Mac Mini

[danieldk]

I have recently (at the beginning of December) bought an Intel Mac Mini. The machine works out of the box with Ubuntu 7.10, including:

* The NIC (Marvell Technology Group Ltd. 88E8053 PCI-E Gigabit Ethernet Controller).
* Wireless card (Atheros Communications, Inc. AR5006EG 802.11 b/g Wireless PCI Express Adapter)
* Audio (Intel Corporation 82801G (ICH7 Family) High Definition Audio Controller (rev 02))
* GPU (VGA compatible controller: Intel Corporation Mobile 945GM/GMS, 943/940GML Express Integrated Graphics Controller).
* The IR remote: forward/next works, volume works after changing the default mixer track to "Front" in the audio preferences.

All in all, a great and compact machine with an Intel Core 2 Duo T5600 CPU (which has VT-X), with low power use (22W idle). The price is quite acceptable too: a bit over 500 Euros (I did get a student discount).

I have also purchased a MacBook, with the new Santa Rosa chipset. But I didn't have the time to install Ubuntu yet. Since not all of its hardware is supported out of the box, this will be more work. Maybe I'll wait a few months, until distributions have out of the box support for the hardware.

[Leon]

Daniel: you may want to post your report on some Mac fora. From what I've gathered the last OS X update has been a disaster.

I concur with your enthusiasm for the Core 2 Duo. My home built system with a basic 1.8 GHz CPU really flies running Linux and Solaris 10 x86. Both make full use of the multi-proc capability. I have the pieces for another Core 2 Duo - 2.2 GHz - ready to be assembled.

[uteck]

I'll have to consider this when it comes time to install a MythTV frontend in the bedroom. The small size would be ideal, except I would need to figure out how to connect it to the telly. I would probably have to get a VGA to s-video converter or does the mini have s-video or composite out?

[danieldk]

Mine has a DVI video output. I used the included connector to use a TFT screen with a VGA connector. You'd need a DVI->S-Video/ DVI->Composite adapter (one with both costs and additional 19 Euro from the Apple store).

[danieldk]

Daniel: you may want to post your report on some Mac fora. From what I've gathered the last OS X update has been a disaster.

Hmmm, maybe :), but I am not sure what kinds of flamewars that would result in ;).

I concur with your enthusiasm for the Core 2 Duo. My home built system with a basic 1.8 GHz CPU really flies running Linux and Solaris 10 x86. Both make full use of the multi-proc capability. I have the pieces for another Core 2 Duo - 2.2 GHz - ready to be assembled.

They rock :). I have three Core 2 Duo machines now, and they are great for virtualization too. It's a lot faster than virtualization on one core (feels near-native).

[fos]

Mini-ITX boards are beginning to show up that support the Intel Core2Duo processors. When the price drops a little I'm going to try building a system. The new boards also support memory beyond 1 Gb. That will be a new experience for me compared to the mundane machines I'm currently running.

fos

[danieldk]

Yeah, memory prices are dropping fast as well :). I recently bought an extra 2GB for my server for ~50 Euro (upgrading it to 3GB). Every now and then I work with large datasets, and having more memory is comfortable. Last week I purchased 2GB memory for my MacBook, and it was around ~25 or 30 Euro.

[lurch]

I am shopping around for a laptop. Does the Core 2 Duo run very hot? Any experience on how it compares to a similar AMD processor?

[Leon]

"Lurch" wrote: "I am shopping around for a laptop. Does the Core 2 Duo run very hot? Any experience on how it compares to a similar AMD processor?"

My Core 2 Duo 1.8 gHz runs very cool. Don't confuse this CPU with the Intel kludge Pentium D. I think Intel finally got it right with the Core 2 Duo.

During a kernel recompile, which took less than half the time needed by my P 4 2.2 gHz system, the heatsink remained cool to the touch throughout.

