Apple's Mac mini vs. a VIA Mini-ITX System

By jerry
in Back Page News

 Share

Recommended Posts

Grand Master

jerry

Posted
Posted
  Quote
Even though the Mac mini has arrived a couple years after other small-form-factor PCs like the Shuttle XPC line, there's a case for Apple as the great-granddaddy of the small-form-factor PC: The original Macintosh, in addition to its revolutionary use of mouse, was ground-breakingly compact.

The mini's price, starting at $499, make Macs suddenly seem a lot more affordable. But as Loyd Case pointed out in a recent commentary on the Mac mini, looks can be deceiving. The base Mac mini underperforms, because too many corners were cut. At a minimum the Mac mini needs another 256MB of system memory to keep the RAM-hungry Max OS X fed and happy. So the real entry-level price tag for this CPU is closer to $575.

But wait there's more: You'll still need a display, keyboard, and mouse to get this Mac mini fully operational. If you have those lying around, you're all set. But if not, add those to the total acquisition cost. So the real cost of a truly complete system is closer to $800 to get you all the needed components.

We at ExtremeTech decided to look at how much tiny PC can you build for about $800, and pit it against the cute new Mac. We had some choices of similar-size machines, though more will be forthcoming when Pico-BTX motherboards arrive in earnest later this year. Does a Mac mini make sense on your home network or for a less technical friend? Or would a similarly priced and sized Windows machine be a better bet? Let's find out.

0,1311,sz=1&i=92762,00.jpg

Read more to find out who wins

:whistle:

Grand Master

jerry

Posted
  • Author
Posted
  g-n-t said:
i didnt even get past the specs and i already know who wins. the mini. this thing is 50 dollars cheaper and has 256 mb less ram. heres an idea, spend the extra 50 dollars and upgrade the ram! what a stupid article.

585599942[/snapback]

Even without the upgrade Mac mini would have outperformed it, the processor makes all the difference. Plus the article also compares them for noise levels too.

Veteran

g-n-t

Posted
Posted
  jerry said:
Even without the upgrade Mac mini would have outperformed it, the processor makes all the difference. Plus the article also compares them for noise levels too.

585599988[/snapback]

well when half hte article is about noise level, you know its gonna suck. just look at the comments on there from both mac/pc users complaining about how horrible hte review was.

Grand Master

jerry

Posted
  • Author
Posted
  g-n-t said:
Just look at the comments on there from both mac/pc users complaining about how horrible hte review was.

585600001[/snapback]

Mac users are complaining because Extremetech said the Mac mini needed atleast 512MB without giving justifications, PC users are obviously ****ed off at the Mac mini's win.

Comments dont make up a good article, especially when they are from an angry bunch of fanboys. I am not saying that this article is DA BOMB. Its an interesting comparision, just that. I remember at the Mac mini launch, many Neowin members pointed at this company for a better alternative to the Mac mini and the rest who claim that Mac mini is "underpowered".

Enthusiast

AeronPrometheus

Posted
Posted
  Quote
to keep the RAM-hungry Max OS X fed and happy

By comparision, the person who wrote this artical has never run a real world test with Windows XP.

I have 768 Megs of DDR in my VAIO and Windows XP Home runs slower than an iMac G4 at my work running OS X 10.3.8 with only 256 Megs of SDRAM. My mom has a Mac mini with 256 and it runs faster than the iMac at work. I've personally used all three on a day to day basis and the mini wins without any kind of upgrade.

Interesting that this artical makes little sense yet still got the end results more or less acurate. :p

Grand Master

jerry

Posted
  • Author
Posted
  AeronPrometheus said:
I have 768 Megs of DDR in my VAIO and Windows XP Home runs slower than an iMac G4 at my work running OS X 10.3.8 with only 256 Megs of SDRAM. My mom has a Mac mini with 256 and it runs faster than the iMac at work. I've personally used all three on a day to day basis and the mini wins without any kind of upgrade.

585600065[/snapback]

XP runs fine on 256MB of RAM, your VAIO must have too many applications at startup.

Both XP & Panther have a requirement of a minimum 128MB RAM. My personal experience is that XP runs smooth @ 256MB and Panther @ 512MB.

Grand Master

Martog

Posted
Posted
  jerry said:
XP runs fine on 256MB of RAM, your VAIO must have too many applications at startup.

Both XP & Panther have a requirement of a minimum 128MB RAM. My personal experience is that XP runs smooth @ 256MB and Panther @ 512MB.

