@Hammer

Quote:

MacOS X has a firewall btw.

Of course it does. I said extra firewalls, since the built-in one doesn't really cut the mustard. I wouldn't let a Windows machine be directly online (as opposed to behind NAT) with just the standard firewall. I don't have time to clean up the mess. Anyway the anti-virus tools will be the ones sucking the most cpu juice.

Quote:

Careful with any generalisation since gaming benchmarks is Athlons?s best friend (this is reference to PowerPC G5 not PowerPC G4 based systems).

Again you make assumptions. A second ago you were talking about business markets and now you talk about gaming? I'm talking about real life applications here. People won't be getting the Mac Mini for gaming. That's for sure. They'd be better off buying a slightly more expensive PC or a more expensive Mac. All-round system use, video editing, music creation, media playback etc. will be nice and fast with a G4 at that spec. Heck, even my measly 867MHz pulls Final Cut Pro just fine. Try editing a movie on a Windows machine with an 867MHz P4 or AMD. Sure, it's possible, but it's certainly not fun.

@Rogue

Quote:

Quote: We are trying to achieve a $500-$600 system here. There's no way to do that with WaterCooling. You don't need water cooling, and a cooler can be had for as little as ?34, for example this one. (Sorry, link is in german, but you get the idea). Add to this a graphics card with passive cooling (Radeon 9200 or 9550, Matrox G450), a silent harddisk, then you will only have the power supply to take care of (this one for example). All standard components, all relatively cheap, you will easily get a $500 machine that is extremely quiet.

And how do you fint the giant heatsink inside the nice, tiny case? ;) You're thinking like a geek (not an insult - I do the same in other areas ;)) who is willing to mess around with a system to get what you want. Most people don't want to do that. They want something small, nice and tidy that just works. It's just like the people who were going on about iPod not having wifi, no ogg support and so on - yeah, I'd like to see that in a player too, but the BIG market doesn't care. They just want something nice that works - and it seems they are willing to pay a fair bit for it as well.

@BrianK

Quote:

WMA DRM is only restrictive from the standpoint you can't use it on a Mac. It's less restrictive from the standpoint you have many options besides 1 player, well now 2 for Fairplay - iPod or Motorola cell phone. It's less restrictive from the standpoint that you have more stores then just the 1 Apple store.

WMA DRM is restrictive in the sense that you can only use it in Windows. It's true that there are many more players. More stores than one? Well, that's a bit of a misconception. Most of the "stores" out there is one store: the Gabriel owned OD2.

When it comes to what you can do with the file when you've downloaded it, FairPlay wins big-time. More machines, no bloody certificates (rather activation and deactivation of machines), 10 cd burns of the same playlist (then you have to re-arrange it to burn more) and so on.

Quote:

WMA has 5.1 surround sound encoder for free. Consumer grade AAC for Apple's only does stero.

Have you actually seen music offered in 5.1 online?

Quote:

WMA costs less for manufactures to use.

Yes, the traditional way Microsoft gets into a market: Make it cheap or free so people depend on it and then you slam the door.

Quote:

WMA players exist for Mac's and Linux, see Interplay.

I could just see Windows Media Player (for OS X anyway)

Quote:

WMA is lossless, I believe Apple's is lossy.

WMA is certainly not lossless. In fact it has generally lost most codec comparisons. It's fairly good at simple classical music, but that's it. And Apple has a lossless codec that's included with the last few versions of iTunes. It's possible that WMA can be set to full quality, but per default it is lossy.



Quote:

I preceive WMA as better quality at the same bitrate as AAC.

"It depends". I tend to use a little more disk space and encode high-quality MP3s - just because it'll play on more devices that way. *Generally* WMA has always sounded very poor to me. Especially when you have cymbals and distortion. In fact I haven't heard anything worse at handling it than WMA - and I have heard a lot and have ears that are more sensitive than most (used to audio editing).

Quote:

Current estimates are 80-90% of all online song sales go to Apple. Since you're locked to the iPod once you buy a song from Apple if the people want to move to a WMA player they can't move their songs with them.

