

Keith Ream
Glorb wrote:

Glorb
Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:

Mayor Of R'lyeh
On Thu, 15 May 2008 11:23:43 -0500, Glorb <Glorb@orb.com>wrote:

Glorb
Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:

Mayor Of R'lyeh
On Mon, 12 May 2008 14:57:49 -0700, George Graves <gmgraves2@comcast.net>wrote:

George Graves
On Mon, 12 May 2008 13:18:23 -0700, ZnU wrote (in article <znu-5B168E.16182312052008@news.individual.net>):

ZnU
In article <0001HW.C44DEAC5000BFDC2F01846D8@news.comcast.net>, George Graves <gmgraves2@comcast.net>wrote:

George Graves
On Sun, 11 May 2008 23:23:00 -0700, ZnU wrote (in article <znu-12A819.02230012052008@news.individual.net>):

ZnU
[snip]

I rather suspect most people who call for OS X on generic x86 hardware just haven't considered the logistics of supporting generic hardware vs. simply selling cheaper Macs. The rest are simply people who believe multi-vendor hardware platforms are inherently good, usually for some reason that isn't relevant to most users or to current market conditions.

George Graves
You're right. It would cost them a lot more to support OSX on generic Winboxes than it would probably cost them to make a really cheap Mac (and even sell it as a loss-leader). But I don't see them ever doing that, either. Its just not Apple's style and let's face it, they don't have to despite our resident Windroids' protestations to the contrary. But, certainly they could if they wanted to. Look at the Apple TV. Its "almost" a complete computer with HDD and memory, and it sells for less than US$250.

ZnU
Sure. Keep in mind, Apple already has relationships with the same Taiwanese manufacturing companies that make computers for companies like Dell -- in some cases Macs are already made in the very same factories. Apple might even be able to come in a little below Dell's prices, for equivalent hardware, because they wouldn't be paying an external supplier for their OS and because they'd probably focus on one or two models rather than having many models and a complex build-to-order system.

Will they do it? I don't see them having much interest, at the moment. But who anticipated the Mac mini, introduced as a $500 Mac when the cheapest Mac was previously nearly twice that price, or the Xserve, a product targeted at a market in which Apple had previously shown no interest at all?

George Graves
The thing is that any computer designed to compete in that space would have to be more computer than the Mini. Let's face it, for the cost of a Mini one can buy or build a Windows box with near Mac tower performance and capability. Not that the Mini isn't useful, it certainly is, it just doesn't stack-up, hardware wise, very well against similar priced Winbox offerings. It's main appeal is that it runs OSX. This makes it worthwhile to those who value OSX, but to our local Windroids and Winscum here, many of which have never even seen, much less used OSX (Edwin), the Mini merely looks overpriced.

Mayor Of R'lyeh
Mac user (at work anyway) here to say that the Mini is grossly overpriced for what it is. If the higher end Mini were priced at $500 and the lower end one at $300 they'd be flying out the doors.

Glorb
IOW, if Edwin had bought a Mac Mini, he would have found his assessment of it too generous. He would have had made a $600-$800 mistake. ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

Mayor Of R'lyeh
That depends entirely upon how much this Edwin of which you speak values the things the Mini does offer. If he puts a premium on the form factor then he might have found it a great bargain. However if he were basing his judgement on the machine's specs then he would have been greatly disappointed.

Glorb
Who is the form factor important to, and why?

Keith Ream
Many people and not just for rational reasons. People like the cool factor of having a tiny computer much as they like the cool factor of certain cars.

Glorb
IOW, you're saying it's for irrational, egotistical people who don't really do much with a computer?

George Graves
People who "don't do much with a computer" happens to define the huge majority of non-corporate computer use and not a small percentage of corporate use. Fact is, most people do E-mail, web browsing, music, You-Tube, manage their digital pictures and little else with their computers. A Mac Mini is more than adequate for all of those.

Glorb
Says the man who doesn't use a Mac Mini. A 120 GB HD is adequate for music, pictures and movies? Pul-lease! That's a bad joke. The RAM and VRAM are even worse jokes.

Alan Baker
120 GB is plenty for lots of of folks, Edwin. I admit, I don't have the largest iPhoto library at only 1400 photos, but if I had 5 times as many, it would still only occupy about one sixth of a 120GB drive.

My iTunes library probably has a medium number of songs (about 150 albums-worth), but they're all ripped at high quality, so it evens out to a certain extent. So my iTunes along with 5 times as many photos and only about 50GB of the 120GB available would be used.

George Graves
If one edits high-def videos, burns video DVDs,

Glorb
Lots of people burn video DVDs George.

Alan Baker
And lots don't.

George Graves
does CAD/CAM, crunches numbers for statistical analysis, etc., then the computer is inadequate. But few people do those things - especially at home.

Glorb
It seems to me that you crafted your opinion on what people use a computer for to fit within the limitations of the Mac Mini.

But of course a super user such as yourself needs far more than the common, unwashed masses do, right, George?

Alan Baker
LOL