My system is a desktop, and I do take care to insure adequate airflow, e.g. folding ribbon cables and installing auxiliary muffin fans in balance - one in, one out. If you can, check the CPU's heatsink or heat pipe arrangement in the prospective laptop. If you have access to a demo, play with it long enough to see if there is any noticeable slow down in any programs, since that will indicate how quickly the CPU's thermal sensor is kicking down processor speed.

[danieldk]

My Core 2 Duos (1.6GHz - 2.0 GHz) are very cool as well. They also use very little power.

[lurch]

Thank you Leon and Daniel for the tips. Intel processors seems to be even more prominent than AMD these days in Australian online shops that I frequent.

I have a Sempron 2800+ in my desktop box. It runs cool but then it is inside a midi tower and that has two extra case fans.

[Leon]

AMD has fallen behind for now, at least until their Phenom 3 and 4 core CPU's show up.

If you are looking at a Core 2 Duo motherboard, watch out for the chipset. The newer Intel chipsets no longer support IDE. Some of the mobo's with these chipsets have an autonomous IDE chip for legacy drives. The problem is they need to load a driver before they can access e.g. a DVD or CDROM.

The Core 2 Duo system I built has a VIA chipset. Many Linux aficianados denigrate VIA, but I have never had a problem with a system using a VIA chipset.

[morgoth]

I concur with your enthusiasm for the Core 2 Duo. My home built system with a basic 1.8 GHz CPU really flies running Linux and Solaris 10 x86. Both make full use of the multi-proc capability. I have the pieces for another Core 2 Duo - 2.2 GHz - ready to be assembled.

Why not go with a Quadcore Q6600? For intensive stuff like Photoshop (or Blender/GIMP) it rocks and slaughters all but the very fastest duo cores. Plus, it's overclockable to hell, and that makes it a super fast, super cheap beastie...

I'm about 2 months away from having all the parts for my new beastie (aforementioned Q6600, 8mb Geil RAM, around 1.5 tb of drive space, 2 dvd burners and a very nice Samsung 245T 24" LCD widescreen monitor).

Dave

[Sergio1704]

I don't honestly see the point in buying a Mac, any Mac: far too expensive for what they are, especially if you pay in Euro.
The only one which is probably worth its price is the Mac Pro. But you must upgrade the graphics card and buy (not from Apple) more RAM, (at least) another HD, another DVD Writer...
By the time you are done you are probably €3500 out of pocket.

[danieldk]

The Mac Mini currently costs Euro 499 here in the Netherlands. AFAIAC that's a pretty good price for such compact, low-power hardware.

Though, people might want to stay away from OS X. It's pretty good as a desktop OS, but UNIX-savvy users will compile a lot of stuff with fink or MacPorts anyway ;). (Why not run GNU/Linux then instead? :))

Another consideration is whether you like Apple's policies/politics. I don't like their proprietary approach to a lot of stuff. On the other hand, they seem to make a headway in breaking the desktop monopoly. Which is good for everyone. (I had to run Windows XP for some application last week, it started complaining about three activations that I did, and that I'd have to call Microsoft to get it re-activated. I was about to toss the CD in the bin :p, can't imagine why you would want to treat paying customers so badly.)

[Sergio1704]

Daniel

Both Mac minis are very low specs, and Euro 699 for the more expensive one isn't cheap.
For the same money, or little more, you can build a much better desktop.
I used OS X as almost my sole OS for about a year, but in the end I went back to Linux, I like Linux much better.
As to compiling with Fink or MacPorts I never succeeded, maybe it was my fault.
As to Windows activation I couldn't agree more, of course. It is something that every sane person can only deeply hate.

[danieldk]

Yeah, you can get better specs at the 499 price point, but they are likely to use more power as well. My 3GB RAM, 240GB harddisk Core 2 Duo tower uses more than three times the power of the Mac Mini.

Fink works pretty well for me. But Debian or CentOS with APT and Yum are much more comfortable :).

