New little Apple

**Xendar** · January 13th, 2005, 10:42 AM

Has anyone seen the new mini Apples? They look pretty cool and are cheap (well they are for Apple). They should run most of the video editing software.

Apple webpage

**jb_617** · January 13th, 2005, 11:09 AM

Apple: A balanced review by a balanced man.

$500? (admittedly at today's exchange rate that's about ?1.67, but you can bet that in the UK they'll want ?500, hacks!) $500 for an Apple? Then I have to buy my own keyboard, mouse, monitor and pretty much everything else that would make this "Generation Lost Direction So Follow The Fad" fancy looking paperweight junk useable.

256Mb of RAM (max 1Gb, pay more money for "Apple" branded memory!) and a 32 Mb graphics card are not going to cut it in the editing world. A maximum of 80Gb hard drive is ok (but you have to pay more for that option, you get a 40Gb one as standard), but once again it's Apples "Dead Out Of The Box" technology that truly makes this a waste of money. For crying out loud, you even need an Apple power cord, not a kettle lead like every other computer in the world.

1.2 or 1.4 GHz processor? Go to hell Steve Jobs, I can't upgrade it when it becomes obselete, which it already is

2 USB ports so that after I plug in my keyboard and mouse I can't use my printer, scanner, camera and so on. Can't use a wireless keyboard and mouse without buying a seperate bluetooth module.

The wireless features are an option (i.e. buy seperately).

Firewire port is good, I'll admit that.

DVD-Writer? Extra money please!

I love this selling point:

Rearrange the Furniture, Anytime
Believe it or not, all this technology weighs just 2.9 pounds. Imagine? a desktop computer you can easily move from your study to the kitchen on a whim. Mac mini won?t break your back when you want to shuffle things around.

Can you say LAPTOP? Dragging my monitor and every other peripheral I've had to pay premium price for because this toy is too small to buy the internal version ( = more money for Apple) around my house is exactly what I want to do.

In conclusion, this product sucks. Doing a quick tot-up of how much money I would spend to make this useable I came in at a nice even thousand pounds. My PC at home which outstrips this kindersuprise looking doorstop in ever department cost me a massive ?500 including the monitor. I built it myself.

The only advantage I can see about this product is that it:

...weighs just 2.9 pounds

So I can fling it through the "Apple Store" window at a fair rate of knots.

Shoot me if I ever buy an Apple product.

-------------------------

iHate Apple.

[ January 13, 2005 07:17 AM: Message edited by: jb. ]

**Xendar** · January 13th, 2005, 11:40 AM

jb I think you're being a little harsh. I know the limitations of Apples in general, and I certainly don't want to start another boring PC vs. Mac debate. But I do think this is a good product. Okay you need your own mouse, keyboard and monitor but don't most people already have these with their current computer. Just use a monitor switcher.

The main point of my original post was to highlight that this is a relatively cheap way to get a mac. Which then allows you to use greate software like Final Cut Pro etc.

**jb_617** · January 13th, 2005, 11:46 AM

Comic ranting aside, my point was that the basic specs of this machine will not be good enough to run FCP. You will need to spend another ?500 to do that. So why not just buy a ?1000 computer to start with? I have no problem with Macs (or Apple, except their marketing department and Bono), use whatever machine suits you.

But, this thing is a ripoff and will not do anything that a filmmaker would find usefull. Good for soccermoms to check their e-mail; bad for jb to edit his film.

For the record, I do not enter the Mac v PC debate. My favourite machine is and always will be, my Atari Falcon. Which I still use. Anything else is for failures.

--------------------------

Amiga? Go to hell.

[ January 13, 2005 12:32 PM: Message edited by: jb. ]

**Xendar** · January 13th, 2005, 12:04 PM

Wow, I always wanted an Atari Falcon. I didn't think they were actually released though.

**jb_617** · January 13th, 2005, 12:09 PM

Oh yes, they were released. I upgraded from my 1020ST to the Falcon back in the mid-nineties. Hands down, the best computer ever made. You cannot beat the built in sound and graphics capabilities. Also I can emulate PC software and surf the net thanks to the awesome foresight of Atari. I can hook it up to the wireless network at home, use Mozilla Firefox to browse the web (most of my latenight drunken posts on here are done from my Falcon in my bedroom -- Explorer is for losers), and pretty much emulate any software I want. Not a lot of memory and the HDD is not so great. But, I don't play video games on it and I do my animation and editing on a PC. But for writing and surfing the net it can't be beat. Also has the nicest keyboard ever!

-------------------------

I love my Atari.

