Even the "server" version of the Mac Mini does not support ECC RAM. Many other important server-grade features, such as IPMI, are also missing. Why would anyone choose this over cheaper, more robust commodity PC server hardware? You can't even plead cosmetics, because it's a freaking server; it goes in a rack somewhere and only a handful of IT staff ever need to see it. The only possible reason I can think of why someone would want to run an OSX server is if they were going to be remote-accessing it to run Xcode for iOS development. What else can you do on OSX that you can't do on Windows or Linux?

You can fit two Minis side-by-side on a 19" rack, and unless the rack is extra-deep, you can only fit two back-to-front, so that makes four. On a 23" rack, you can fit six.

If you put them on their sides, they require a 5U height, and if you wedge them in, you can fit 13 across a 19" rack, which gives you 26 per 5U which is just over 5 per rack unit, but then they are literally touching, and you'd have to be very careful when adding/removing them. So, 24 per 5U is probably the usable limit.

$24K will buy you a lot of computing power in a 4U rack...enough so that you can set up virtual machines that would be as powerful in actual use as the dedicated Minis with their underutilized CPUs.

> Look at the MacMini specs

It's packed like a jack-in-box with poor heat management even in a consumer environment. Pack them together like sardines and you're just making the situation worse. Beef up the components and you're just complicating the already piss-poor heat management.

These things are bad enough as a "home server". Nevermind cramming an absurd number of them into a rack.

The only reason that this is even an issue is the whole "monopoly" Apple has on running MacOS binaries. Otherwise, this would be an obvious candidate for virtualization or running on hardware that's actually designed for the operating environment.

A Mini makes a great media player, but without greatly expanding it's footprint using external drives, it makes fairly crappy media server, as you can only put 2TB of disk inside (assuming that 9.5mm is the max height it can handle).

There are machines that are extremely similar to the capabilities of Mac Mini, only they're cheaper...

Now there would be a reasonable use for these if they used MacOS specific apps perhaps. Or maybe the customer knows how MacOS works and doesn't want to deal with having to learn Linux or Windows. Probably they've already been using a Mac for a server for some time and want to host in an external data center instead.

With the Minis, if you need more capacity of any kind, you just add a mini. And at $999 for the iMac Mini with OS X Server, you get a powerful machine with a small form factor and it produces a lot less heat.

Also, a regular Linux box makes a lot of noise. So the mini would make a great media server - Plex or something.

Is this a new fad or something? Some tweaker rolled into my office wanting to know if we did consulting for setting up a webserver on an apple platform. We only did windows/linux. I questioned him on why he wouldnt just use a linux box for webhosting? He didnt have an answer.

Is this just some hipster fad? Finding a use for old Apple boxes? Or do they offer something that linux/windows hosting doesn't?

Perhaps (and I could be wrong here) another reason to buy this Pixel is that it's got decent hardware but isn't going to be troubled by secure-boot and things like that so you can install your own OS on it if you get tired of chrome-OS.

I have been really disappointed at the lack of development in Google docs over the past year. They have clearly become bored with the project, and one again gone off on another tangent. That is the thing with Google. No focus, other than collecting user data and selling it, which is fine, but they used to give us good services in return.

Actually, it's not just about the software, but the method of delivery of it. Think the App Store/Google Play/Chrome Web Store. With this play, Google is deploying mass-market business applications through a centrally managed repository/marketplace that runs on a portable browser platform. This is Google's vision of the PC, and also the reason why Microsoft has been such a big detractor of Google. If Google can pull this off, Microsoft will go the way of Blackberry.

I guess you might be stating my opinion; but my thought is why? What is the 3d web going to give me that 2d doesn't?

He can, but he would have to be paid what any other person living here would be paid. The reason things are so much less expensive in some other countries is that their laws and regulations are different. A Chinese employer doesn't have to deal with the EPA, OSHA, the Department of Labor, Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, Obamacare/other Department of Health and Human Services mandates, etc. etc. A tariff or trade embargo would be the only way to stop the arbitrage based on the difference in regulations unless the regulations themselves change.

Correct. To a point. Everyone will have the opportunity to have a job if they elect to take it. There will be millions of penny jobs.

It creates other problems, but there is no question minimum wage creates unemployment.

To summarize, you are an idiot."

If we increase the minimum wage again, a bunch of minimum wage workers will lose their jobs again. Just like the last time.