Most people shopping for a $500 computer couldn't care less what it looks like, which I think was what Anand was getting too. They want a working computer for a ver low price - maybe not the lowest, but they want a really great value. In my opinion, it is in this category that the mini mac will fall short and remain coveted by 2% of the general population. That dell comes with all sorts of software, including Wordperfect for word processing.
It is also complete (w/monitor, etc.) and much more responsive for the price. So it is a moderate sized black dell- I think that Dells current market share indicates how much that hurts them. (I don't advocate buying Dells personally, just making an observation)
Thanks Mephisto. What I meant to ask was: How does the strength and range of the built-in wireless of the Mac mini compare with that of the PowerBook (bad) and ThinkPad (very good).
I have an iBook, and I agree, I get fantastic reception.
This is something Anand covered in the second article. He mentions the PowerBook has poorer reception than the Thinkpad.
Mac users have mentioned this for some time - in fact, ever since the release of the Titanium PowerBooks when responsiveness reduced. It is down to the metal case screening the signal.
iBooks are better in this regard because of their polycarbonate construction.
Good read. As other posters have mentioned it is not so black and white when comparing the Mac Mini to a budget PC. And where the Mac Mini really shines is the "grey area". With software, design and functionality. The Mac Mini is far from being the perfect low-end Mac that many have been wishing for for years, but it's a pretty good start. Thanks for the addition of your Mac section... it truly is appreciated.
The rather impressive software bundle that comes with the Mac mini:
Mac OS X Panther, 10.3.7
iLife ‘05 (includes iTunes, iPhoto, iMovie, iDVD and GarageBand)
Safari
Mail
Address Book
iSync
AppleWorks (Wordprocessor, Draw, Paint, Database, Spreadsheet)
Quicken 2005 for Mac
Nanosaur 2
Marble Blast Gold
Apple Hardware Test
That's a bundle a novice may well not need to add to... which isn't good news for Mac developers.
Anand,
Have you performed any testing on the internal 802.11g and bluetooth wireless?
I am wondering how the signal strength and range compares with the Powerbook and Thinkpad?
Much appreaciated, and great article (better than any of the "Mac" sites have done so far).
The article does seem to do a good job of showing where Apple chose to spend its money, and I think they did the right thing - focus on enabling the software rather than throwing in peripherals. They make sure that you can burn data/music/photo CDs and play DVDs, and that you have the ports needed to plug in things like DV cameras.
Dell and others play a shell game in that regard: you might have the monitor and the inputs, but there's precious little to actually DO with them.
Great article on all it covers save the one issue: PRICE.
Before I get on to that though - I'd like to say a big thanks! This site is now a regular read & recommendation - I can't say fairer than that.
Whether you wish for it or not you have become a big player in raising the standard of platform assessment. I can just hear PC sceptics saying: "But that's just some Macolyte's view" and Mac users responding: "Well take a look at the Anandtech reviews then." If that helps rationalise and civilise the debate you will have done the whole internet a service.
Back to price: I know that this subject is complicated by the many differences in the platforms and the great difficulty of assessing performance versus optimisation, and I'm not going to go into Total Cost of Ownership, resale, reliability or Tech Support Time/Cost which all fall heavily in the Mac's favour, but why is it that PC based writers appear almost scared to even try?
You approach the subject like this:
"The comparison above was very deliberately set up to focus on hardware alone, ignoring things like software differences and form factor differences."
and finish:
"The PC continues to be a better value from a hardware standpoint, there's no doubt about that."
I'm afraid there remains considerable doubt... because it is NOT the same hardware. You might as well have said: 3.5" drives are cheaper than 2.5" ones.
Apple did not make the cheapest Mac they possible could out of the cheapest possible components. Had they done so it would have been bigger and used full sized components. Most pundits suspect that this is because they did not wish to jeopardise iMac sales.
We can discuss whether, or not, that was a smart move but what is clear is that you have not compared like with like. You have then hamstrung the Mac by saying - let's ignore the software (not even mentioning Appleworks which, though old, is very useful for children and uncomplicated text, drawing and spreadsheets)... Why? It is very good, very useful and likely to be used by almost everyone who buys this type of computer. It almost seems to be trying to apologise for the fact that in order to achieve similar but poorer functionality you will have to pay for extra several extra programs for the Dell.
You have compared a bare truck with a VW Golf and said: Ignoring comfort, interior, reliability, ride quality and looks you get more iron for your money with the truck... so it is clearly better value. That isn't at all convincing.
So I went looking for a "PC mini". Knowledgeable as you are I suspect you may well be able to do better but the closest thing to it I could find was the Cappuccino EZ3. This is marketed as "Smallest Pentium III, Economical PC": http://www.cappuccinopc.com/
Cappuccino EZ3 - Barebone system¹ Silver, $325 157x146x46 mm = 6.18 x 5.75 x 1.8
¹ The barebone system does not include CPU, memory, hard disk and CD drive, It includes the casing, motherboard, CPU heatsink and blower, AC/DC Power supply, driver disk and manual.
So, trying to match the Mac mini:
Intel® Pentium® III Processor @ 1.26GHz / 512K Cache Server OEM
PC133 SDRAM SODIMM 256MB
40GB 2.5" Ultra DMA 33/66 5400RPM Hard Drive
Slim 24x12x24x8 CD-ReWritable Drive + DVD Combo (Slot Loading)
Microsoft® Windows® XP Professional
Integrated Intel 810/815 Graphic Controller
Firewire & USB
Ethernet
Modem
Smaller than Mac mini which is 165x165x50mm = 6.5"x6.5"x2"
No DVI
Wireless & bluetooth cannot be combined internally
No software other than Windows
Just 256MB RAM maximum and this is shared with Graphics chipset
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
34 Comments
View All Comments
blckgrffn - Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - link
Most people shopping for a $500 computer couldn't care less what it looks like, which I think was what Anand was getting too. They want a working computer for a ver low price - maybe not the lowest, but they want a really great value. In my opinion, it is in this category that the mini mac will fall short and remain coveted by 2% of the general population. That dell comes with all sorts of software, including Wordperfect for word processing.It is also complete (w/monitor, etc.) and much more responsive for the price. So it is a moderate sized black dell- I think that Dells current market share indicates how much that hurts them. (I don't advocate buying Dells personally, just making an observation)
David Smith - Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - link
It's "logic board" not motherboard? Since when? I've always used the two terms interchangeably (and I'm a Mac programmer...)maharajah - Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - link
#11,#8Thanks Mephisto. What I meant to ask was: How does the strength and range of the built-in wireless of the Mac mini compare with that of the PowerBook (bad) and ThinkPad (very good).
I have an iBook, and I agree, I get fantastic reception.
Mephisto - Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - link
#8 WiFi signal strength in the PowerBookThis is something Anand covered in the second article. He mentions the PowerBook has poorer reception than the Thinkpad.
Mac users have mentioned this for some time - in fact, ever since the release of the Titanium PowerBooks when responsiveness reduced. It is down to the metal case screening the signal.
iBooks are better in this regard because of their polycarbonate construction.
Patrick - Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - link
Good read. As other posters have mentioned it is not so black and white when comparing the Mac Mini to a budget PC. And where the Mac Mini really shines is the "grey area". With software, design and functionality. The Mac Mini is far from being the perfect low-end Mac that many have been wishing for for years, but it's a pretty good start. Thanks for the addition of your Mac section... it truly is appreciated.Mephisto - Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - link
The rather impressive software bundle that comes with the Mac mini:Mac OS X Panther, 10.3.7
iLife ‘05 (includes iTunes, iPhoto, iMovie, iDVD and GarageBand)
Safari
Mail
Address Book
iSync
AppleWorks (Wordprocessor, Draw, Paint, Database, Spreadsheet)
Quicken 2005 for Mac
Nanosaur 2
Marble Blast Gold
Apple Hardware Test
That's a bundle a novice may well not need to add to... which isn't good news for Mac developers.
maharajah - Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - link
Anand,Have you performed any testing on the internal 802.11g and bluetooth wireless?
I am wondering how the signal strength and range compares with the Powerbook and Thinkpad?