[ January 13, 2005 08:24 AM: Message edited by: jb. ]

**jb_617** · January 13th, 2005, 12:16 PM

Specifications:

CPU:
Motorola 68030 running at 16MHz
Atari BLiTTER running at 16MHz

DSP:
Motorola DSP 56001 running at 32MHz

RAM:
1, 4 and 16Mb (although only 14Mb is available for use)

ROM:
512Kb
128Kb Cartridge Port

Sound:
Dual 16Bit ADC's 50Khz Sampling rate
Dual 16Bit DAC's 50Khz Sampling rate
Yamaha 3 Voice PSG
8 Channel DMA Record/Playback up to 16Bit, 50Khz
Multiplexed Sound Subsystem

Graphics
Super VGA 640 x 480 256 Colour
True Colour 320 x 200 16Bit
True Colour 768 x 480 16Bit
262144 Colour Pallette
Hardware Scrolling

Storage:
Internal 2.5" IDE Hdd 65Mb (optional)
Internal 3.5" High Density Drive

Expansiom:
Internal BUS Expansion Port
Socket for optional Motorola 68882 running at 16MHz

Ports:
LAN Port (Local Area Network)
SCSI II Port
Serial Port
Sound in / out (Headphone style jack)
DSP Port
Printer Port
Cartridge Port
Midi In / Out
Monitor & TV Port
2 x Digital & 2 x anologue Jotstick Ports
Mouse Port
Internal IDE Interface

-------------------------

You know you want it.

[ January 13, 2005 08:18 AM: Message edited by: jb. ]

**miker** · January 13th, 2005, 01:28 PM

Originally posted by jb.:
Comic ranting aside, my point was that the basic specs of this machine will not be good enough to run FCP. You will need to spend another ?500 to do that. So why not just but a ?1000 computer to start with? I have no problem with Macs (or Apple, except their marketing department and Bono), use whatever machine suits you.

But, this thing is a ripoff and will not do anything that a filmmaker would find usefull. Good for soccermoms to check their e-mail; bad for jb to edit his film.

For the record, I do not enter the Mac v PC debate. My favourite machine is and always will be, my Atari Falcon. Which I still use. Anything else is for failures.

--------------------------

Amiga? Go to hell.

[ January 13, 2005 07:47 AM: Message edited by: jb. ]

INCORRECT

I have edited my feature length documentary on a 967MHz PowerBook with a 12" screen. Unless you want layers and layers of cheesy "pro" effects it's highly usable.

Apple is moving towards appliance computing. Do you care about the obsolete CPU in your phone? your VCR? DOS running your engine management?

oh, and it'll cost ?340 for the lower spec'd one in the UK.

-------
It's so obvious when someone hasn't spent any time using OS X

[ January 13, 2005 09:31 AM: Message edited by: miker ]

**jb_617** · January 13th, 2005, 01:40 PM

It's so obvious when someone hasn't spent any time using OS X

For the record, zealot, I use a Mac G4 running OS X EVERY SINGLE DAY THAT I GO TO WORK. We're using one to run an imaging application and I like it. As I said above, I have no problem with Macs. I was ranting against the crappy product that they're advertising. You can't run any applications without a monitor, keyboard, etc. So what use is it? Why should I pay over the odds for a product that doesn't work?

And I know it is possible to cut your film on a shitty spec machine, but having read your "web-slog" and seen some of the rendering times you had, why bother? Spend the money on something more usefull. I don't have the time to sit around for a day monitoring a render on a mac that I can bust out a couple of hours on my purpose built editing machine.

For ?340 you can buy a basic PC with everything you need to get started and upgrade it as you go.

"Appliance" computing is another way of saying "built for one purpose", so if you want to edit, build an editing machine. For the serious editor, get yourself an SGI, they've discontinued the Indy range so you can pick one up fairly cheap, they wail all over everything except my Falcon.

In conclusion, CORRECT.

------------------------

It's so obvious when you're talking to a "I only know one type of computer" person. And yes I know you changed to Mac from a different system.

[ January 13, 2005 09:42 AM: Message edited by: jb. ]

[ January 13, 2005 10:13 AM: Message edited by: jb. ]

**miker** · January 13th, 2005, 01:59 PM

damn. cornered. and no windows.

i have to say, if Apple don't pull something out of their hat soon mobile-CPU wise, i'll be back to Vegas on XP when my laptop is due a 'refresh' in six months or so.

but OS X is like a drug. i find it addictive. sad but true.

Thread: New little Apple

Thread Tools

Display

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions