Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'MacBytes.com News Discussion' started by MacBytes, Jan 17, 2005.
Category: Apple Hardware
Link: Rivals of the £400 Apple...
Posted on MacBytes.com
Approved by Mudbug
"Dell Dimension PC:
Cost is the clear advantage."
Uh, yeah, I guess I'll take their word for it since THEY FORGOT TO MENTION THE COST OF THE DELL. Boneheads!
Yawn... yet another one of those nonsense comparisons where they leave out whatever suits them and write down stupid "cons" on the Mini like: "the machine's specifications lack the horse power for tasks such as high-end video editing or games."
Yeah, eh... duh... are you saying those cheapo PC's that you're comparing to are suitable for "high end video editing" then?
Don't get me wrong, I think that the mini is an awesome value, but for things where raw CPU power is needed, the 2.6ghz P4 found in the cheapest Dells is going to put a beat down on the Mini... the 1.25ghz model especially, with the 1.42ghz model doing well, but still not coming close.
For gaming on the other had, the cheapie Dells will sadly be beat by the Mini, as it's paltry 32mb VRAM is still going to be better than the shared system ram that the Intel Extreme integrated GPU uses. Blech.
With enough RAM the mini will be just as responsive as the cheap-o Dells, but if they are both left at the base amounts, the Dells faster harddrive may give it an edge in page file speeds. The faster HD on the Dell is also going to make video editing a little speedier, as the 4200rpm mini drive is a bit on the weak side.
Anywho, all that said, the mini is a much better system than a Dell any day of the week, just for the inclusion of OSX and iLife.
also omitted is the value of the included sfotware with the mac mini vs what comes with any of those beige boxes...!
It does say somewhere in the pro's section "The package of software that comes with the machine is the best money can buy." , but IMO this falls well short of the BBC's journalistic values.
It's just a sham of an article, and I'd be embarrassed to stick my name to it, let alone put it under "Rivals of the £400 Apple ..."
A 1.42 GHz G4 wouldn't be that much slower (if at all) than a 2.6 GHz Celeron.
Celerons are low end slow CPUs and are no where near the speed of a P4 at the same clock speed.
I still have a Power Mac G4, 466 MHz as my main computer. I use it for video editing with Final Cut Express 2, word processing, programming, graphic design without too much lag. I don't see how the 1.42 GHz G4 wouldn't be able to perform most tasks.
Also to consider is how much CPU power Windows XP uses because of its bloat on top with Anti-Virus and Anti-Spyware running in the background.
Also they say "There is also no built-in support for wireless technology or any speakers.", it can come with Bluetooth on built to order, has an AirPort Extreme slot, as for speakers, there is one internal and has audio out.
Not much thought has been put into this article.
More thought was put in the tagline 'Rivals of the £400 Apple", really stupid piece, full of idiotic one line comments... worst point, it didn't even do justice to either platform...total dog poop.
Come on, guys. You've got to get out of this mindset that any article that doesn't come out clearly in favour of the Mac is somehow an example of poor journalism. The article simply describes what can be bought for £400 with pros and cons for each option. It isn't unfairly critical of the Mac mini, nor is it biased towards any of the PC options. Just because the article isn't written by a Mac zealot doesn't mean that there is no value in the comparison that is being made.
I am not interested if it is critical of the Mac mini, the title says one thing and the rest is garbage. Irrespective of a person's bias, if you are going to compare products, then they should do just that, not make inaccurate dumbed down comments to both platforms. I would have expected better quality information from a BBC source.
Did you skip the next sentence down?
Which is true enough.
I don't mind an article that looks at the pros and cons of a Mac mini, but this article is just sloppy journalism.
Mac mini con: "... the machine's specifications lack the horse power for tasks such as high-end video editing or games."
Dell pros: "The Dell provides enough power and software for basic gaming and internet surfing. It's easily upgradeable ... and graphics cards can be added."
When the default Dell is even worse at gaming than the Mac mini, the article is misleading.
It doesn't take too much to fix it so that it's more correct. For the Dell, replace "basic gaming" with "word processing" and add that upgrading can make it suitable for some gaming. For the Mac mini, replace "or games" with "or more than basic gaming".
I think this article missed the whole point of the Mac mini. the point of the Mac mini is not to compete with other low end PCs, but rather be a cheap alternative Mac that everyone can buy.
Does the Dell even have any AGP (or PCI) slot to replace the on-board video?
At those prices, it's usually no-slots motherboards, which means you're stuck with the on-board intel integrated graphics (a worst fate than being stuck with a Radeon 9200/32MB).
Hello Yvan Z.
I don't even see the Mac mini as being "the Mac everyone can afford" but rather "the entry level system for OS X and iLife".
I've got friends who still didn't knew Apple's new OS had a BSD core. And some who still thought you couldn't even browse the Web or check emails.
Others are still stuck in the "it can't play any games" mentality. True enough, the Mac doesn't have as many games. But let's face it, I'd still rather keep my Gamecube than to switch to a PS2. In that sense, Mac gaming is like owning a Nintendo system. Fewer games, more quality titles.
People think all operating systems are the same (most people are now too young to have known the TRS-80/C64/MS-DOS/Mac/Atari/Amiga era), and won't switch until more and more people have Macs.
If you have a Mac, you'll want to show OS X and iLife to your friends. Mac mini means more people will have a Mac, more people will start knowing about OS X and iLife, more people will switch.
Just like the iPod shuffle will make the iTMS the definite #1 digital music store (it's already #1, but the iPod shuffle will spell the end of the other stores). Bye-bye DRM'ed WMA!
According to the Dell manual, the Dimension 2400 has three PCI slots, but no AGP slot.
So you can upgrade the video, but only with PCI cards. PCI video will work OK for basic office/web stuff, but it will be a real bottleneck if you do gaming, or streaming video, or any other application that needs graphics bandwidth.
The amusing thing is that, after a RAM upgrade, a mini should be capable of doing video editing with the bundled iMovie software. It certainly won't be as fast as a PowerMac or iMac, but it should get the job done reasonably well.
Remember that the mini (with its single 1.25 or 1.43GHz CPU) is more powerful than most of the PowerMac G4 systems that were manufactured, and people used them for high-end video editing for years.
According to MacTracker, the fastest single-CPU PowerMac G4 system is a late-model MDD system at 1.25GHz (discontinued June 2004). The fastest single-CPU G4 overall is a current-model PowerBook at 1.5GHz. The fastest G4 system overall is a dual 1.42GHz MDD PowerMac (discontinued June 2003).
The mini should compare favorably against the single-G4 Macs and can probably hold its own against dual-G4 systems up to 867MHz (discontinued January 2003).
This omission limits the article's usefulness, both for me and others. However, that doesn't mean it's bad. In fact, I concluded that there's no clear winner among any of the 4 computers compared, which means that those who choose to switch from a similar low-end PC can expect a similar experience on the Mac mini overall - this news is exactly what switchers want to hear.