Apple's Mac mini - Tempting PC Users Everywhere
by Anand Lal Shimpi on January 25, 2005 7:39 AM EST- Posted in
- Mac
iPhoto 5
For the most part, I detest photo management applications. They are usually riddled with cumbersome interfaces and/or lack any sort of real editing power. I tried using iPhoto 4, which was a part of the iLife '04 suite, and I was left fairly disappointed. I had to switch between editing and organizing modes to edit or just flip through my pictures. Images took entirely too long to flip through and despite the fact that iPhoto had the best interface of any photo management application that I'd used, it was still not enough. In the end, it was just like everything else to me and I happily continued using Photoshop for editing and saving pictures for AnandTech articles. I used folders to organize the pictures according to article, so I didn't need the organizational aspects of iPhoto for that. But then came iPhoto 5 - time to give it another try, but this time, it looked like there was hope.
During his keynote at Mac World San Franciso, Steve Jobs talked about iPhoto 5 as the only application that you'd need for both editing and organizing your photos. For my uses, Photoshop is basically overkill, but I've never found anything to suit my needs better without sacrificing usability in one way or another. But with a better interface and a new editing dashboard, iPhoto 5 seemed promising.
The iPhoto 5 interface has been greatly simplified. No longer are there different modes to switch between, everything happens in the same browsing mode. You get photos into iPhoto using its import feature, which is activated automatically whenever you connect a digital camera or a removable disk (a configurable option).
Thankfully, iPhoto gives you the option of deleting your photos automatically from the media/camera after it is done importing them. Once you confirm your intentions, iPhoto goes off and copies all of the photos into your iPhoto Library. Your photo library can be viewed at variable sized thumbnails, adjustable by a slider in the lower right of the application. The scaling of the number of pictures on your screen at one time happens very quickly as iPhoto will render the thumbnails quickly, and then later, sharpen the images once you're done playing with the slider. iPhoto is much faster (especially on the G5) now, and photos no longer take a little bit of time to come into focus when browsing through them one at a time (as opposed to a page of thumbnails). Also, when browsing quickly, they will appear as thumbnails rather than blurry images (more useful in my opinion).
The iPhoto Library is organized by year and feeds off of the information written by your camera to the images. If you have a lot of photos, the Library quickly becomes cluttered, since it is organized by nothing more than date. This is where some of the indexing features of iPhoto come into play, but they do require a bit of user intervention.
When you import images into the Library, you have the option of tagging the images that you import with a title. For example, when I imported the images for this review, I titled them "Mac mini". Now, even if I have thousands of images taken in 2005, I just type in "mini" in the search box and all my Mac mini images come up instantly, thanks to a fully indexed search in iPhoto. Now, titling images isn't something that I'd normally take the time to do, but the way iPhoto works is that you just create one general title and it will apply it to all of the photos that you're importing (or you can selectively import them).
After they are imported, you can go back and add ratings, keywords and comments to photos on an individual basis, all of which are fully searchable fields. You also have the option of populating these fields after the fact using iPhoto's batch processing. Just highlight what photos you want and you can add a title, comments or even modify the date/time. And if you actually take the time to make good use of these searchable fields, or even if you just make use of the batch titling upon import, you can create Smart Albums based on searches of these fields. For example, you can create an album of all pictures of "video cards" or "cars I'd like to buy" or just about any other combination that you can think of.
Personally, I'm not enough of a photo enthusiast to put that much time into my digital library, but if you have a habit of taking a lot of pictures, iPhoto 5 offers some very excellent and intuitive ways of organizing them. Plus, the interface works and feels just like the rest of OS X, which is a very strong point of iPhoto. There is one exception to my last statement, however. Hitting Command + W will actually exit the iPhoto program itself, something which breaks the way that almost all OS X applications work. One thing that I was a fan of with OS X is the consistency with which all applications behaved, and iPhoto unfortunately breaks that consistency - not something I was too happy with.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
198 Comments
View All Comments
Dennis Travis - Thursday, January 27, 2005 - link
#136, I have never figured it out either, but in some ways it reminds me of the AMD haters who bash any CPU that AMD comes out with and say that Intel is always more stable and runs more apps and on and on.I have never hated the Mac but simply at one time, and even now can not afford the top end Macs. I have used both platforms for years but always loved the way the Mac worked, but after 2k and XP came out, Apple really needed to come up with a new OS as OS8-9 just was not as good as Win 2k or XP with Shared Multitasking and memory. OSX came along and gave Apple just what they needed, A STABLE OS with Great Multitasking and Memory managment with a solid BSD Darwin core.
