[GamerSim]

JEDIGEG, on 10 April 2012 - 03:33 PM, said:

As long as I can do everything I want with XP , why should I ?

I just thought you should know that you probably should get a computer with Windows 7 on it because a Windows 7 computer is much faster, has many more easy to use features and is much more secure and is fast and efficient and won't take you long to set it up the way you like it. Also if you don't then you could probably get some major viruses(After Microsoft stops its support on XP) and it will most likely cost you just as much as buying a new computer or even more.

[kazvin]

waldojim, on 11 April 2012 - 02:04 AM, said:

kazvin, on 10 April 2012 - 03:15 PM, said:

Before I clicked on this article, I knew someone had to interject something about OSX or Linux.

OSX will never become a dominant OS, because Macs are very expensive (Mac Mini starting at $599, Macbooks starting at $999, iMac starting at $1199, and Mac Pro starting at $2499). I can build a PC, upgrade components, and it will kill each Mac model, excluding the Macbooks. Here's a quick comparison, since the Mac Mini is considered a desktop/Media computer.

Mac Mini (no Upgrades): OSX Lion, Intel Core i5-2415M, 2GB Memory, Hard Drive 500GB 5400RPM, Intel HD Graphics 3000 (No Superdrive, Mouse, keyboard) - $599
My Build: Windows 7 64-bit, Intel Core I5-2405S, Biostar TH61 Mini ITX Motherboard, G.Skill 2GB Memory, Western Digital 500GB 5400PRM, Intel HD Graphics 3000, IN WIN BP655.200BL w/220W PSU Case (No DVD Drive, Mouse, keyboard) - $560 ($465 w/ Intel Core i3-2100)

Mac Mini (w/ all upgrades): OSX Lion, Intel Core i7-2635QM, 8GB Memory, 256GB SSD, AMD Radeon HD 6630M, Superdrive, Mouse and keyboard - $1916
My Build: Windows 7 64-bit, Intel Core i7-2600S, Intel BOXDH67CFB3 Mini ITX Motherboard, G.Skill 8GB Memory, Crucial M4 256GB SSD, EVGA GeForce GTX 550, DVD drive, Silverstone Sugo w/450W PSU Case, Mouse and keyboard - $1200

I could go on and on comparing each Mac model.....

Tell me why you think Linux will be a mainstream OS. They aren't even close.

You COULD go on, but then you would just keep sounding like an idiot.

FIRST: BEFORE YOU READ ON, GET YOUR PANTIES IN A BUNCH, AND CLICK THAT REPLY BUTTON: CHECK MY SIG.

Now then: Case number one. Mac mini with no upgrades VS your desktop.
An elegant 7.7" Square at 1.4" tall, weighing less than 3lbs and consuming less than 85watts VS your 450watt, 20lb monster that would be absolutely hideous sitting next to my TV. Not to mention how badly it would clash with my Denon Receiver, or my Akai turntable. Different machines have different usage. You MIGHT want to consider learning the differences between market goals when posting.

Mac Mini fully upgraded VS your enormous, hideous desktop... does anything else actually need said? Not really... Though I might point out that the Mini with all the options does have AMD 6630 graphics, which works out quite nicely at 1080P with ALL the current games. Yes, I have already tested this on a very similar Viao laptop (i7 2620 with that AMD 6630).

Sorry dude, but you have done nothing to help your own cause... whatever that may be.

I did check your SIG and I guess you have a lot of time to make troll comments. By the way, thanks for the complement for calling me an idiot. It's easy to call people names behind a computer. I guess my 20 years of military service protected your rights to Freedom of Speech/Expression.

Perhaps you missed my point. The average computer consumer cannot afford an Apple Mac when Windows PCs are more affordable. Furthermore, my reply to CaniblCat comment was about "OSX becoming dominant when XP retires", which I pointed out that Macs were expensive. Let me simplify it for you - consumers need to buy more Macs than Windows PCs or Windows OS to gain dominance, which brings me back to the average consumer cannot afford an Mac. I didn't even count the government agencies and the corporate world using Windows and I doubt they're going to switch to OSX when XP retires.

I own a Mac Mini (2009) and 2 Macbooks (2006). I can afford to purchase Apple products. Also, I've been building computers for a long time as a hobby. I use OSX and Windows at home, and I use Windows and Linux at work. Affordability will trump an elegant computer.

