New Mini Mac & iPod Shuffle

I'd agree with you on build quality, one of the biggest problems I find as a "PC/Windows Whore" (my day job) is that people tend to go for the cheapest thing that will do the job, which means they buy a ten quid case (with PSU), twenty quid motherboard etc. cobble it all together and wonder why bits spontaneously break.

The problem is how to convince them that it's worth spending the extra on the quality and user experience (that sounds really tacky!) that we both seem to agree that OS X offers.

The Naim analogy is probably a pretty good one, most people will never get beyond the £36 CD player because "it's a CD player, what more would I need?"

I hope Apple flogs millions of these things, I really do as it'd be nice to see Microsoft do something really different because they're forced to by some competition, but I fear that however cheap Jobs can knock them out, the likes of Dell will do it cheaper.

Paul

The entry cost for the new Macs is cheaper than you are talking of, as if the article in The Register has it, the headless Mac is aimed at households that have a PC so they have the KVM stuff (keyboard monitor and rodent) already and they fancy the Mac bit to complement their new IPOD and other lifestyle features of the Mac - hopefully the user will find the Mac experience sufficiently interesting to get them more involved.

Derek

<< >>

Well it had to be done!

I've ordered one - should be here in a fortnight. I've been looking for an excuse to play with a Mac for a while but couldn't justify the price of a G5 at the moment. I've already got a spare keyboard and mouse, and a spare DVI port on my TFT monitor so I can switch between the Mac and the Windoze PC.

This way I get to figure out if a Mac really is for me - if it's not then I've still got a small, quiet music streaming 'box' for my Squeezebox

I'll keep you posted...
Mark

quote:

---

It's scarier than that Steve, right now for £209+VAT you can get a brand new PC from Dell

---

It's been mentioned before (prob'ly in this topic and elsewhere) but it bears repeating:

I can buy a CD player for £30. The cheapest Naim CD player costs many times that amount. Essentially they do the same things. Doesn't mean to say that the £30 is even remotely comparable in qualitative terms to the Naim one. Same for Dell versus Apple I would say (having owned three Dells - Inspiron 8000, a cheap desktop and a Poweredge 1750). Qualitatively my Powerbook is better built and better designed than all of them.

Also, people forget that the Dell probably comes with installed crippled software* and that the Mini Mac comes with a full version of OSX 10.3 (and I assume 10.4 come its launch). That's worth bearing in mind in any comparison, as is the fact that the Dell will be ugly as sin, noisy and pretty nasty, at least as compared to the delightful little Mini...

I'd buy one, but I reckon I'd ask too much of it; instead, I'm trying to justify a G5/2.0 dual and either a 23" ACD or if the March bonus is kind to me the 30" ACD...

I've been recommending the iMac G5 to all and sundry and will now be recommending the Mac Mini to those folks I know who can't spring for the G5.

John

* aka: Windows XP Home - though I'd argue Windows XP anything feels crippled compared to OSX 10.3.x

quote:

---

Originally posted by Top Cat:
I can buy a CD player for £30. The cheapest Naim CD player costs many times that amount. Essentially they do the same things. Doesn't mean to say that the £30 is even remotely comparable in qualitative terms to the Naim one. Same for Dell versus Apple I would say

---

I think this is a very poor argument indeed. The main purpose of a CD player is to play CD's - and if you can hear the difference then the cost difference is worth paying.

Computers run software and basically the software will either run or it won't, and if it does run then it's either be fast enough or it won't.

You feel that Windows XP is "crippled" - but some might say that the machine Apple has just launched is itself crippled. 32MB of video RAM, a G4 processor and very limited upgrade possibilities - marketing spin might make it otherwise, but this looks like it could end up the same way as the G4 Cube farce did.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul Hutchings:
Always makes laugh the way a lot of "mac people" don't seem able to accept that by and large Macs _are_ bloody expensive hardware if you look at what you get for the money compared to an Intel/AMD based box, Paul

---

Paul

Get a price of a dual 64 bit processor PC filled with all the software that comes free with a Mac. I think you'll find that Macs aren't expensive at all if you compare like with like.

Stephen

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Bennett:
Get a price of a dual 64 bit processor PC

---

How does that compare to a Mini Mac then?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve G:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Bennett:
Get a price of a dual 64 bit processor PC

---

How does that compare to a Mini Mac then?