585600082[/snapback]

I personally wouldn't run Windows, Mac OS X, or Linux without having 512MB on my systems now of days, I am just too spoiled with having a lot of memory and able to do what I need when I need to. I know XP and Linux run fine at 256MB (Linux a lot less really), but, I enjoy the comfort zone of having a larger amount of memory. I had 512MB of RAM on my iMac, and I must say, it was still sluggish at points, I don't know what it was, but my PowerBook was quite a bit faster before I put the 2nd 512MB SO-DIMM in it, and bumped it to 1GB, I find it much smoother than the imac, yet I generally don't use more than 400MB of RAM unless I am playing a game.

Veteran

g-n-t

Posted
Posted
  jerry said:
Mac users are complaining because Extremetech said the Mac mini needed atleast 512MB without giving justifications, PC users are obviously ****ed off at the Mac mini's win.

Comments dont make up a good article, especially when they are from an angry bunch of fanboys. I am not saying that this article is DA BOMB. Its an interesting comparision, just that. I remember at the Mac mini launch, many Neowin members pointed at this company for a better alternative to the Mac mini and the rest who claim that Mac mini is "underpowered".

585600025[/snapback]

i wouldnt buy either one. i dont get what it is with these small computers. you can buy something that is bigger, cheaper and faster. why get these?

that pc is certainly no competition for the mini cause of the crappy cpu. it was not designed as a desktop pc at all, whereas the mini was not designed for multimedia use.

if there was a real market for really small pc's, they would have been made by now. stick a 2.0ghz pentium m in a small case and you have a pc that can eat the mini for breakfast.

however, noone wants one. why get a really small pc that cant be upgraded? most people want a small pc to take to LAN parties nad stuff. thats where shuttle comes in. obviously, they cost a lot more than the mini, but you cant even begin to compare performance. just check out the latest XPC

athlon 64

nforce 4

SATA RAID

PCIe

7.1 surround

card reader

4 USB 2.0

gigabit lan

multiple 3.5" drives

now thats where there is a market, and a real product in the pc world.

Grand Master

jerry

Posted
  • Author
Posted
  g-n-t said:
i wouldnt buy either one. i dont get what it is with these small computers. you can buy something that is bigger, cheaper and faster. why get these?

if there was a real market for really small pc's, they would have been made by now.

585600113[/snapback]

If you wont buy a mini-ITX system doesnt mean there isnt a market for it. Do you think VIA is a fool to be coming out with processors and boards specifically for this market ? Plus, there is large enough user base (with the websites, forums etc.,) to keep this kind of market going.

  g-n-t said:
stick a 2.0ghz pentium m in a small case and you have a pc that can eat the mini for breakfast.

585600113[/snapback]

Pentium M in a mini-ITX board ! :rofl:

  g-n-t said:
however, noone wants one. why get a really small pc that cant be upgraded?

585600113[/snapback]

Again if you wont buy one doesnt mean that there is no market for it. ;)

Veteran

VGVL

Posted
Posted
  bilemke said:
I have built Shuttle XPCs for almost the same if not slightly more costly that would run circles arround both... Why would you consider either?

585600148[/snapback]

Because speed isn't everything, that's why. There's more to a computer than clock cycles. ;)

Veteran

g-n-t

Posted
Posted
  jerry said:
If you wont buy a mini-ITX system doesnt mean there isnt a market for it. Do you think VIA is a fool to be coming out with processors and boards specifically for this market ? Plus, there is large enough user base (with the websites, forums etc.,) to keep this kind of market going.

Pentium M in a mini-ITX board ! :rofl:

Again if you wont buy one doesnt mean that there is no market for it. ;)

585600146[/snapback]

but VIA is targetting hte multimedia market. if you want somehting to use as a desktop, why get the mac mini when you can get a shuttle?

they are both extremely small, once you reach the size of the shuttle, it doesnt really matter anymore how small you go if its being used as a desktop.

well not in THAT mini-ITX board :laugh:

there is no market for it. apple just said there was and everyone believed them :p

Veteran

g-n-t

Posted
Posted

there WAS a market for a cheap, upgradeable headless mac. basically, a powermac mini. however, apple decided to create the imac mini, a product that there was never any demand for. apple just puts pictures of ipods next to the mac mini the same ways car makers put girls on their cars and hoped they would sell it based on looks and nothing else. it worked.

Enthusiast

bilemke

Posted
Posted
  Huezo said:
Because speed isn't everything, that's why. There's more to a computer than clock cycles. ;)

585600156[/snapback]

Like what.. multimedia... Oh yeah.. shutlle was a SN41G2V2 with nvidia soundstorm...

It was quiet.. A mobile athlon xp not really overclocked using "Speed Fan" to have it running as quiet as can be.. Oh yeah.. DVD burner too.. Not just a DVD-rom.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.