Lets dissect your reply:

1. I said it was a quick comparison. It was never about size or looks. It's was about cost, but I'll play your game.
2. Your power supply consumption is wrong for both. Those are the maximum outputs. The power consumption is different for sleep, idle, and performing tasks. I could have compared it with hundreds of different cases and power supplies (lookup PicoPSU). Please quit embarrassing yourself.
3. You wrote, "You MIGHT want to consider learning the differences between market goals when posting". I said the Mac Mini is considered a desktop/media computer. I know you can use it as a standalone HTPC. I use my Mac Mini as a primary desktop computer with two 22" monitors. I guess you're marketing genius, because you could have purchased an AppleTV ($99) or Roku 2($79) to play 1080p videos. I have a Roku 2 XD with Plex in my bedroom and streaming videos from my Mac Mini Plex Media server with videos stored on my 8TB NAS.
4. Lets play your game. I built a HTPC for my family room to play 1080p and it sits on top of my A/V equipment for $477 with Windows 7 and a SSD. I could have installed Linux and XBMC to save $99 and decreasing the cost to $378. Also, I could have swapped the SSD for a WD 500GB 5400RPM hard drive to save $30 and now the cost would have been $447 (Windows)or $348 (Linux). Here's the parts list: ASUS AT5IONT-I motherboard - $180; OCZ Agility 2 50GB SSD-$108; G.Skill 4GB memory-$24; Habey EMC-600B case w/65w power supply-$66; Windows 7 Home Premium 64bit-$99. Guess what? The dimensions are 9.0" x 8.0" x 2.25" with all aluminum case. My system runs about 25 watts.
5. Lets talk about the Mac Mini fully upgraded vs my enormous desktop as you put it. Again, refer to #1. The AMD Radeon HD 6630M vs nVidia GeForce GTX 550 - laughable! Apple's SSD 256GB ($600 upgrade) vs Crucial M4 256GB ($300) - ridiculous!
6. You wrote, "Sorry dude, but you have done nothing to help your own cause... whatever that may be." You're confused. I merely pointed out the cost factor. Is OSX the dominant OS now? No. Will it be dominant after XP retires? No. It all boils down to cost.

This post has been edited by kazvin: 11 April 2012 - 06:41 PM

[karthiq]

Assuming the world will still be existing then:)

[hellopoco]

ha

[waldojim]

kazvin, on 11 April 2012 - 06:26 PM, said:

I did check your SIG and I guess you have a lot of time to make troll comments. By the way, thanks for the complement for calling me an idiot. It's easy to call people names behind a computer. I guess my 20 years of military service protected your rights to Freedom of Speech/Expression.

Perhaps you missed my point. The average computer consumer cannot afford an Apple Mac when Windows PCs are more affordable. Furthermore, my reply to CaniblCat comment was about "OSX becoming dominant when XP retires", which I pointed out that Macs were expensive. Let me simplify it for you - consumers need to buy more Macs than Windows PCs or Windows OS to gain dominance, which brings me back to the average consumer cannot afford an Mac. I didn't even count the government agencies and the corporate world using Windows and I doubt they're going to switch to OSX when XP retires.

I own a Mac Mini (2009) and 2 Macbooks (2006). I can afford to purchase Apple products. Also, I've been building computers for a long time as a hobby. I use OSX and Windows at home, and I use Windows and Linux at work. Affordability will trump an elegant computer.

Lets dissect your reply:

1. I said it was a quick comparison. It was never about size or looks. It's was about cost, but I'll play your game.
2. Your power supply consumption is wrong for both. Those are the maximum outputs. The power consumption is different for sleep, idle, and performing tasks. I could have compared it with hundreds of different cases and power supplies (lookup PicoPSU). Please quit embarrassing yourself.
3. You wrote, "You MIGHT want to consider learning the differences between market goals when posting". I said the Mac Mini is considered a desktop/media computer. I know you can use it as a standalone HTPC. I use my Mac Mini as a primary desktop computer with two 22" monitors. I guess you're marketing genius, because you could have purchased an AppleTV ($99) or Roku 2($79) to play 1080p videos. I have a Roku 2 XD with Plex in my bedroom and streaming videos from my Mac Mini Plex Media server with videos stored on my 8TB NAS.
4. Lets play your game. I built a HTPC for my family room to play 1080p and it sits on top of my A/V equipment for $477 with Windows 7 and a SSD. I could have installed Linux and XBMC to save $99 and decreasing the cost to $378. Also, I could have swapped the SSD for a WD 500GB 5400RPM hard drive to save $30 and now the cost would have been $447 (Windows)or $348 (Linux). Here's the parts list: ASUS AT5IONT-I motherboard - $180; OCZ Agility 2 50GB SSD-$108; G.Skill 4GB memory-$24; Habey EMC-600B case w/65w power supply-$66; Windows 7 Home Premium 64bit-$99. Guess what? The dimensions are 9.0" x 8.0" x 2.25" with all aluminum case. My system runs about 25 watts.
5. Lets talk about the Mac Mini fully upgraded vs my enormous desktop as you put it. Again, refer to #1. The AMD Radeon HD 6630M vs nVidia GeForce GTX 550 - laughable! Apple's SSD 256GB ($600 upgrade) vs Crucial M4 256GB ($300) - ridiculous!
6. You wrote, "Sorry dude, but you have done nothing to help your own cause... whatever that may be." You're confused. I merely pointed out the cost factor. Is OSX the dominant OS now? No. Will it be dominant after XP retires? No. It all boils down to cost.

WOAH - back up.

This was your stupid little game. You decided to make the insane comparison between an elegant little machine targeting one audience, and comparing it against a monster targeted at a completely different audience. Much like the wonderful people comparing their 6.2L Diesel 3/4ton truck against a wanna be sports car (IE: Honda S2000, Mazda Miata, etc). That was entirely your game. Not mine. I was pointing out what a stupid troll YOU were being.

So on to your idea of a reply:
1. LOOKS are the number one factor between an Apple and a PC. Not just the machine, but the OS as well. Dismiss that, and you dismiss 90% of what makes Apple different, and you dismiss their entire target audience. Amazing how this part works. Dimiss their entire audience, and sure your machine looks great. But how great does that thing look when the audience doesn't care about the spec sheet?
2.Actually, if you go look at what the APPLE spec page says, it specifically lists an 85 watt CONSUMPTION. I will do you a favor and give you a link so you can look it up yourself. Though, I am sure a know-it-all like yourself wouldn't bother. As for the information for your machine. I went with the information you listed, and prayed you weren't dumb enough to actually draw the full load from the power supply. Sorry, guess I shouldn't have given you the benefit of the doubt there. Beyond that, it is very difficult to predict the actual consumption of your machine apart from comparing to my own. With that thought, a similar machine of mine sits at about 310 watts under a full load (from the wall). That is still about 3.5 times more power draw than a mini for about a 2x gain in performance.
3.Ok, not sure what you are getting at here... you have a problem with something I own? Something to which you obviously don't understand how it is being used. And you are making assumptions that some Roku box does everything I need? Good job. Troll harder next time, because this one didn't even make enough sense to be effective.
4. Once more, this is your game, not mine. Secondly, good for you. I don't care about the substandard parts you use though. 9x8x2.25? Sounds like it is a good deal larger than a mini. It is also quite the hideous looking thing. Wouldn't look out of place in my truck though. And you really want to bring ATOM based boards into the discussion? REALLY?! Atom uses tech that PREDATES the PENTIUM-MMX. Intel couldn't figure out how to use this wonderful thing called OUT-OF-ORDER execution and create a low power chip. Do you know what the core difference is between the PENTIUM and a 486 is? OoO execution! Yes, your little sub-par media thingy is some great competition for an i5/i7... wow, and you called me the troll. That is a barrel of laughs.
5. The point was that the 6630 CAN do the job. Your 550ti is absolutely nothing to be proud of, I would stop bragging at this point. I have an 8800GT that performs as well. Shoot, the machine it ran in (built 5 years ago... and it did have 2 8800GTs) would probably still toast that garbage you are rocking today. You don't have a gamers card. You have a mainstream card meant to please the masses. Just as the 6630 is meant to please the people who buy a mini.
6. Again, no you didn't. OK, what did you prove? That you have no point of comparison to adequately prove that Apple is overpriced. That is all. When you stop back by with a TINY machine that is built well, with an i5 or better processor, doesn't looking like it belongs in the garage, and has a video card topping the 6630, then you might have a point. Though, crap like this, isn't going to help your case. $700 for that, and you get a plastic fantastic with 8 million ports on it (because more ports is what we all need - even VGA!) and Intel IGP! Yep, that Mini is looking might expensive now... Oh... wait.
HERE WE GO! How about a version with an Nvidia 540m!? That performs right on par with the 6630, so it should work to prove your point! Yep, it is $1189 without a hard drive, or ram. How much was a complete mini again? I would love to say that ASRock was charging more for a faster processor, but they aren't. Or that ASRock was selling a faster video card, but they aren't. It is just hard to compete with Apple on Apples terms. As soon as you understand that, you can move on living a happy life. As I have. Nothing Apple in my home (yet), and it doesn't bother me. I see what they are selling, understand their market, and understand that I AM NOT THEIR TARGET AUDIENCE.