If Macs still were running OS9 I would not be as excited about a new Mac today.
hopejr - Thursday, January 27, 2005 - link
I don't understand why there is so much open opposition to apple. I used to be a mac hater, but I kept it to myself. Then I tried OS X 10.3, and now use it all the time. I rather it over anything else.To all those mac bashers: If apple hasn't done anything bad to you, why make so many bad comments about it?
Dennis Travis - Thursday, January 27, 2005 - link
So 134, It BLOWS down McAfee eh? Check this. Check which found the most viri and what found the least.http://www.schadentech.com/Reviews/Antivirus/concl...
You might be suprised. Even AntiVir blows AVG out of the water and it's free also.
DigitalDivine - Thursday, January 27, 2005 - link
"#96 Just to make things clear:1.) AVG is just a piece of crap(I have my reasons)
2.) AVG is NOT free. It costs around $50 per 2 years"
why you think avg is crap is beyond me, it smokes the likes of norton and mcaffee in load times and such just as fast in searches. but hey, if you think it's crap, don't use it, because you know what... it's free!!!
http://free.grisoft.com/freeweb.php/doc/2/
and that is really all that you really need, a hard drive scanner, a real time scanner, and an e-mail scanner. and free updates... but hey, if you don't like that, o well...
win32asmguy - Thursday, January 27, 2005 - link
#132For apple its not good enough to just throw together a low cost machine -- it has to be stylish. Expandibility isn't that much of an issue for these machines. I have the 1.42ghz model and it runs OSX Panther fast with 512mb ram.
I had a Shuttle cube (SN45G) also and it wasn't designed nearly as well as the Mac mini. The internal power supply would raise the system temp as much as 10-15C, the fans were loud even while at idle speeds, and stability seemed to be compromised when running higher end components in the system (which I assume was because the 250W supply couldn't handle it) The Mac mini doesn't have any of these problems so far, and performance can only go up from this model in the future...
Concord - Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - link
OK. Now I realize what's wrong with it. It's size.Can anybody at least try to explain why it should be so small? Well PC desktops were big and people tried to find solution to that for example like barebones. They are small but at the same time they have enough space for many expantion. Actually in good barebone you have almost the same exppandability like in minitowers and some very pleasant extras. But this! I am wondering it is not notebook, you will not run with it and cut space to lose every posibility to change anything!
The same time this very small size makes no sense at all for home PC!
bob661 - Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - link
#130The hard drive would need to be a lot larger than 40GB for HTPC use. Movies take up a lot of space.
krazykat - Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - link
Thanks Concord!I think the mini will find a base with people who bought the first sub $500 machines and are now sick of Windows 98 and the hideous box it came in. I'll be curious to see if there's not a population of people who will simply hook it up to a TV (especially fancy Plasma/Flat Screen), like a WebTV that's got a real computer behind it. Just like with the first iMac, the second version of the mini will be better.
I wish the PC users above wouldn't stoop to abuse. Using a Mac is sipmly a different experience. Yeah, I drank the Cool-Aid, and it still hasn't killed me. I think I have enough experience to say I've tried it all, and Mac just suits me.
Concord - Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - link
#128Great post! I really appreciate your passion! keep it this way and Mac will survive and will not
disapear like many other great things. Anyway I think that something wrong with miniMac. But maybe
passion and devotion are enough? Or I am not right?
krazykat - Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - link
I am a former systems administrator and currently a first grade teacher. I have been a lifelong Mac Admirer, but couldn't afford them until more recently. I just spent the last two days reading all three of the Mac articles. Great work!Here's all the stuff I want to say:
Remote desktop works great from my 800MHz, 12" Powerbook. Crashes less than it did on my Win2K Dell at work.
I've used the whole Office suite for years and only switched over to Appleworks 6 because that's what they use at my new work and I actually really like it. Not perfect, but a lot less buggy and frustrating than Word in terms of pagination and formatting. It also has a built in Database program which Office lacks on the Mac side. (No Access.)
My wife hates computers and loves her Special Edition Clamshell. We bought it on eBay two years ago and had to pay nearly full price even though a totally re-vamped, faster iBook two generations newer was available. Worth every penny. My parents are still using their Rev. B iMac (in Bondi) and they have the ability to kill anything with a microchip.
The price point is something Mac users need to take more issue with. You will keep a Mac longer. Period. I've also built systems from scratch, but I love my Powerbook and would never dream of going back to a FrankenBox.
To use OSX is to love it. I've used Windows from 3.0, Mac from 7.6 and many flavors of Unix, and I just love OSX. The only word is elegant.
My 2 cents.