There are upsides and downsides. OS X has better color management, better graphics stuff, etc. This reflects on applications. And things like suspend and hibernation work good on my MacBook. On this other hand GNU/Linux has better console UTF-8 support (quite important to me), better and more up to date development tools, and you don't pay all the way. And it's free software :).

[danieldk]

I bought my girlfriend a Mini as well. She is very happy with it, and runs OS X. It's a good compromise for her for having UNIX underpinnings, and being comfortable at the same time.

[danieldk]

After much initial hesitation, I am starting to enjoy OS X more and more up till the point that at home I am using it more than GNU/Linux now. A lot of stuff that I don't want to care about are easy:

- Playing DVDs (Xine/Ogle/vlc all seem to crash here fairly often, or work less than ok).
- Purchasing music. iTunes is really comfortable for this. I only purchase iTunes Plus music, which is DRM-free.
- Everything syncs automatically through Me.com. My MacBook, Mini, and iPod Touch all have the same calendar items, contact list, etc.
- Spotlight makes finding files really easy and fast.
- Virtually all media files play without any problems (of course, QuickTime is included, and Microsoft offers their codecs for OS X).
- Decent font rendering.

There are some applications that I really start to enjoy as well:

- TextMate is an excellent text editor with seamless integration of SCMs, etc.
- Xcode is quite a nice IDE, that integrates very well with Qt (using 'qmake' on OS X will give an Xcode project file).
- Instruments (including Shark) are debugging/profiling tools that I still have to see equivalents of. I miss Valgrind on OS X, but Instruments does a lot of other things very well.
- Some other nice applications include: PixelMator (an excellent photo editing app), ExpanDrive (use sftp as a local drive, easy to use, and seems to be resistant against timeouts, etc.), and Adium (a great IM application, based on libpurple).

Additionally, the latest Leopard versions seem to be getting better than the first revisions, which have some nasty bugs (some of which I described in another post).

Of course, there is a downside to this all: it's UNIX, but it's not a free (as in FLOSS) system. Some parts are, but not nearly all of it. So, it's good to be wary of the potential lock-in. Still, I only use free libraries for my own programming work ;).

[fos]

// After much initial hesitation, I am starting to enjoy OS X more and more up till the point that at home I am using it more than GNU/Linux now. A lot of stuff that I don't want to care about are easy:

There is certainly nothing wrong with being practical! I'm glad to see that Apple is improving. If they hadn't held everything so close to the vest they would probably be dominant in the market rather than Microsoft. ?

Everything considered, I'm sure that open source software is one of the major reasons computing in general is where it is today. If it hadn't been for gnu/linux there would probably be MS, Apple, and a dozen or so proprietary *nix system, all costing big $. I can still remember how much it cost to purchase a compiler back in the 70s and 80s! You did get a nice slip box and 3 ring binder, though. ;)

fos

[danieldk]

There is certainly nothing wrong with being practical! I'm glad to see that Apple is improving. If they hadn't held everything so close to the vest they would probably be dominant in the market rather than Microsoft. ?


Maybe, but the years they did allow and endorsed cloning were their worst years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh_clone#Jobs_ends_the_official_program). Another question is of course, is it necessary to be dominant? I think the market share of OS X will grow, maybe even to 20%. That's enough to get support from major ISVs, and have a thriving market.

Everything considered, I'm sure that open source software is one of the major reasons computing in general is where it is today. If it hadn't been for gnu/linux there would probably be MS, Apple, and a dozen or so proprietary *nix system, all costing big $.

I guess there even wouldn't be Apple. Without OS X, it would be probably dead meat (remember that the new iMacs and OS X boosted Apple, the iPod and other projects followed). At the mind/end of the ninetees, Apple management was looking at two replacement for the aging Mac OS, BeOS and NeXTStep. I have tinkered with BeOS back then, and fundamental parts of it were free software. The compiler was gcc, the shell bash, and a load of libraries and utilities were all GNU software. NeXTStep consisted of even more open source software, besides the compiler and userland (mostly BSD), it used the Mach kernel (which was opensource) and a single-server BSD kernel.

