Slashdot Log In
Intel Preps Mac mini Look-Alike
Posted by
samzenpus
on Tue May 31, 2005 08:03 AM
from the small-computing dept.
from the small-computing dept.
boarder8925 writes "From Wired: 'A new Wintel prototype that openly apes Apple Computer's popular Mac mini is due out this week, giving Intel a showcase to prove its chips are a match for anyone when it comes to tiny PC designs. Working prototypes of the Mac mini look-alike running Microsoft Windows and based on Intel's Pentium M CPU have already been built by Taiwan PC maker AOpen at Intel's request, according to two sources in Taiwan's PC manufacturing industry who have seen them.' This isn't the non-working box Slashdot covered earlier."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
OK (Score:5, Insightful)
The main reason for a small box is so it can be put on show, thus style and design need to be seen to make a judgement.
Re:OK (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because Apple already did it, doesn't mean no one else should ever try.
Re:OK (Score:5, Interesting)
Welcome to the age of innovation (Score:4, Funny)
It won't be a Mac mini lookalike... (Score:5, Funny)
I kid, I kid. I own a Mac myself.
Re:It won't be a Mac mini lookalike... (Score:5, Funny)
After all, if it's running Windows:
... give it a few days, it WILL be non-working.Competition (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Competition (Score:4, Funny)
I'd like to see Intel one-up Apple and utilize the same hardware for an open laptop spec. Imagine not having to pay $900 to get a 14.1" LCD repaired. Imagine the modding that would come along.
As a side note, I propose a new unit of volume - the MM. Not to be confused with the linear measurement 'mm' (millimeter), MM will stand for Mac Mini. So if something is 1.3MM, then it is 1.3x the volume of a Mac Mini.
That seems to be the new standard. We could use this with LoCps (Libraries of Congress per second).
Re:Competition (Score:5, Informative)
Mac mini: $500 (give or take)
DVI to SVIDEO adapter for Mac mini: $19
Posting this for the 30000th time: Priceless
Re:Competition (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not going to bother to respond to your comments about iLife as you've clearly never even used it. I hope all those megahertz help you do what you need to do.
Still, you can't even be bothered to reach for the shift key, so you probably couldn't enjoy the subtleties of functionality that iLife offers.
Photos (Score:5, Informative)
Silver + beige = $$ (Score:5, Funny)
Not cool :-( (Score:5, Interesting)
Wrong priorities (Score:5, Insightful)
Frankly, other than die-hard nerds, noone gives a damn about the OS. The point that all the "Linux rules, Windows blows" or "MacOS rules, everything else blows" flamewars are missing is just that: that the OS itself is really the least important part.
In the real world what matters is what can you _do_ with a tool, and the computer or OS are just such tools to an end. What matters is what concrete goals can you achieve with it, not what a cool Apple logo it has on the box. What Joe Average asks is stuff like "Can I edit my digital photos with it and burn them on a CD"? What Joe is seeking just a solution to some clear problems, never "but I really wanted to try Linux, although I have no clue wth will run on it, or what can I do with it".
That solution means: apps. And the OS exists only to load those apps. Most people would run any OS just as gladly without an OS, if they could just pop the CD in and have the application start up.
Don't believe me? Look at the some 100 million game consoles sold, and how noone said "nah, if it doesn't show a Windows boot-up screen I'm not buying a PS2". What they _did_ however ask is: "what games are available on it, then?" I.e., they asked about the _apps_.
That's it. The apps are the alpha, omega, and the whole alphabet in between.
So all this OS brand zealotry is really like saying you buy only a certain brand of car for the dashboard, and not to actually drive it. Or better yet, saying that you're buying a microwave oven instead of a fridge because you like the interface more. It's... missing the point, to put it very diplomatically.
_Noone_ other than geeks will want to buy a computer for Linux or any other OS. In the real world they'll buy it for what they can do with that box.
Tell them "yeah, you can get this machine and you'll have a cheap, secure and very easy to use computer, that can edit your digital photos, surf the web, encode and decode movies and music, etc" and you'll have the people's attention. That's what Apple did. _That_ is the message that people want to hear.
But tell them "give me your money to try a new OS that exists just to fight MS's evil empire", and you've lost them. _Noone_ sane blows their paycheck just to fight in some idealistic nerd rebellion.
No one emulates bad ideas... (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess eventually people reach the point where they begin to treat their computers more as appliances and less as sandboxes to play in; upgrading video cards, hard drives, and processors whenever the latest hot game is released. When I use a computer these days, I'm either modifying content I've created (pictures, movies), browsing the web, or logging into a shell at work to catch up on my tasks. I don't need a GeForce 6800 GT and a 4 GHz hyper-pipelined processor to do that.