---

It doesn't of course. I was comparing the 'expensive' Macs.

Stephen

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Bennett:
It doesn't of course. I was comparing the 'expensive' Macs.

---

But as discussed earlier isn't that all of them...?

On the legacy hardware issues garyi was mentioning I think it's worth pointing out that not everyone needs the latest/greatest. I run a small IT consultancy specializing in Oracle. We've currently awaiting delivery of replacements for all our PC's and the spec of the new ones is:

3GHZ Pentium 4
XP Professional
512MB RAM
160GB HDD
3.5" FDD (yes garyi - some people still use them)
CD-RW/DVD
optical mouse, keyboard
19" TFT monitor

Which are costing us £760 each, which seems decent value.

On the other hand I'm in the process of carrying out an audit of the PC's we currently use and believe it or not some of the machines in our office are 6 (or more) years old and still providing good service. A typical PC in our office is:

400MHz Pentium II
Windows NT 4.0
128MB RAM
6GB HDD
3.5FDD
CD-ROM
wheel mouse, keyboard
17" CRT monitor.

We have about a dozen PC's all told (including some running Windows 2000 or XP) and I honestly can't remember the last time any of them crashed (and the last two that did were both hard disk failures). We mostly develop solutions to run on unix servers (we have Solaris and Linux machines) and that sort of work, plus the usual office stuff/web browsing, isn't all that hard on PC's.

"by and large Macs are bloody expensive hardware if you look at what you get for the money compared to an Intel/AMD based box"

Apple's computers are more expensive simply becuase PCs are sold on stupidly narrow margins wheras Apple maintains much higher profit margins. They do a great job of protecting that profit through their marketing, brand and excellent design so they can prosper on relatively small volumes and the extra money you pay is mainly used to stop them going out of business.

(One notes the counter example of IBM who dominated the least price sensitive area of the PC market (business notebooks) and despite it's fabulous product and market pre-eminence basically lost billions a year and sold it all to the Chinese).

With regard to this new Mac a cheap entry level option looks like a great option but as ever it's really about as exciting as Breville launching a new budget toaster.

Matthew

quote:

---

Originally posted by matthewr:
(One notes the counter example of IBM who dominated the least price sensitive area of the PC market (business notebooks) and despite it's fabulous product and market pre-eminence basically lost billions a year and sold it all to the Chinese).

---

Dell seem to be doing well enough though - they're about my best performing IT share.

Hmmm

STeve G said:

quote:

---

quote:Originally posted by Top Cat:
I can buy a CD player for £30. The cheapest Naim CD player costs many times that amount. Essentially they do the same things. Doesn't mean to say that the £30 is even remotely comparable in qualitative terms to the Naim one. Same for Dell versus Apple I would say



I think this is a very poor argument indeed. The main purpose of a CD player is to play CD's - and if you can hear the difference then the cost difference is worth paying.

Computers run software and basically the software will either run or it won't, and if it does run then it's either be fast enough or it won't.

You feel that Windows XP is "crippled" - but some might say that the machine Apple has just launched is itself crippled. 32MB of video RAM, a G4 processor and very limited upgrade possibilities - marketing spin might make it otherwise, but this looks like it could end up the same way as the G4 Cube farce did.

---

I disagree in that this argument is like the one used by many people to assess HiFi - i.e. by the spec sheet.

If a computer is a tool that you use for a productive purpose, then the total cost is not just the purchase price, but things like ongoing maintainence, training for the user, stress levels for the user, enjoyment of using the tool by the user, and the results achieved over a given period of time - aassuming one doesn't have a lot of time to tend to the 'needs' of the computer, but rather wishes to use it to achieve something productive.

Just as hearing a considerably better musical reproduction via a quality CD player tends to justify the price over something cheaper, so does the pleasure, reliability and ease of use of the Macintosh over it's Windows counterparts.

But then it's something you have to experience to appreciate, and sometimes that takes a little time.

Once heard or rather experienced, there's no going back.

There's plenty of naysayers re the Mac, here and everywhere, yet I've not as yet heard from anyone who has switched platforms, and expressed either dissapointment, or a desire to return to the Windows fold.

The recent stories of Mac 'conversions' on this forum alone would be testament to that.