The work to create a new operating system is immensive, and since the end of the 80ies, the only way to do such a thing (except when you were IBM or Microsoft) was to leverage GNU and/or BSD.

It would have been a sad world without UNIX, BSD, and GNU ;).

I can still remember how much it cost to purchase a compiler back in the 70s and 80s! You did get a nice slip box and 3 ring binder, though. ;)

:).

[morgoth]

I'm sure that open source software is one of the major reasons computing in general is where it is today. If it hadn't been for gnu/linux there would probably be MS, Apple, and a dozen or so proprietary *nix system, all costing big $.

I'm NOT. Replace open source with microsoft Windows and you'd be right. You'd have to be daft to suggest that open source is the reason why computers are where they are at now imho.

It works like this:

Microsoft GUI (not pretty, but your *average* user prefers it to a command line and will take any GUI, no matter how bad, over a command line, any day).

GUI = games.

games = users

users = more hardware and hardware support

users = more software for that platform

more users = more software, more hardware, and drops in prices due to economic reasons of manufacturing

Before Windows, software was free, and hardware was bloody expensive. Now it's the other way around, but with software prices being nowhere as expensive as hardware was back in those days. Hardware is excellent value for money today - I got 8gb for the new PC for like AU $370. As little as ten years ago, 64mb cost me $300.

Dave

[fos]

I totally agree, it was Microsoft and Intel that turned computers into commodity items. If IBM had known that the "PC" architecture would grow as it did, they never would have left the format "open". They made several attempts to steer it in another more proprietary direction several times without success.

I am suggesting that it was the early shareware system and now the open source movement that has kept people like MS, Adobe, and Apple on their toes.

Just today, I was talking to a friend that now runs a small private primary school. All of his school's computers use Ubuntu. They did a computer drive requesting old computers, recently. He received several dozen. He taught his students to refurb them. When they were complete they got to take them home. They can afford to do a lot more with open source software than they could with commercial stuff. His students have the opportunity to learn things that public schools aren't set up to do using the old paradigm.

I would like to do the same thing with a public school. I can't get to first base. I'm hoping that I will have more credibility when I complete my master's degree.

fos

[danieldk]

I'm NOT. Replace open source with microsoft Windows and you'd be right. You'd have to be daft to suggest that open source is the reason why computers are where they are at now imho.

It works like this:

Microsoft GUI (not pretty, but your *average* user prefers it to a command line and will take any GUI, no matter how bad, over a command line, any day).

It's nonsense. Many people had MSXes, C64 and other machines in their homes, and they were perfectly capable of running (for the time) decent games and GUIs. Microsoft lagged enormously behind the AmigaOS, Atari (GEM), and others. They were even miles behind as late as 1994, compared to e.g. OS/2.

The thing they did differently is playing dirty games to capture the market.

There is nothing revolutionary Microsoft brought to the market, and there were other affordable and excellent machines before Windows 3.1.

[danieldk]

I totally agree, it was Microsoft and Intel that turned computers into commodity items.

Sorry, I respectfully disagree. At least over here in Europe, Commodore (with the C64), Philips (P2000), and others made computers commodity items. They had machines that people could afford, and that could be used for anything from games to productivity work.

In comparison, PCs with DOS were lame, overly expensive machines. They looked ugly, had 4 colors or monochrome, there were only few interesting games, and sucked in nearly every possible way.

[morgoth]

Then why did Amiga and Commodore die then? Closed hardware perhaps? Microsoft isn't clean, we all know that, and it probably had somewhat of a hand in the demise of competitors, but that's business. That's capitalism. Microsoft provided what the people wanted, and it was *smart* enough to start using EULAs and tieing in DOS with the OEM manufacturers (both hardware & software). It *outsmarted* the competitors, early on in the game. I call that foresight. It seems that tall poppy syndrome is alive and well today and people like to begrudge the hard work that they have done for the industry. True, Microsoft Windows has been a dog at times, and still has issues, but other operating systems are no better.