Clunky. (Score:5, Insightful)
Few dobut that Intel's chips have the same potential for minturization as Apple's chips. Yet somehow it seems that 90% of all mini PC's and PC laptops out there still look like concrete slabs when compared with the Mac mini and the PowerBooks which has caused a not inconsiderable number of consumers to begin regarding the PC's as clumsy. Apple concluded that style and ultra compactness matters to some consumers more than raw computing power and apparently they were not entirely wrong. For a Mac user it is certainly satisfying to see Intel finally acknowledging that.
Mini-market (Score:4, Interesting)
I think Intel is better off with the normal PC market. For the same price you can get way more out of a normal PC. Apple might make a little money off the Mini mostly because the Mini looks trendy and that drives a lot of Mac sales.
The Mini design might start looking good for a media PC that would sit on top of a TV, but until there is a way to add way more storage for DVR and storing DivX, they won't cut it. Also, I am guessing the GPU in it won't play HD quality very well.
Intel might be a little better off enlarging the size, but adding more power to it. Call it the "Almost-mini" and sell it as a faster solution.
Apple doesn't just throw components into a box (Score:5, Insightful)
There have always been Mac lookalikes. Remember the eOne from eMachines.
Apart from press interest at their introduction, all of them sank in the marketplace without so much as a ripple.
Anyone who says that there is much difference overall in price or power between a Mac and a PC is grinding an axe. The fact is they're using technologies that are pretty much on a par and the price/performance is pretty much on a par.
But the Wintel Bizarro-world Mac-alike machines usually ARE overpriced and underpowered. And the form factor and "look" usually look like a cheesy knockoff; it's obvious they are not using industrial designers of the caliber that Apple uses.
Love it or hate it, the original iMac, for example, showed an amazing design integrity in carrying the "translucency" theme throughout the entire design; not only the case, but the keyboard, the mouse, _and the power cord_ were translucent. I'll bet those power cords added cost. That's the sort of detail the would-be Mac-alikes never seem to include.
It's the overall integrity of the product design that gives Apple that "wow" factor. It's also the overall integrity of the product design that makes Apple's products so comfortable and usable.
So, someone else can throw just as many components into a little box as Apple can? I never doubted it for a second. The point is, Apple doesn't just throw components into a box.
I didn't by it for its size (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't care if the box is cute and tiny, I want some ability to upgrade the stuff inside it.
How is this different... (Score:5, Insightful)
Kinda reminds me of the memorial day parade (Score:5, Insightful)
Several things struck me about these cars. First, the overwheliming impression is that they were huge. I bet that Impala weighs more than a Lincoln Navigator, and takes up more road space. Granted, we're only seeing the cars that were somebody's pride and joy; the Novas of this world are all in junk yards. But no doubt, these cars were the dominant automotive species of my childhood.
Second, despite quite a bit of creativity in the application of chrome and paint, to modern eyes these cars are strikingly uniform in their primitiveness. They project ponderous massiveness, not refinement. A modern economy car such as a Honda Civic boasts elegance beyond any but the most luxurious of the 60s cars. SUVs like the Ford Explorer that by modern standards are clumsy and bulky have a lightness and agility that only a sports car of 60s era could match.
My point here is that we're at the end of the muscle car era of computer workstations. We can choose between the equivalent of a massive Plymouth Fury or a "small" alternative like the Chevy Nova. A few odd people are driving the equivalent of the original Beetle, which was too cramped and underpowered for most peoples' tastes. In thirty years or so, we'll look at the computers we use today, and we'll scoff at how inconveniently bulky and primitive they are.
And we'll expect these small, powerful, elegant computers to be far cheaper in real terms.
What Apple has done with the Mini is introduce the equivalent of the Datsun (now Nissan). It was a car that combined economy with refinement, fun and quality. The Japanese invasion of the US car market raised the bar such that there is no comparing a car from 1975 and 1985. Detroit was slow to respond because this kind of innovation wasn't in their business genes, and they paid. Intel is trying to keep its customers from making the same mistake.
Re:market (Score:5, Funny)
I am not the guy whose account I am posting this under. I just 0wnz h1s l1nux b0x3n.
Re:I don't see a point (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I don't see a point (Score:5, Insightful)
I've had my current computer for 6 years. I've done the RAM upgrade and the HD upgrade. I did a video card upgrade, but that was back when I played games. The video card I bought it with would have been sufficient for most desktop apps. I think that many people don't want to spend $200 every year to upgrade their computer. They just want a computer that's reliable, and that doesn't make excessive noise, or take up excessive space.
Re:Are we supposed to be impressed? (Score:5, Interesting)
PS I thought the mini was a good enough idea that I seriously looked into getting one as a 'stepping stone' out of the Wintel world...couldn't quite bring myself to do it, but its a good attempt by Apple to be entry-level friendly. Maybe the next generation or two will be better.