If you buy using the Apple store you can switch platforms. You can't if you buy from an OD2 store. Anyway it would seem that more players may be coming. And anyway you have a choice of players: iPod, iPod Mini, iPod Photo, iPod Shuffle. That's a fair selection to me

@wegster

Quote:

Mostly indifferent on the DVI- bear in mind they actually ONLY do DVI, and use a DVI to VGA adapter...I expect the cost different to be mostly neglible, so it's not a bad move IMHO. TV out- yep, that would be nice, no disagreement.

Maybe you just need to upgrade your TV. Mine has both DVI and VGA inputs..

@BrianK

Quote:

Maybe you just need to upgrade your TV. Mine has both DVI and VGA inputs..

Bah

The living room is a 57" HD, got that covered The 'rest' are 'old school' with composite and S-Video only, which is what I expect more people buying the mini versus a PowerMac will probably have, at least for the next few years until HD _really_ becomes 'official' (hmm, been hearing THAT one for a while ) and a standard for even lower end sets.....

Hmm...thinking about it, I'm not actually sure I've got VGA inputs on it....although it's got multiple component and DVI in, plus an old composite, and I think even S-bus...ok, I'm gonna go look now!

_________________
Are we not done with the same silly arguments and flames yet??!

@Rogue

People said the same about the G4 Cube. The min Mac looks more like a set-top box appliance than a computer.
How would you design a case?

_________________

Quote:

wegster wrote: Ok, I've got to say it, Atheist- your arguments, at least to me, seem inconsistent. Your 'norrmal Amiga reasoning' usually says, 'It doesn't matter, it doesn't run AOS, so isn't relevant'. Ok, your opinion, and that's fine.

Hi wegster,

Yes, I am very determined that in this great big world, there is a significant enough portion of it with an interest in AmigaOne, that COULD maintain the production and sales of Amiga HW and SW into the indefinite future.

Quote:

wegster wrote: But here you claim the PSIII and X-Box 2 will somehow affect the mac mini sales, yet neither of those run OS X, which for _some_ is something to get excited about, like you do about dreaming about AOS. See the hypocrisy here?

I don't think that there is a huge amount of people that are yearning for a Mac, personally. That's my point. And, when those game systems come out, which will do just about everything this does, but they will be bigger (physical size), most of the attraction will crash. They will have more SW, and be faster. The Playstation 3 is rumoured to be TiVO like, should play mp3, and browse the web, and will upon release, have more games than the Mac mini.

Now, these would be arguments for "why the heck get an AmigaOne?"

Well, they (PS3, X-B2) still aren't "personal" computers.

Quote:

wegster wrote: Have you actually USED OS X to make this comparison, or is it just 'fandom' speaking?

Yes, you are right here, I have not used Mac OS X. It is my fandom speaking.


Quote:

wegster wrote: I've got nothing against AOS, and have 'commited' my $1200 or so to that cause, nor do I have anything 'against' OS X....but let's at least try to be consistent in arguments, OK?

And you couldn't imagine how much I appreciate that you are going with an AmigaOne. (I have no vested interest in Amiga. I am not an employee of any of the companies, nor do I make any commercial or shareware SW. I am strictly an end user, right now. However, when a compilable basic appears, like AMOS Professional, then I will try to write some shareware.)

I am saying, that, Mac mini won't drown out AmigaOne, and that it will be very badly hurt by the 2 video game systems that are coming out soon. All opinion, I'm no soothsayer.

Quote:

wegster wrote: If you really think this has no effect whatsoever on _desktop_ AOS future sales...I don't believe it (but have already said my own piece on it), but ok, your opinion...based on it doesn't run AOS4....but then to argue a game console which yeah, likely will run Linux, is going to somehow 'take out' the mac mini running what is for most a superior user experience (to the average user) over Linux distros....

Well, this may be meant as the "livingroom convergence centre", but I would argue that the two video game systems I've mentioned will actually fill that niche much better.

Quote:

wegster wrote: Remember that saying? It's coming to me...wait...ah, there it is! "Things that make you go Hmm"...... As far as clones go...let's see...the smallest consumer board right now is what, mini--ITX, like the uA1? Dell doesn't design their own mainboards, they grab an existing board, alther the PS connector, and add their broken BIOS to it. They certainly do not 'innovate'...Palm building a complete computer system? They seem to have enough problems with PalmOS, but are successful in that market...you think they're going to go into entirely new territory to try to make a useable PC? Hmm.

