@Atheist

Quote:

3. Their more/most expensive machines suffer a slow down in sales, as a result of this.

Doubt it, When the G5 first came out it wasn't the lowest cost which sold best, it was the higest price model. A lot of the markets Apple are in have applications which require as much power as you can throw at it, they'll continue to go for the big machines.

Quote:

5. Playstation 3 and x-$-x ii cut into their sales when released in 9 to 12 months from now.

How? The Mac is not traditionally a games machine, I can't see their sales being affected at all.

That they use a PowerPC compatible processor is irrelevant, they wont run OS X or any of it's software.

_________________
Whyzzat?

Hi Atheist,

Quote:

1. Most of the sales go to current Mac owners. 2. They don't buy new SW, just copy all of their currently owned SW over to their new machines. 3. Their more/most expensive machines suffer a slow down in sales, as a result of this. 4. If they move more units, Apple still claim "stellar sales". 5. Playstation 3 and x-$-x ii cut into their sales when released in 9 to 12 months from now.

I would think Apple would have thought about the bigger machines suffering from sales of Mini, but yes, I think sales will suffer slightly.

I have always fancied getting a Mac since OS X comed out but could not justify the price for a secondary machine. I only fancied the big box ones and they were £1300+. Then the G5 iMac came out which looked like a good compromise but I still broke into a sweat when thinking of buying one. Now I can get one for less than the price I paid for a A500 14 years ago and still have a choice on what display device to use.

I'm quite looking forward to it now. Hopefully I will get the same buzz with Mac OS X as I did when I first used Workbench 1.3 all them years ago.

As for PS3 and X$OX 2, yes they are powerful and will blow the socks of a Mac Mini or even a entry level dual G5 with an X800 slapped in it but they are aimed at different markets. I'm not buying the Mac for games, thats what consoles and PC's are for. Also it's going to be years before we see these consoles turned into PC's.

I'm also going to wait for the first round of price cuts (Christmas 2006?) for these consoles because it might take that long to get some decent games for them.

_________________

@Intuitioned

I too would like that black little box, it is very neat. A pre-built one with a tried and tested psu would be nice.

_________________
AMiGA

@clebin

Quote:

To me it seems like we're comparing a "final" Macintosh with a pre-release Amiga. Terms like 'developer pre-release' and 'early adopter' pretty much sum up how I feel about the current AmigaOnes. They're just early milestones on the road back - they're not supposed to be compared with Macs or PCs.

Couldn't agree more. Amiga OS4 should be considered a developer platform at the minute, although still accessible enough for the diehards.

Anyone remember the G4 cube? That was a headless Mac, much more exciting design than the Mini, rave reviews etc. But, it was a flop. Sorry, but I can't get excited about this new Mac. I mean, come on, it looks like an ice cream tub for starters

@Atheist
Quote:

This is a possibility: 1. Most of the sales go to current Mac owners. 2. They don't buy new SW, just copy all of their currently owned SW over to their new machines. 3. Their more/most expensive machines suffer a slow down in sales, as a result of this. 4. If they move more units, Apple still claim "stellar sales". 5. Playstation 3 and x-$-x ii cut into their sales when released in 9 to 12 months from now.

1 is very unlikely, although I'm sure some will be sold to current mac owners on older systems- ie G3 PowerMacs and the like.

2 is going to happen, but only for customers already owning macs.

3. This is a slightl possibility, although wait a year, or even six months, and wait to see how many mini owners become iBook and PowerBook owners.

4. And what would be wrong with that?

5- OK, this is where you take your leap out of reality into lala land big-time. You like to say often how other systems won't run AOS...so guess what? NEITHER THE XBOX2 OR PS3 WILL RUN OS X! Mac owners in many cases, are former Amiga owners, and are already used to paying a 'premium' for their systems...yet another piece of cheap hardware (relatively, XBox2/PS3) won't do a thing to the established Mac userbase. Why? Re-read my caps sentence above. Nor will it affect the mac mini's primary market- grabbing some new Mac owners from those with iPods, or those purchasing a 'budget system' for the first time, or those wanting to ditch Windows and give OS X a try, at a reasonable cost. NONE OF THESE PEOPLE CARE ABOUT XBOX2 OR PS3 from a comupting standpoint!

It simply amazes me how entirely hypocritical your view seems to be- if we use YOUR logic, and the XBox2 and PS3 affect mac mini sales at ALL, the the AmigaOne in all incarnations is entirely doomed...because there's a cheaper system which doesn't run the same OS.

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

@Intuitioned

Quote:

I'm quite looking forward to it now. Hopefully I will get the same buzz with Mac OS X as I did when I first used Workbench 1.3 all them years ago.

When I recently got my G5 iMac and ran OS X for the first time I was instantly impressed and knew I had made a good choice of machine

My heart will always be with my Amigas but I gotta say this machine/OS combo has everything I ever wanted from a computer! Might even at a later date get myself a Mac mini just because I fancy one

When you consider it has either a 1.25 or 1.4 Mhz G4, USB2, Firewire, ATA HD, Ethernet, V92 modem, DVD-Rom/CDRW drive, 4 x AGP and a whole host of software it is just amazing value. So what would a µA1 with case, DVD-Rom/CDRW, HD come to in price? I know it's not about cost (we have all spent mega bucks to have Amigas in all shapes and forms over the years) but it will surely influence people who are not (yet) hardened Amigans?

Last edited by sicky on 16-Jan-2005 at 09:48 PM.

_________________
SAM 460 with 2GB or RAM, 1000GB HD, 4 port SATA, DVDRW drive and Radeon HD 4650 GFX card.

@sicky

I reckon Eyetech if they wanted to (ie knew that they would make some money off it) could create a similar machine "quite" easily. I say "quite" because I know hardly anything about motherboard design and manufacture, but all they need to do is slap in a 1.25GHz G4 (from somewhere), dump the 7000 for a 9200 and squeeze it into a case like the one I posted above. Not sure what chip they would use for the DDR though.

I estimate a cost around £700 in 10,000 amounts but thats "not bad" considering Apple will make millions of Mini Macs sold at £339.

Last edited by Intuitioned on 16-Jan-2005 at 10:58 PM.

_________________

@Intuitioned

Unfortunately, cost of manufacturing isn't the only factor- cost of _designing_ that board if it doesn't already exist, then testing and multiple revisions (which obviously were needed, see SE and XE boards, but I can assure you companies like IBM also have sometimes 6-12 internal board revs before going gold), is more significant than the cost of production.

As much as I'd like to see a 'current tech' A1, it's a far easier solution to find a company who is already doing the R&D, preferably with a working product, and slightly alter (like UBoot firmware?) it or use their design and add OS4 support for it. Which again, would point towards purchasing mac mini boards under agreement with Apple, or perhaps using the upcoming XBox2 (open) design board, and partnering with a company (or perhaps several) that are planning on building XBox2 clones....and 'making it' the 'A2' or similar.

The other option is to get MAI to update the board, or go to yet another third party. I'm not even so much concerned about the form factor- the uA1 with firewire, a G4, gig ethernet, and USB2, and either an AGP riser or a more modern video chipset would be as close to 'realistically perfect' a board for a fair amount of time to come. A G5 would be great, but not at the additional cost, nor is it realistically needed, no matter how 'nice' it might be to have.

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

@eric5h5

Quote:

do you have access to a Mac running OS X?

Should I show you my MacOS X 10.3.5 screen shot? (I haven't updated to 10.3.7). It?s pretty plain (for MacOS X) and hasn?t been modified from the default look.

Keep in minded that PearPC-JIT (refer to www.pearpc.net) opens the gateway for MacOS X trial runs for the legions of X86 users. Mac-Mini would make a nice 2nd or 3rd PC.

Quote:

Apparently you didn't read the links you provided

Apparently you missed MP3 spoofing virus (regarding to your zero virus remarks). The links provided is a mixed of security fixes from Apple and anti-virus definition updates for the MacOS market.

Auto-update service making things easy for both MacOSX and Windows XP.

Quote:

Nobody should assume there will never be any viruses for OS X, but currently there isn't a reason for a normal user to run AV software.

You just contradicted yourself. Note that there's a free anti-virus program for MacOS X.

Last edited by Hammer on 16-Jan-2005 at 11:21 PM.

_________________
Ryzen 9 7900X, DDR5-6000 64 GB RAM, GeForce RTX 4080 16 GB
Amiga 1200 (Rev 1D1, KS 3.2, PiStorm32lite/RPi 4B 4GB/Emu68)
Amiga 500 (Rev 6A ECS, KS 3.2, PiStorm/RPi 3A+/Emu68)

@sicky

Quote:

When I recently got my G5 iMac and ran OS X for the first time I was instantly impressed and knew I had made a good choice of machine

Also liked OS X initially, but went off it slowly, I think I actually prefer WinXP over OS X now.

@dan.hutch

Quote:

Also liked OS X initially, but went off it slowly, I think I actually prefer WinXP over OS X now

You have to be kidding It takes all sorts is all I can say

_________________
SAM 460 with 2GB or RAM, 1000GB HD, 4 port SATA, DVDRW drive and Radeon HD 4650 GFX card.

@Intuitioned

Based from sources in Taiwan; it?s estimated that Foxconn (trading as Hon Hai Precision) will produce ~100,000 Mac-Minis (PPC G4) per month.

PS; Foxconn is the magic behind Leadtek and Winfast brands.

Quote:

As for PS3 and X$OX 2, yes they are powerful and will blow the socks of a Mac Mini or even a entry level dual G5 with an X800 slapped in it but they are aimed at different markets. I'm not buying the Mac for games, thats what consoles and PC's are for. Also it's going to be years before we see these consoles turned into PC's.

What happens if ATI has value edition line in R5x0 i.e. the GPU fitted in XBOX2?
One shouldn't compare 2005 product to a 2006 product.

Last edited by Hammer on 17-Jan-2005 at 12:00 AM.

_________________
Ryzen 9 7900X, DDR5-6000 64 GB RAM, GeForce RTX 4080 16 GB
Amiga 1200 (Rev 1D1, KS 3.2, PiStorm32lite/RPi 4B 4GB/Emu68)
Amiga 500 (Rev 6A ECS, KS 3.2, PiStorm/RPi 3A+/Emu68)

@Hammer
There are also antivurs programs available for Linux and others...they're just not generally needed. (note- I guess this is more at thread RE: OS X virii instead of Hammer?)

The 'nature' of virii on *nix based systems is generally just different than the Windows world- in Windows, a large # of the virii revolve around execution of code through a combination of user ignorance and Windows built-in functionality, ie outlook express and similar executing VBScript or similar.

Other attacks include compromising services, with the purpose being of either setting up a Trojan or a backdoor, or the execution of code, much like the typical email virii.

The first category of virus is also mostl predicated on the user receiving such a virus being the Administrative user. This type of possibility is pretty minimal for *nix and OS X, as their email programs simply don't allow execution of arbitrary code, nor does the normal user run as an Administrative user.

Note it's possible to NOT run as an administrative user on Windows, but the typical user doesn't know that, nor know how to set up Windows Security Policies.

Even in the event of a user _trying_ to execute a malicious program from OS X, or not knowing it's actually a program, OS X while it has shortcomings, has done a nice job of implementing 'sudo', which will pop up a dialog requiring the administrative password if a program tries to execute itself as the admin/root user. This alone would stop most of the typical variety of virus in it's tracks. Currently, other versions of *nix could still arguably be subceptible to a virus the user knowingly executed, that would in turn send out mail, assuming the user's system had sendmail or another mail service running, but the 'damage' to the user's system wouldn't exist.

The next category of 'malware' could be more of a problem on *nix and OS X systems, that of compromising system services (like mail, web server). In the Windows world, things like Code Red can propgate by executing arbitrary code via IIS (web server), and forms a method of self-propogation. This type of attack does in fact exist on *nix, and has existed in sendmail, apache, php, DNS, and other services to name a few, including the original 'Internet Worm'....note that this under *nix systems is more an issue of system security and configuration, which a traditional Windows style virus checker wouldn't be of much use in. Good strides have been made towards almost eliminating this type of threat as well (chrooted services, which limit their execution environment), packet based firewalls, and the like.

The 'standard' *nix style attack is generally this:
1. map out a systems network services that are running.
2. Determine what versions of each service are running.
3. Determine if a stack smashing attack of serious bug exists in those services.
4. script the attach to gain root/admin access, or to plant a back door or trojan onto the system.
5. Hope the system doesn't use tripwire or the like and your changes aren't discovered.

In 'script-kiddie' land, most of the above is automated...for those of you with *nix systems monitoring and/or logging incoming traffic, most of the hits you see to ports 139(IMAP), 22(ssh), and to http requesting something like %SYSTEM%/command.exe are generally automated attacks (or Code Red for the last, which is STILL out there!!)

Anyways, OS X and *nix in general is in much better shape than Windows, part of it has to do with design philosophy (don't run as admin, or allow execution of arbitrary code without notice), and it will continue to get better as for example, versions of Linux incorporate 'Secure Linux.'

In the end, no system is 100% secure with a network connection, but some are inherently more secure than others.

And lest anyone think that AOS is 'secure,' am I the ONLY one that remembers, 'Something wonderful has happened....your Amiga is ALIVE!' from the past?

Note that the lack of multi-user capability, or at least of security roles, on any system connected to the Internet, is a _serious_ design and security flaw, as 'security through obscurity' only lasts until the first determined effort to compromise it. (which means in English, just because no one tries to compromise a system with a new OS on it, doesn't mean it's 'secure'). If security of some form and/or multiple user support isn't built into AOS4.X (and no, I don't really expect it of AOS4 as it's a significant design change), I could certainly see AOS email virii using ARexx ports and the like to execute all sorts of arbitrary code...

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

@wegster

Quote:

There are also antivurs programs available for Linux and others

I'm referring specifically to MacOS X with it's included functions.

Quote:

The 'nature' of virii on *nix based systems is generally just different than the Windows world- in Windows, a large # of the virii revolve around execution of code

These ?large # of the virii revolves? usually copies or variant of existing viruses.

Quote:

through a combination of user ignorance and Windows built-in functionality, ie outlook express and similar executing VBScript or similar.

Microsoft initially assumes that the embedded script to be automatically executed.
For IE6.00.2900.2180(xpsp_sp2_rtm) this has been locked down (including images). Microsoft now promotes server side scripting.

Quote:

Note it's possible to NOT run as an administrative user on Windows, but the typical user doesn't know that, nor know how to set up Windows Security Policies.

Microsoft will be the one in imposing the new Windows Security Policies in OEM and RTM releases i.e. as in Windows XP SP2 and Windows auto-update 5.

Quote:

ie outlook express and similar executing VBScript or similar.

Such services has been lock-down in Windows XP SP2.
WinXP SP2 shell now nags the user on any newly downloaded programs.

Quote:

The first category of virus is also mostl predicated on the user receiving such a virus being the Administrative user. This type of possibility is pretty minimal for *nix and OS X, as their email programs simply don't allow execution of arbitrary code, nor does the normal user run as an Administrative user.

They didn't build an automated self execution engine. Such things can be locked down by crippling the script engine.

Quote:

Even in the event of a user _trying_ to execute a malicious program from OS X, or not knowing it's actually a program, OS X while it has shortcomings, has done a nice job of implementing 'sudo', which will pop up a dialog requiring the administrative password if a program tries to execute itself as the admin/root user. This alone would stop most of the typical variety of virus in it's tracks. Currently, other versions of *nix could still arguably be subceptible to a virus the user knowingly executed, that would in turn send out mail, assuming the user's system had sendmail or another mail service running, but the 'damage' to the user's system wouldn't exist.

There are malicious *nix programs that escalate the account privileges by exploiting known software flaws.

Last edited by Hammer on 17-Jan-2005 at 01:17 AM.

_________________
Ryzen 9 7900X, DDR5-6000 64 GB RAM, GeForce RTX 4080 16 GB
Amiga 1200 (Rev 1D1, KS 3.2, PiStorm32lite/RPi 4B 4GB/Emu68)
Amiga 500 (Rev 6A ECS, KS 3.2, PiStorm/RPi 3A+/Emu68)

@minator
Quote:

minator wrote: Doubt it, When the G5 first came out it wasn't the lowest cost which sold best, it was the higest price model. A lot of the markets Apple are in have applications which require as much power as you can throw at it, they'll continue to go for the big machines.

I'd have to agree with you there. Apple just didn't do this on a whim, it was carefully thought out. They probably figured that a $500 box would sell well, without canabalizing the high end, and proceeded to design something that would sell at that price point.

Unlike the Amiga market's main players, Apple has money to spend on marketing and design. They design the computer, and it's custom chips, so they control the price.

They are basically leaving the low end of the market to Dell et al, and staking a claim to the upper end of the low cost market. The serious Mac buyers won't consider the miniMac, they go for an iMac, or if they are real serious, the PowerMacs. Different product lines for different needs. iMacs are limited in terms of expansion. PMacs aren't.

Take a look at General Motors. They make products designed to appeal to certain buyers. The idea is you start with a Chevrolet, and as your income increases, you'll trade up to a Pontiac, then a Buick, and maybe even make it to Cadillac. Each brand is a little fancier than the previous, for a little more money. But they make more money because the difference in cost isn't much...

The miniMac is designed to do the same thing: Provide a low cost computer for people who don't want to spend the money on the iMac, and in a few years, they may even trade up to the iMac or PowerMac.

@wegster

Quote:

The next category of 'malware' could be more of a problem on *nix and OS X systems, that of compromising system services (like mail, web server). In the Windows world, things like Code Red can propgate by executing arbitrary code via IIS (web server), and forms a method of self-propogation. This type of attack does in fact exist on *nix, and has existed in sendmail, apache, php, DNS, and other services to name a few, including the original 'Internet Worm'....note that this under *nix systems is more an issue of system security and configuration, which a traditional Windows style virus checker wouldn't be of much use in.

Keep in mind that, today's Windows XP virus checkers includes a packet-filtering firewall and are aware of 'malware' type issues e.g. Trend Micro Internet Security 2005 (released in Q4 2004).

