Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About elvers

  • Rank

Previous Fields

  • System Specifications:
    Two G4 PowerMacs, 1.66 Intel Core Duo Mac Mini, 1 GB RAM, 1.5 TB HDD
  1. My guess was that it was saying it was Vista capable. There just isn't enough information on that page. The price disparity is pretty huge, though, which makes me wonder. Unless Excaliber is known for having dramatically lower prices . . . Edited to add: And here's another place where you can purchase parts at the same time. Vista Ultimate sure isn't bundled in there either.
  2. I think more mini computers than that use laptop components. Looks to be barebone. I see no mention of Vista Ultimate being included here.
  3. As I see! You keep your preferences, I'll keep mine. I don't intend (or expect) to change your mind. But the important information about what installing OS X on a "non-Mac PC" entails is . . . well . . . important. OSx86 is not for everyone and it's definitely going to be a deal-breaker for many. Maybe with a little bit of polish, it can be shined up really nice.
  4. I figured that if you felt the need to emphasize that "Macs are PCs" with large bold text, then it would not be inappropriate to emphasize how they are different using the same method. The not insignificant issues of legality and compatibility of running OS X on a PC (excuse me, "non-Mac PC") do not seem to be something that we can count on hearing all that frequently from you, after all. I was just pointing out something in the same manner as you did: bold text. Sorry if you can't find the humor in it. Here: This will cheer you up! Shiny box! Shiny box!
  5. Let's just cut to the chase here, so we don't have to go through the whole Macs are PCs "shiny box" shpeil with brandon again: Mac's hardware is different than PC hardware in that it can LEGALLY run Mac OS X and it can run Windows with a minimum of fuss (buy Bootcamp; your Intel Mac is compatible with Windows XP or above). Mac hardware is different than PC hardware because it has far more COMPATIBILITY in running Mac OS X (no worries about "is my computer totally compatible?" "Is this part compatible?"). Mac hardware is different from PC hardware in that you can LEGALLY run pretty much all major operating systems—Windows, Mac OS X, and Linux. The reason someone would prefer to get a Mac machine is because they want to stay LEGAL and they don't want to deal with possible COMPATIBILITY issues that are present when attempting to install OS X on a PC-based machine. Many people are not interested in building their own PC or troubleshooting it, they want to slip in the install disk and have their OS install without a lot of hassle. Another reason someone would prefer to get a Mac machine is because they want to use Mac-specific software (Final Cut, Logic, Garageband) and they want to do it on a machine that is configured LEGALLY and they want to do it with a minimum of installation worries.
  6. Nice post, adidal. There are plenty of video programs for the PC, but right now Final Cut Studio stands out as being an affordable package for video pros. So it is one of the industry standards. (Avid being #1, I think.) For an average consumer, they could go with a number of cheaper Windows editors, or do great stuff with either iMovie, Final Cut Express, or a few other Mac video editors. (I know mostly Final Cut and iMovie.) I will not say that Windows won't render as well as Macs—that's not my call to make. All I know is that a while ago I had a Mac and PC with similar (won't say exact) specs. The PC had what I believe were superior specs but yet it was painful watching it render video—I just ended up transferring files over to my Mac to render. Edited to add: But I am not going to get into some debate over whether Macs or PCs render video better. It could go either way as far as I'm concerned. All I know is that I am more than satisfied with how my Mac renders video in Final Cut Pro. And Final Cut Pro/Express, Logic, Logic Express (I am trying to learn Logic Express—wish me luck!) and other Mac-only apps. Yes, it is very nice, but I don't think it has the software keyboard? (I used that a LOT, though admittedly it's not something everyone is going to use.) It says it imports JamPack loops, but I could not get them to import into their loop browser. (Perhaps I'm not doing it right.) And it comes with a LOT less loops than Garageband. The strength of Garageband (and why adidal might want to consider it) is that it "integrates" nicely with Logic Express (the next step up for composers/musicians) and in fact, was made by the same guy who did Logic. (You can open Garageband files in Logic and edit them further.) Also, there are some wonderful Garagaband "communities" out there which are great to join. (I'm not a great musician/composer, but they have been great for me.) Also there seems to be more what I'd call "mainstream" support for the application and more of a commuity spirit. Not to say that there aren't such groups for Windows apps, but all I'm saying that is if Garageband is appealing to you, then Mixcraft (as nice as it is) won't give you the same experience at all.
  7. I'm not arguing with you on this—if you want to make a comparison about Linux vs. PC or OS X, that's a different matter. I was talking about Windows machines vs. OS X machines.
  8. But I'm getting back to my original question to dark41: Find me a mini PC (I specificed the most recent version of Windows) that is half the price of the Mac Mini. (And of course it must be comparable in dimensions and hardware specs.) Fair enough, but a Windows (Vista) vs. OS X machine was part of my criteria all along, and that's what I'm sticking with here. I doubt that the vast majority of consumers are using Linux at this point. (Note to dark41: I said VAST MAJORITY, I didn't say "a few" or "some.")
  9. I won't argue with you on that. But without the Windows operating system, it won't appeal to a lot of customers. But I understand what you're saying.
  10. They don't sell the Core Solo anymore. Cheapest Mini is an Intel Core Duo, 1.66 GHz, 512 MB RAM, 60 GB HDD, wireless, DVD/CDRW, USB 2, firewire, GMA 950 graphics. Mac OS X Tiger, 2" x 6.5" square. Could you find a Mini PC with almost identical specs (and with Vista Ultimate) for cheaper? I won't say no, though I haven't checked. Also, companies like Shuttle offer all sorts of great configurations for Mini PCs. Sounds like they're a great company. But I don't see them offering anything equivalent to the Mini (including, of course, Vista Ultimate) for $300.
  11. Exactly. Precisely. The first G4 Minis in 2005 were $500 US, now they're $600 for Intel Core Duos. It wouldn't be beyond the realm of possibility if an Intel Core Duo Mini PC (same dimensions and specs as Mini, and with Vista Ultimate) could be found for less than $600. But would it be half the price and faster? Unlikely.
  12. That may be true. I'm just looking to find a Mini PC that is equal the specs or faster for $300 (US DOLLARS) and is around 2" x 6.5" square.
  13. That wasn't the question I asked, or the point I was making. Dealing with you is like dealing with a slippery eel—you slip and slide around, evade the question and change the subject, and then act outraged when I want to bring it back to my original point. Here's my original comment: dark41 scoffed at this: So I responded with this challenge: You can find the original posts on this page. I asked whether PC manufacturers charged the same for all-in-ones and mini PCs as they did for full size boxy PCs. Do they or don't they? I don't think anyone else here believes that they do. So if other PC manufacturers charge more if the form factor is unique, why can't Apple? I'm not saying whether or not an Apple machine will the the same price as a PC (might be more expensive, might not) but the question is: Do you compare a boxy PC to a unique/small form factor computer and act as if the cost of the form factor is inconsquential? No, you do not. I also have asked you to find me a mini PC that was half the price of a Mac Mini, but had similar specs. (Since you claim that all Macs are twice the price of their PC counterparts.) You found me a cube (does a cube have dimensions close to 2" x 6.5" square like a Mac Mini is? I don't know) and you found it being sold unassembled. How is that "comparable" to a fully assembled Mac Mini that is 2" by 6.5" square? So in other words, you find some bogus comparison, claim victory, and then act like I'm unreasonable because I won't accept it. Well, it was bogus. In no way are unasssembled machines comparable to fully assumbled ones. If you seriously believe that they are, then you should start giving your customers (who ordered a fully assembled PC) an unassembled kit, and tell them that there's no difference. It would depend on the dimensions. Does the "cube" look like this? That looks a heck of a lot bulkier than a Mac Mini. So find me one with almost identical specs to a Mac Mini that is oh so much cheaper. And your reading comprehension is sub-par. Dude, they're $600 in the USA. That's why I often wrote "$600 US" or "$600 in the USA." Apple is a US company and they do sell a lot of products over here—in US DOLLARS. So, since you frequently claim that Apple computers are "twice the price for a slower machine," find me a $300 (US DOLLARS) mini PC (2" x 6.5" square, not some bigger "cube") fully assembled. It should have the most recent, full-featured OS (Vista Ultimate) not a watered down version, since Mac OS X is not a watered-down version. And while you're at it, find one that is faster than the Mac Mini. Then that would prove your frequent claim that "Macs are twice the price and not as fast." But yet HP and other PC manufacturers charge more for their space saving all-in-ones! Why is that? I asked you before: Does you company sell all-in-ones? Space saving/small footprint all-in-ones? How much do you sell them for? Also note that I mentioned "space saving" in regards to an all-in-one, pretty much from the start. I bring up this detail because you are notorious for ignoring details or evading. We're not talking about a HUGE all-in-one, but one that is maybe 18-22 pounds with monitor included. "Space saving" implies that some serious design is going on to cram all those parts in there. So, do space saving/small footprint all-in-ones go for the same price as their bigger boxier counterparts? Do Dell, HP, Acer, Toshiba, Gateway, Sony . . . do any of these popular computer manfacturers price small footprint or space saving computers (whether they be all-in-ones or not) the same as the bigger ones? And are they exactly the same price as boxy PCs? Dell's certainly wasn't. Is it acceptable for Dell to charge more for such a machine, but not Apple? Bruce: Interesting machines. I've seen some other mini PCs too. They look intriguing, but so far I'm not finding anything close to the Mac Mini for $300!
  14. Well, we're in total agreement on this. I have said earlier that no doubt Mac users would love it if Apple came out with boxes (or their version thereof), but so far they haven't. When I brought up the notion that all-in-ones and mini computers cost more (whether they be Mac or PC) dark41 scoffed at the idea in this post. (In particular, I think, the iMacs.) And of course I'm still waiting for him to find me a $300 mini PC that is 2" x 6.5" and has comparable specs to a Mac Mini. (Because of course according to him, all Macs are twice the price of their PC counterparts, and the Mini sells for $600.)
  15. And neither do all-in-ones or mini computers. The Dell I linked to is a little over 18 pounds. It's not your typical notebook computer, as you'll find when reading the customer reviews. It's not identical to an iMac by any means, but it's only a few pounds lighter than a 20" iMac. And it costs a lot more than a regular boxy desktop computer. That is the point. I'm sure you're right. I don't think this is something they're planning on anytime soon. If Apple could do this and survive and flourish, I see no problem with it. But I've heard a lot of debate about why this isn't a good idea . . . so I'm ambivalent.
  • Create New...