I don't know how it happens, but when something new like this appears, it always seems as though, a month later, 5 other companies are making the same thing.

I still think, when those game systems come out, people will ask themselves "do I need this computer that costs 2 to 3 times more for my livingroom, when a PS3 is almost the same thing?"

Quote:

wegster wrote: HP makes good servers, and that's pretty much about it. I can't remember the last 'innovation' I saw out of HP though. Was there someone else you mentioned to compete with this custom designed plar, one-off type of system that Apple is now mass producing? Personally, the only one that IMHO _could_ do it......is M$, if they chose to do it. The problem with that is they couldn't recoup their losses on selling the box by 'specialty' software like they do with XBox...so I wouldn't rule it out entirely, but I would think it's unlikely. Sorry for the brief excursion into what some people refer to as reality...we now return back to the land of fairies, dragons, and 'Amiga at any cost, and _soon_'. Note I'm not 'down' on AOS at all, or even the current A1 prices (ok, not much)....just have a _realistic_ view on things in technology land...and the way most companies work.

Undeniably, the road for Amiga is very difficult, but I have to walk it, and want to be as upbeat as possible on the journey there.


I honestly to my core think it's worth it, no matter what the outcome is.

@Trezzer

Quote:

More stores than one? Well, that's a bit of a misconception. Most of the "stores" out there is one store: the Gabriel owned OD2

MSN Music, MusicMatch, Napster, and Walmart are the one's I can think of. Haven't heard of OD2 but okay.

Quote:

Have you actually seen music offered in 5.1 online?

No, but that wasn't the point. The point is I can encode my music with 5.1 as it's included in the consumer grade WMA encoder. I can't do that with the Mac consumer encoders.

Quote:

Apple has a lossless codec that's included with the last few versions of iTunes

Great.. My info is old, thanks for the update.
If both Apple and WMA are true lossless codecs then they should sound equally as good, in theory.

Quote:

"It depends".

Good answer. It does depend on the way the music was encoded, the type and quality of output of the player, the type of system/speakers/headphones, etc. One can obviously make bad choices in those areas and end up with better or worse sounding tones.

Quote:

choice of players: iPod, iPod Mini, iPod Photo, iPod Shuffle. That's a fair selection to me

That's not choice.

How about the software players - Xine, Real Player, Yahoo and Windows Media player for softwares to play the songs -- that's choice. How about the hardware - players - Dell, iRiver, Rio, Commodore, SanDisk, Creative Labs, Samsung, Nike -- those are companies each make a variety of choices.

Wow now we're talking choice. WMA DRM does lock you into 1 desktop - Microsoft.

But, you want something 'open' and great? Rio Karma is an excellent example. It's made by Marantz/Denon a very good audio company. Not only does it do USB, it does ethernet. You can transfer your non-DRM material to it as long as your webbrowser supports Java 2.0 be it Win, Mac, Linux, Solaris, others.. MP3, FLAC, Ogg, WMA. This player I'd highly recommend to anyone.

People seem to be missing the point. The Mac Mini isn't aimed at tech geeks - the kind of people who build their own systems, want the fastest gfx chipset available, etc.

It's aimed at the average punter who's fed up with Windows and wants to try something different but has previously balked at buying a Mac because of the price.

I've been trying to convince my parents to buy a Mac for years. Instead, they've bought a series of cheap and crap PCs that have given them no end of grief. My parents don't want to play Doom 3; they want to browse the web, send email, do word processing, etc. For computer users such as my parents - who want an information appliance, who don't want to be bothered with the technical details necessary to keep Windows XP up and running - the Mac Mini makes a great deal of sense and is good value for money.

Another example is my father-in-law. He's more inclined to spend time tinkering with Windows than my parents are, but is constantly complaining about the speed of his system because his virus checker, spyware checker, firewall, etc. are consuming so much of his computers resources. For users such as my father-in-law, again, the Mac makes a lot of sense.