Much appreaciated, and great article (better than any of the "Mac" sites have done so far).
Commodus - Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - link
The article does seem to do a good job of showing where Apple chose to spend its money, and I think they did the right thing - focus on enabling the software rather than throwing in peripherals. They make sure that you can burn data/music/photo CDs and play DVDs, and that you have the ports needed to plug in things like DV cameras.Dell and others play a shell game in that regard: you might have the monitor and the inputs, but there's precious little to actually DO with them.
Mephisto - Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - link
Great article on all it covers save the one issue: PRICE.Before I get on to that though - I'd like to say a big thanks! This site is now a regular read & recommendation - I can't say fairer than that.
Whether you wish for it or not you have become a big player in raising the standard of platform assessment. I can just hear PC sceptics saying: "But that's just some Macolyte's view" and Mac users responding: "Well take a look at the Anandtech reviews then." If that helps rationalise and civilise the debate you will have done the whole internet a service.
Back to price: I know that this subject is complicated by the many differences in the platforms and the great difficulty of assessing performance versus optimisation, and I'm not going to go into Total Cost of Ownership, resale, reliability or Tech Support Time/Cost which all fall heavily in the Mac's favour, but why is it that PC based writers appear almost scared to even try?
You approach the subject like this:
"The comparison above was very deliberately set up to focus on hardware alone, ignoring things like software differences and form factor differences."
and finish:
"The PC continues to be a better value from a hardware standpoint, there's no doubt about that."
I'm afraid there remains considerable doubt... because it is NOT the same hardware. You might as well have said: 3.5" drives are cheaper than 2.5" ones.
Apple did not make the cheapest Mac they possible could out of the cheapest possible components. Had they done so it would have been bigger and used full sized components. Most pundits suspect that this is because they did not wish to jeopardise iMac sales.
We can discuss whether, or not, that was a smart move but what is clear is that you have not compared like with like. You have then hamstrung the Mac by saying - let's ignore the software (not even mentioning Appleworks which, though old, is very useful for children and uncomplicated text, drawing and spreadsheets)... Why? It is very good, very useful and likely to be used by almost everyone who buys this type of computer. It almost seems to be trying to apologise for the fact that in order to achieve similar but poorer functionality you will have to pay for extra several extra programs for the Dell.
You have compared a bare truck with a VW Golf and said: Ignoring comfort, interior, reliability, ride quality and looks you get more iron for your money with the truck... so it is clearly better value. That isn't at all convincing.
So I went looking for a "PC mini". Knowledgeable as you are I suspect you may well be able to do better but the closest thing to it I could find was the Cappuccino EZ3. This is marketed as "Smallest Pentium III, Economical PC": http://www.cappuccinopc.com/
Incidentally, the guys at SlashDot couldn't come up with a PC that could get anywhere close to the Mac mini on size/price/performance (http://ask.slashdot.org/askslashdot/05/01/19/21325...
Cappuccino EZ3 - Barebone system¹ Silver, $325 157x146x46 mm = 6.18 x 5.75 x 1.8
¹ The barebone system does not include CPU, memory, hard disk and CD drive, It includes the casing, motherboard, CPU heatsink and blower, AC/DC Power supply, driver disk and manual.
So, trying to match the Mac mini:
Intel® Pentium® III Processor @ 1.26GHz / 512K Cache Server OEM
PC133 SDRAM SODIMM 256MB
40GB 2.5" Ultra DMA 33/66 5400RPM Hard Drive
Slim 24x12x24x8 CD-ReWritable Drive + DVD Combo (Slot Loading)
Microsoft® Windows® XP Professional
Integrated Intel 810/815 Graphic Controller
Firewire & USB
Ethernet
Modem
Smaller than Mac mini which is 165x165x50mm = 6.5"x6.5"x2"
No DVI
Wireless & bluetooth cannot be combined internally
No software other than Windows
Just 256MB RAM maximum and this is shared with Graphics chipset
$1,048.00 (shipping and handling extra)
The Mini looks a steal at $500 doesn't it?
vrln - Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - link
Thanks for the great article, it's really appreciated.