Dave

[Leon]

Quoth Morgoth:
"Then why did Amiga and Commodore die then? "

I think the US public looked at Commodore 64, Amiga, et al as toys or nerdware.
When IBM brought a PC, people associated the home computer with solid IBM typewriters and other "serious" business hardware.

[morgoth]

Ok, so that's image and marketing. Could we agree that Commodore and Amiga's "image" was perhaps poor? If you don't successfully promote and market a product, it'll die, no matter how good it is (cases in point - BEOS and OS2/Warp 4, Betamax).

Dave

[Leon]

Quoth Morgoth:

"Ok, so that's image and marketing. Could we agree that Commodore and Amiga's "image" was perhaps poor? If you don't successfully promote and market a product, it'll die, no matter how good it is (cases in point - BEOS and OS2/Warp 4, Betamax)."

Don't forget Atari; awesome computer power compared to the competition.

I think it was more of a lack of image. Until the PC arived, computers were abstractions to the general public. People saw kids sitting in front of a little TV with a little keyboard and concluded: video game.

The early PC had nothing to attract a following: little RAM, an eye-straining monochrome display, and a handful of applications. Then there was the little problem of underpowered and unreliable power supplies.
And who can forget DOS 1.0?

Also, the early Apple's were building up some public recognition of the potential of home computers, but they carried the "nerd" stigma. I'm convinced the only thing that carried the primordial PC out of the ice ages was the IBM cachet. I think the secret to the PC's ultimate success was one app: the spreadsheet.

The other factor was the PC clone. I would say that Compaq probably did more to establish the PC than all of IBM's marketing.

[morgoth]

mmm possibly. I do believe several of the architecture standards were either developed by IBM, or with input from IBM.

There's little doubt that many people saw computers as nerd stuff that had no use, other than for games.

I'm pretty sure that Commodores, Amigas and Ataris all had little RAM as well, probably as much as the primitive PCs of the day. Manufacturing costs were high, no matter who sold the computers.

Apple's big turn off was probably price. Closed system, didn't run most of the software of the day, and high prices. It's a wonder Apple didn't die in the early days to be honest. Apple still amazes me even today, but then, fanatical cults do attract all sorts of nuts!

I do agree that it was probably spreadsheets (and games) that drove the early computer industry. Once people realised that computers could be used for games, bang, every teenage boy had to have one.

Dave

[Leon]

Quoth Morgoth:
"Apple's big turn off was probably price. Closed system, didn't run most of the software of the day, and high prices. It's a wonder Apple didn't die in the early days to be honest. Apple still amazes me even today, but then, fanatical cults do attract all sorts of nuts!"

There was at least one lower-priced Apple clone - Franklin - in the early Apple 128 days. Actually, the Apple had a lot of software, much more than for the nascent PC. And then came the spawn of LISA: the Mac. A brilliant move on Apple's part. Here is this cute little, and silent, desktop gizmo that can do even more than that space-hogging PC, and you don't have to memorize arcane escape codes or hunt function keys; the Mac had a point and click gizmo. By then the superiority of the Apple's Motorola RISC CPU's was more evident, and as RAM costs dropped, Mac's became the graphic layout tool of every newspaper and publisher. Then came the Mac clones - Motorola, UMAX - that were less expensive and in some respects better than their progenitor. But Steve returned to Apple and immediately killed off the clones. He knew that by then the Apple users were indeed "fanatical cults," as you very well put it, so he could sell pricey monopolistic systems to a congregation of true believers. In this regard Apple and Jobs achieved what IBM, Gates, et al could only dream about, a self-captive audience.

But the PC had Visicalc, and a x86 version of CP/M Wordstar became available. If you could configure your PC's serial port to "handshake" one of the early printers, you could actually do your business work with it. I think a lot of people abandoned PC's because the software was clunky, slow, and buggy. But others persisted; cognitive dissonance probably saved the early PC from a well deserved failure.