Matthewr said:

quote:

---

"by and large Macs are bloody expensive hardware if you look at what you get for the money compared to an Intel/AMD based box"

Apple's computers are more expensive simply becuase PCs are sold on stupidly narrow margins wheras Apple maintains much higher profit margins. They do a great job of protecting that profit through their marketing, brand and excellent design so they can prosper on relatively small volumes and the extra money you pay is mainly used to stop them going out of business.

(One notes the counter example of IBM who dominated the least price sensitive area of the PC market (business notebooks) and despite it's fabulous product and market pre-eminence basically lost billions a year and sold it all to the Chinese).

With regard to this new Mac a cheap entry level option looks like a great option but as ever it's really about as exciting as Breville launching a new budget toaster.

Matthew

---

You know, I had a bit of a think when I read this, and for some unknown reason, substituted the word 'Naim' for Apple/Mac, and 'mainstream HiFi' for PC's.

If you read the comments out as if one was talking about Naim products relative to the mainstream HiFi scene, pretty much the same argument could be used IMHO.

But as we all know, the performance, quality, reliablity, build, and customer service engender an ownership experience/proposition that is remembered long after the price is forgotten.

And that's the other parallel with Apple Macs generally, IMHO.

Best Regards

John....

This is my last upgrade.... after this my system will be finished...:-)

Steve you appear to have issues

Have you actually used a modern apple mac with OSX?

You are suggesting that as long as software works that is all that matters.

This is not the case for 99% of the buying public!

HOW the software works is essential. itunes is now available for PC, I certainly have never seen anything that compares (That wasn't a blantent copy)

iphoto collates up to 25,000 photos all of which can be resised in real time, this in tern intergrates with imovie and iDVD to allow you to create your own master pieces! OSX is rock solid, most all drivers are already part of the system, fiding things is a breeze, most all digital camera load iphoto straight away and then the computer asks if you would like to import them. This is software in use for those of us without PHDs.

I am sorry but XP dosn't even come close. I am not only talking about how appauling XP looks but just its operation in general. My mum and step dad have a Sony PC, they bought it last christmas but are now scared of it since a 90 quid phone bill came in from a preimum dialer, its this crap that Apple users do not have to deal with. I can confidently turn my mac on and broadband it with no fear of viruses, ad ware, spy ware, spider bots and the borg.

OK it may not last forever, but there is nothing better than knowing all I have to do is press 'start firewall' and mostly everything is done for me.

I know most people don't understand, macs are more expensive, and yes a bit slower on lower models pound for pound, but you achieve 100% on a mac, as they say it just works.

I just don't understand the reasoning of PC users that cost is the only concern with computers. Most people spend more on a better car, more on a better HIFI and more on a better house, why then does it have to be the cheapest of the cheap with PCs?

How many 64 bit PCs are there on the market? ( genuine question BTW)

quote:

---

Originally posted by garyi:
Steve you appear to have issues

Have you actually used a modern apple mac with OSX?

---

Depends what you mean by modern. The most powerful Mac we have is a G4 and I find it so slow and unfriendly that I can't bear to use if for more than a few minutes at a time.

quote:

---

This is not the case for 99% of the buying public!

---

Really? 99% of the buying public buy PC's.

quote:

---

HOW the software works is essential. itunes is now available for PC, I certainly have never seen anything that compares (That wasn't a blantent copy)

---

I've got iTunes on my PC at home (to feed my iMac) and I really don't like it much at all.

quote:

---

I know most people don't understand, macs are more expensive, and yes a bit slower on lower models pound for pound, but you achieve 100% on a mac, as they say it just works.

quote:

---

Our G4 Mac at home doesn't "just work", neither do many of the other Macs that my wifes employer (a school) use. Whenever you're at a school do most of the teachers spend time whining about how crap they're macs are. Most of the kids in my daughters class hate the Macs that they have to use in IT and prefer the PC's they have at home.

---

I just don't understand the reasoning of PC users that cost is the only concern with computers

---

I don't think cost is the only concern, however getting a usable computer for as little expenditure is key to many people. Also being able to run games is important to many people. A £600 PC will run the likes of Doom 3 or Half-Life 2 - it doesn't look to me like a £600 Mini Mac setup would as only having 32MB graphics is going to be a problem.

I'm an IT graduate who's worked in the IT field for many years. I'm an experienced unix administrator and I'll admit I hate the MS platform for some things (primarily it's unsuitability as a database server platform) but I've had a fair amount of experience with Macs and I've never liked them. Why is that so hard for you to accept - I just don't like them. When they do come out with a product I like I'm happy enough to buy it, and in fact I just have - an iPod.

How many 64 bit PCs are there on the market? ( genuine question BTW)

And a genuine question for you is why does that matter much to an end-user like yourself?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve G:
_How many 64 bit PCs are there on the market? ( genuine question BTW)_

And a genuine question for you is why does that matter much to an end-user like yourself?

---

If you're using a computer for music or graphics and are using 64bit optimized software, it matters a lot!

Regards

Stephen

I'm typing this on a "64-bit PC" (although for FWIW my graphics software is actually slower than on my equivalent 32-bit PC).

Anyway, the essential facts of this endless debate are as follows:

-- Apple make great computers.

-- They are moderately more expensive then PCs.

-- They are (generally speaking) exceptionally well designed and built and feature superb ergonomics and look great.

-- The main impediment to buying one (the shitty o/s) is now largely removed since they shifted to UNIX.

-- There have some definite advantages from a security point of view (actually it's more of a case that Mac owners can blissfully ignore security and most likely nothing bad will actually happen but in practical terms the effect is the same).

-- There is much less software available for a Mac and they are pretty much useless if you want to play games.

That's pretty much it, the real mystery is why Apple owners never shut up ahbout the bloody things.

Matthew

quote:

---

Originally posted by matthewr:
That's pretty much it, the real mystery is why Apple owners never shut up ahbout the bloody things.

Matthew

---

A bit like Naim owbers, really.......



Stephen

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Bennett:
Get a price of a dual 64 bit processor PC filled with all the software that comes free with a Mac. I think you'll find that Macs aren't expensive at all if you compare like with like.

---

When you talk about that sort of machine you're into workstation territory, generally that means professional use, which generally means you buy the best tool for the job - the initial spend is probably a very small part of the equation.

What I'm talking about is the home user who wants to do "the usual stuff", they don't need a dual anything.

The Mac Mini is the cheapest Mac, granted, and it comes with a lot of good software, granted (I've hardly had to purchase anything over what my iMac came with), but by the time you add on a keyboard & mouse (let's say Apple ones) you're up to £380, plus say £120 for a cheap 17" CRT screen and you have a minimum of £500 versus £250 or so depending on offers for a basic PC from Dell.

I'm not debating whether or not OS X is a better OS and if Macs are generally more stable as I think they are from the limited time I've been using my iMac, what I'm saying is that for the average home user Macs are still more expensive - Joe Bloggs won't stand in the computer store doing a ROI calculation, he'll usually go for the cheapest box that'll get him on the Internet and six months later wonder if he did the right thing.

cheers,
Paul

"What I'm talking about is the home user who wants to do "the usual stuff", they don't need a dual anything."

They do not need Naim stuff or fancy digital cameras or holidays abroad or good wine or good food - but it is great to be able to have and use/enjoy them.

Working with Photoshop on my G5 dual processor is a real joy, the fast response means that one can try various options very quickly, using a slow machine means that you try less options

Derek

<< >>

Sorry I ramble, I just don't understand why people wouldn't like a mac.

Steve mabye the G4 at work has a problem, or perhaps you take speed?

quote:

---

Originally posted by matthewr:
That's pretty much it, the real mystery is why Apple owners never shut up about the bloody things.

---

Indeed. Why can't they just be happy with their choice of machine and get on with it? They're worse than the bloody Jehovahs Witnesses...

quote:

---

Originally posted by garyi:
Sorry I ramble, I just don't understand why people wouldn't like a mac.

---

You don't have to understand it. Just accept that most of the world is quite happy using PC's and really, really don't care what you think.

quote:

---

Steve mabye the G4 at work has a problem, or perhaps you take speed?

---

As I run my own company there never has been and never will be an Apple computer anywhere near my work (although there are a few iPods around on any given day).

Steve I understand where you are coming from but you are a bit abrupt, I thought this was light banter, if it offends you what the hell are you doing on an apple thread?

Or perhaps you enjoy the bashing as much as I enjoy the preaching?