Would I recommend an A1 and OS4.0 to my parents or to my father-in-law. No. Of course not. We're a long way from that point. But I would heartily recommend a Mac - especially now there's an affordable option in the Mac Mini.

In short: AmigaOS 4.0 isn't ready for Aunt Tillie, my parents or my father-in-law. OS X is.

And, IMHO, the more people that adopt the Mac, the better; the more people that see that there is a viable alternative to the Wintel hegemony, the better.

Cheers,
Rich

Last edited by evilrich on 13-Jan-2005 at 05:04 AM.

Quote:

wegster wrote: @Atheist Quote: If OS X, mswinpro, linux and AOS4.x was running on the SAME 3.x GHz x86 CPU, with same graphics board, sound, input/outputs, etc., and the same price, which would you choose? ... Those other OSs' WON'T change. They'll always be the way they are, or get more and more closed. Sigh. Ok..Atheist/all, I am SOOO not trying to single anyone out. Atheist, I'm honestly not sure what it is, but some of your posts 'just hit that spot.'- please don't take it personal. I've emailed several computer mag edititors on the past about their writers that put out incorrect information as 'fact,' so I guess you could say that INACCURATE, ENTIRELY MADE UP INFO DRIVES ME MAD! So, it seems now that you're implying that Windows, Linux, and OS X are what...proprietary, closed systems?

Hi wegster,

I used the word "or" there. Look at my sig for my complaint against windows. Will THAT change anytime soon? I have a very hard time believing that that is what an OS needs to be.

Quote:

wegster wrote: Umm...Windows- ok, no argument. OS X is based on BSD, I _believe_ FreeBSD...which is, guess what? AN OPEN SOURCE OPERATING SYSTEM! See www.opendarwin.org for details if you'd like to actually have some information behind statements. The *BSDs have been open source forever now, and are very stable platforms...and yes, evolving as well.

Okay, I haven't used OS X. Can you manipulate it, and do as you please, for the most part? Can you take the hard drive out and boot off of a 32 Meg compact flash card? If it's as open as you imply, why can't AOS4.x be compiled for it easily?

Quote:

wegster wrote: Linux- silly me, Linux NEVER changes. Nothing ever comes out there that's inventive...hmm, BitTorrent, FireFox primary dev platform, OO? KDE, GNOME, in various _evolving_ incarnations? Support to run on Hmm, the PSX and PS2 that you alluded to the next generation of in an earlier post? Ability to run on ARM processors, and virtually everything else....

Will an easily installable version of it be available any time soon? I don't understand -get apt. I've been in the linux forum here, and I was QUITE confused/dazed. Constant references to "tar" and put this here, that there, and what the heck is this "root" thing all the time? I was even locked out of the system one time. I put it on my computer for a week, and there wasn't much to do with it. I guess I wasn't trying hard enough.

Oh yeah, I was playing "Mah Jong" that came with it, and there was a SW bug in it.

Quote:

wegster wrote: Now, let's compare. AOS4 = proprietary, closed source operating system, in it's entirety. There is nothing wrong with that, depending on your goals....but then how can you try to 'slam' the other OSes based on the very same ideal as AOS??

AOS4.0 and higher is closed source, but it's highly flexible. Well, I think you know the rest.

Quote:

wegster wrote: As far as which platform I personally would run given _only_ a single system. It would honestly depend on what I needed to do at the time. For general development and my job, Linux. For games, Windows. For 'a change' and to see what may be able to be done with them from a development standpoint 'for fun'....OS X or AOS.

AOS4.0 and higher, functions better and is currently lacking heaps of SW in the various categories that make a computer useful, but it only needs one or two good applications in each fold, and a diversity of games, and then it's a happening deal.


Two choices, chase the dream, or give up.


I base my choice on previous experience, and that's AOS, hands down.

@Trezzer

Quote:

Try editing a movie on a Windows machine with an 867MHz P4 or AMD. Sure, it's possible, but it's certainly not fun.

Huh ?

We've been doing that on a 1ghz P3 for the past 5ish years !!

Try burning a two hour wedding to dvd .. 7 hour conversion to mpg !!

_________________
******************************************
I dont suffer from Insanity - I enjoy it

******************************************

@sibbi

Quote:

t isn't sharing memory. It has 32 megs of dedicated memory. Quartz Extreme which is what you'll use most often uses all those 32 megs sure, but you'll get by with it.

Quartz Extreme, let's see is that anything like Display Postscript??? I used to be a NeXT junkie 32 megs isn't reasonable for any machine that might have a full 3d UI in the future. Maybe that model will get let behind.... Also I stand by my texturing claim and the lack of potential cinematic fx, even with dedicated 32 megs of DDR at AGP 4x..

Mini-Mac?

I'll take one

Extra tomato and hold the onions

_________________
Avatar babe - Monica Bellucci.

@sibbi

I spent $5 99 today, but I didn't buy the high end Mac mini...

I bought: An AMD 64 3000+ , Motherboard, 512MB of DDR ram, A case with a 400 watt power supply, DVD burner, GeForce FX 5900 Ultra, Sata 80 Gig HD...

I'd definitely race any mac mini owner here with it Wonder who's faster and a better value for $500...

@Atheist

Quote:

Okay, I haven't used OS X. Can you manipulate it, and do as you please, for the most part?

Look at people that have no experience with it, using it to build 'decent' movies and burning them to DVD without instructions, or the 'Windows converts.' It's not too difficult to find people quite happy with OS X.

Quote:

Can you take the hard drive out and boot off of a 32 Meg compact flash card?

32M? Umm, I'm _fairly_ sure a _useable_ AOS (4 pre) is larger than that at this point? I don't know what a 'stripped' version of OS X would take. I know what BSD and Linux can be stripped to fit into (can run off floppy without GUI if need be), 32MB isn't an issue. Honestly no clue about the size of the OS X UI though, I'd expect that's 'larger'. OS X doesn't try to run on embedded devices, however, so not much of a point regardless.

Quote:

Will an easily installable version of it be available any time soon? I don't understand -get apt. I've been in the linux forum here, and I was QUITE confused/dazed. Constant references to "tar" and put this here, that there, and what the heck is this "root" thing all the time? I was even locked out of the system one time. I put it on my computer for a week, and there wasn't much to do with it. I guess I wasn't trying hard enough.

Atheist- I'm not going to argue about Linux distros, some moreso than others, being 'not for the typical home user.' Linux's origins by nature were never geared towards non-technical people, nor was even expected to have an inmpact like it has when Linux was writing it as a school project. However...BECAUSE of it's open nature, which you seemed to indicate otherwise previously, developers have made what they want of it, which does include some pretty useable setups. Unfortunately, Debian in general, isn't the most 'new user friendly' distro of Linux out there, and PPC limits things a bit further as far as being a primary focus. Knoppix, which can be run off a CD, is pretty good for new users, see the Knoppix site for some info. There is an older 'Knoppix PPC' available as well available here , although I have no idea if it will run on the uA1s. Another distro that's easier to 'get into,' although _far_ from my own favorite, is Lindows (now named Linspire, here

If you can view flash, you may want to take a look at their
Flash Demo for some sort of idea of what Linux _can_ be set up like. The flash is a bit high on 'cheese factor,' but because the OS _IS_ open, it can become many (different) things for many _different_ users, and do so fairly well.

So, I'm not seeing how Linux or OS X are becoming 'more closed' as you imply, let alone more closed than AOS.

Quote:

Oh yeah, I was playing "Mah Jong" that came with it, and there was a SW bug in it.

Hmm. Silly me. I forget, there are NO BUGS ON AOS SOFTWARE? Wow, not _just_ a good job, but quite unbelieveable I've got to say. And before you say that AOS4 is in beta, which I agree entirely with....how many Guru meditations or lockups have you had on your Amigas? ALL software has bugs...and a fair amount of Linux or other open source software is alpha or beta...but also a good amount runs very well, just like AOS and most other platforms. Nope, your argument doesn't hold there, either.

Quote:

If it's as open as you imply, why can't AOS4.x be compiled for it easily?

Ok, so I have no answer for this, because I have no CLUE what you're asking me here? AOS4 is an OS...which runs on top of hardware. Linux, BSD, OS X, Windows are also OSes, running directly on top of hardware. Umm...you don't run an OS on another OS (unless using VMWare or bochs, but that's OT here...)....so what exactly ARE you asking here?

I'm not arguing with your reasoning about AOS needing apps, and it could become something that draws people...I am debating that anything else you said (which I've quoted' is actually true, however, or that you've actually taken the time to try to see if you can back up any of your statements with respect to 'other OSes'.

_________________
Are we not done with the same silly arguments and flames yet??!

@DonnyEMU

Quote:

I spent $5 99 today, but I didn't buy the high end Mac mini... I bought: An AMD 64 3000+ , Motherboard, 512MB of DDR ram, A case with a 400 watt power supply, DVD burner, GeForce FX 5900 Ultra, Sata 80 Gig HD... I'd definitely race any mac mini owner here with it Wonder who's faster and a better value for $500...

Since you didn't say that you got an operating system with that - let alone any applications - you've spent $599 on a lump of silicon, copper, plastic and steel. That doesn't compare with the Mac Mini.

Yeah. Okay. You can install Linux on it, and I assume you're going to (I would), but - once again - this is not the same market as the Mac Mini is aimed at.

Cheers,
Rich

@DonnyEMU

Probably your box is faster but also noisier and I bet you are gonna face many problems, at least if you are going to install Windows ;)

I would have go for Mini :)

@DonnyEMU

I'd still rather have the Mac-mini - windoze XP lacks many apps
like iDVD (out of the box). Unlike the PC, the included SW bundle
is very good and it's easy to generate really good output (read
good enough for paying gigs: )

The real question is will the HAL that Hyperion incorporated into the
OS 4 design allow it to be easily ported to Apple HW? I've read many
posts from the Hyperion guys saying that porting to other PPC HW would
be relatively easy as a result of the OS 4 design. I think it's time to
find out if this is accurate. Apple has presented KMOS and Hyperion
with a grand opportunity to make some $$$. I know this could hurt
Eyetech rather badly, but they are big boys and hopefully they could
absorb such a blow (and no, I don't think they deserve to be hurt
like that, but sometimes commercial realities can't be denied
forever - economies of scale not withstanding) :

Quote:

wegster wrote: Quote: Oh yeah, I was playing "Mah Jong" that came with it, and there was a SW bug in it. Hmm. Silly me. I forget, there are NO BUGS ON AOS SOFTWARE?

Hi wegster,

I was only trying to say, in an 8 to 10 year old OS, a rather basic game didn't work. That I found surprising. Of course on the other hand, there are SO MANY configurations and components in x86 boxes, that ANYTHING might be behind that flaw.

Quote:

Quote: If it's as open as you imply, why can't AOS4.x be compiled for it easily? Ok, so I have no answer for this, because I have no CLUE what you're asking me here?

Here I'm mistaken, I may be mixing apples and apples. From what I understand, an AOS4.0 port to Macs is most unlikely because their HW is closed, proprietery. Also, they have many different machines, and each one would have to be compiled for separately, too, I'd imagine.

Quote:

wegster wrote: I'm not arguing with your reasoning about AOS needing apps, and it could become something that draws people...I am debating that anything else you said (which I've quoted' is actually true, however, or that you've actually taken the time to try to see if you can back up any of your statements with respect to 'other OSes'.

I know this:
> If I need to re-install, it doesn't take 1 hour, and trips to multiple websites
> There are CLI commands that are effective (linux does too, moreso, but the complexity, yeesh!)
> Easily reversible installs
> Ram: disk
> Rad:
> Easily movable programs
> Boots off of CD or DVD or CF or Zip or USB, in totality
> Instant shut down
> No DLLs
> No registry
> Bigger icons (or at least there were)
> No multi-user/password stuff

Basically, it does things I need, and the other OSs' don't, and/or their shortcomings in other areas, make the few things on this list they do offer, useless.

@evilrich

Quote:

People seem to be missing the point. The Mac Mini isn't aimed at spech geeks - the kind of people who build their own systems, want the fastest gfx chipset available, etc.

Fixed.

I'm a by all means a tech geek and I really want this system, is a sub Mini-ITX sized nearly silent computer with enough *oumph* for 95% of the things I use a computer for, and cheap enough for me to realistically afford too.