PC World reviews the Mac mini

Discussion in 'MacBytes.com News Discussion' started by MacBytes, Jan 22, 2005.

  1. macrumors bot

    Jul 5, 2003
  2. macrumors 68040


    A good well written article. Its very fair, and not full of common mac stereotypes.
    I kinda chuckled about the whole mac vs. pc holy war;)
  3. macrumors member

    Oct 18, 2003
    Hollywood North
    Where did this come from?

    "the audio port doubles as both line-in and line-out,
    meaning that you can bring in audio (such as from a guitar or keyboard, or a turntable or tape player)"

    "I plugged headphones into the combination line-in/line-out jack"

    Did Rebecca Freed test some secret edition of the Mac mini
    that has an analogue audio input?
  4. macrumors regular

    Oct 26, 2001
    Sounded like a fair review.. I have to agree with the audio in and out.. I like to know where did that come from...
  5. macrumors 6502a


    Jan 9, 2005
    Queens, NYC
    I think it's just an honest mistake on her part.
  6. macrumors 68040


    Jul 10, 2004
    New Orleans / Lafayette, La
    This caught me by surprise as well. I guess it could have that ability. This will prove to be another thing fo SJ to brag about at WWDC.
  7. macrumors 601


    Jul 5, 2004
    My guess is she simply misunderstands "line-out" vs "headphones out" and thought Apple made a mistake... "It can't be two types of outputs, can it? Surely they meant line-in and headphones/line-out" :rolleyes:

    That error aside, it was a nice review.

    And hell, even my Athlon XP 2400+ with 512MB wouldn't exactly be lightning-fast to open up a 15MB, let alone a 111MB photo! :eek:

    Nice to see that Apple sends the Mac mini equipped with 512MB for reviews though. :D
  8. 24C
    macrumors 6502a

    Nov 9, 2004
    I thought that was pretty savvy on their part too, good report and fair. Wasn't this the same gal that was complaining about losing data on her PC? Whatever, it's quite interesing that the Mac mini didn't seem too handicapped by it's slow drives etc, and she picked up on the smallness and how quiet it was. Bring on the aftermarket extras :D
  9. macrumors 601


    Jan 8, 2004
    Back in the motherland
    She mentioned that "you have to use one USB port for the keyboard". Am I missing something here? Why on earth would I use a USB key and a mouse if I have BT installed? That's the whole point...
  10. 24C
    macrumors 6502a

    Nov 9, 2004
    Maybe she didn't have a wireless keyboard or mouse :) I didn't see her bragging about 802.11g ing the net either, even though it had the capability activated.
  11. macrumors 6502a


    Jan 22, 2005
    mac stereotypes

    if someone really hates a feature of the MAC does that always have to make you a "mac stereotypes"?

  12. 24C
    macrumors 6502a

    Nov 9, 2004
    Probably, just means they're a bit oversensitive:D, and they really need to get out more. In my case, sunlight, exercise and green stuff works best;)
  13. macrumors 6502a


    Feb 18, 2004
    111MB photo! I think any computer would hiccup ( unless it was a xServe super cluster!)

    Like everyone else, I agree that was a fair review. It sets everyones expectation. Mac mini is not for power users, is for everyday computer users. I need power, get a iMac G5 (like me) or a powermac.
  14. macrumors 6502a


    Nov 26, 2002
    sunny san diego
    agreed as well that it was a decent review, but as usual, since i seem to be part of the mac/pc holy war, can't help feel to nit pick. overall this review puts a good light on the mini, but of course there's just enough points to cast some doubt over the mini.

    a 115 mb photo file will slow down my dual g5... most computers i know have 2, at the most 4 usb ports, so get a hub or use the bluetooth like everyone else... how is having a mini or any other pc different for the amount of external peripherals you have to clutter your desk?... put the power brick under your desk like everyone else... the headphone/mic thing? uh what?!
  15. macrumors 68020


    Jan 7, 2002
    115 Mb photo? In iPhoto? We're talking something in the realm of a 40,000,000 pixels MAXIMUM quality .JPEG

    That's about 8.5 x 6.3 foot at screen resolution/aspect ratio.

    And I don't think there are many 40.0 megapixels digital cameras on the consumer market. Heck!, even pros are stuck with 7.0 megapixels cameras at the most (?), and they agree it's nearing conventional film "resolution".

    Might simply be another typo.

Share This Page