Reference
http://www.trendmicro.com/en/products/desktop/pc-cillin/evaluate/overview.htm

_________________
Ryzen 9 7900X, DDR5-6000 64 GB RAM, GeForce RTX 4080 16 GB
Amiga 1200 (Rev 1D1, KS 3.2, PiStorm32lite/RPi 4B 4GB/Emu68)
Amiga 500 (Rev 6A ECS, KS 3.2, PiStorm/RPi 3A+/Emu68)

@Hammer
I didn't think I was disagreeing with you? OS X has, and can have, security problems, along with any other OS.

Yes, the 'easiest' way to compromise a Windows box is via unpatched (pre-SP2 XP, although I'm not sure if old behavior can be re-enabled w/SP2?). I've got SP2 on my Windows systems...which you'll note, has also had subsequent security patches already.

The rest of the message outlines some of the design differences, which are certainly true- some designs (and implementations) lend themelves to generally better security than others.

No argument on there being *nix exploits as well. However, I DO think it's more likely and easy to correct a *nix based system issue than Windows. Problem in BIND? ok, the owner's been aware of it and issued a fix....or run it in a 'jail' so it can't affect the rest of the system to limit damage. Or, if still waiting for an 'official' fix, there are usually workaround patches available. This also applies to OS X with it's Darwin/BSD based core/underpinnings.

No networked system is 100% secure, period. But I personally would much rather lock down individual services and tweak firewall rules on a *nix based system than 'wait for the sole authority to release a patch that affects the entire OS'.

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

@wegster

Quote:

I didn't think I was disagreeing with you? OS X has, and can have, security problems, along with any other OS.

This is why I commented on my missed MacOS X 10.3.7 (and 10.3.6) updates and 'zero virus' remark.

Quote:

Yes, the 'easiest' way to compromise a Windows box is via unpatched (pre-SP2 XP, although I'm not sure if old behavior can be re-enabled w/SP2?).

It would be unwise to compare pre-SP2 XP PC to a new PC system, since Microsoft only sells Windows XP with SP2 RTM (both retail and OEM).

Quote:

I've got SP2 on my Windows systems...which you'll note, has also had subsequent security patches already.

This wouldn?t be a big issue if both MacOS X and WIndows XP auto-updates. Broadband connection helps in that regard.

Quote:

No argument on there being *nix exploits as well. However, I DO think it's more likely and easy to correct a *nix based system issue than Windows. Problem in BIND? ok, the owner's been aware of it and issued a fix....or run it in a 'jail' so it can't affect the rest of the system to limit damage. Or, if still waiting for an 'official' fix, there are usually workaround patches available. This also applies to OS X with it's Darwin/BSD based core/underpinnings.

Linux issues are beyond this topic?s boundaries i.e. a typical MacOS X user will just auto-update their OSX installation from Apple.com. I don?t think your typical QuarkXpress type users will be recompiling their system software nor hunting down appropriate CVS source tree for the required fixes.

Last edited by Hammer on 17-Jan-2005 at 01:57 AM.

_________________
Ryzen 9 7900X, DDR5-6000 64 GB RAM, GeForce RTX 4080 16 GB
Amiga 1200 (Rev 1D1, KS 3.2, PiStorm32lite/RPi 4B 4GB/Emu68)
Amiga 500 (Rev 6A ECS, KS 3.2, PiStorm/RPi 3A+/Emu68)

The MacMini is sweet.

You can Bang on all you want about cheeper Windows PCs but what other machine can yous buy and do HD video editing for -$600? Then think about all the other high quality applications that come with one of these babies and the fact that you can't get them on PC for any price and no mater what your MHz is your experience and your output will not be better than you can get on a Mac.

No matter the price or MHz you just can't run iMovie, Final Cut HD or Final Cut Express HD, Garage Band, Toast or iDVD among others on a PC.

Mac is built for the creative class and is now one of the hottest servers available thanks to Xserve, OS X, dual 64-bit G5's with dual independent two way 1250 MHz (1.25 GHz) Front side buses in addition to independent data-paths between components - they are selling very well.

Last edited by BukkY on 17-Jan-2005 at 07:43 AM.
Last edited by BukkY on 17-Jan-2005 at 07:41 AM.
Last edited by BukkY on 17-Jan-2005 at 06:39 AM.

@sicky

Quote:

You have to be kidding It takes all sorts is all I can say.

It was the first version on quite an early iMac, a blue 400MHz G3, maybe I need to try again on a newer Mac? Oh well, my cash has gone on an A1 now. P.S. Didn't mean to suggest I like XP , just prefer it for now.