[ronin7752]

mishuk3, on 10 April 2012 - 06:39 AM, said:

Good luck with that. Just be ready for onslaught of viruses and zero day exploits.

Some people believe everything M$ tells them, are absolutely certain that they are 100% honest, and are convinced that M$ would never do anything to exploit end-users, or force them to buy needless/useless updates. Like this guy, and everyone who agrees with him. (Sheesh) ...And M$ *loves* their neverending supply of *money*!

[RickDobbelmannqbtt]

ronin7752, on 12 April 2012 - 01:27 PM, said:

mishuk3, on 10 April 2012 - 06:39 AM, said:

Good luck with that. Just be ready for onslaught of viruses and zero day exploits.

Some people believe everything M$ tells them, are absolutely certain that they are 100% honest, and are convinced that M$ would never do anything to exploit end-users, or force them to buy needless/useless updates. Like this guy, and everyone who agrees with him. (Sheesh) ...And M$ *loves* their neverending supply of *money*!

They should have ended support for XP on August 24, 2001.

Thanks Microcrap for the years of frusteration, viruses, and blue screens of deaths. I am sure we will see more of this in the future..

[YellowEagle]

ronin7752, on 12 April 2012 - 01:27 PM, said:

mishuk3, on 10 April 2012 - 06:39 AM, said:

Good luck with that. Just be ready for onslaught of viruses and zero day exploits.

Some people believe everything M$ tells them, are absolutely certain that they are 100% honest, and are convinced that M$ would never do anything to exploit end-users, or force them to buy needless/useless updates. Like this guy, and everyone who agrees with him. (Sheesh) ...And M$ *loves* their neverending supply of *money*!

So you buy your updates? mine are free. (And by the way get rid of the Malware Writers and the Criminals and we won't even need Updates on any Operating system for secruity) And so does any corporation or any business that wants to do business as far as money goes. Money is the Grease that keeps a Business moving forward. I can agree on the fact that Vista was a Bust and people should have been reimbursed that wanted to send the product back. Or at the least have been given, a copy of Windows 7 on the same level of the version of Vista that they had bought. But that's old history now. You didn't have to buy the Product. There are other operating systems out there. What ever you buy is your choice one else's. If your Job uses Microsoft you have to just use it you didn't by the product your job did.

[kazvin]

waldojim, on 12 April 2012 - 01:29 AM, said:

WOAH - back up.

This was your stupid little game. You decided to make the insane comparison between an elegant little machine targeting one audience, and comparing it against a monster targeted at a completely different audience. Much like the wonderful people comparing their 6.2L Diesel 3/4ton truck against a wanna be sports car (IE: Honda S2000, Mazda Miata, etc). That was entirely your game. Not mine. I was pointing out what a stupid troll YOU were being.

So on to your idea of a reply:
1. LOOKS are the number one factor between an Apple and a PC. Not just the machine, but the OS as well. Dismiss that, and you dismiss 90% of what makes Apple different, and you dismiss their entire target audience. Amazing how this part works. Dimiss their entire audience, and sure your machine looks great. But how great does that thing look when the audience doesn't care about the spec sheet?
2.Actually, if you go look at what the APPLE spec page says, it specifically lists an 85 watt CONSUMPTION. I will do you a favor and give you a link so you can look it up yourself. Though, I am sure a know-it-all like yourself wouldn't bother. As for the information for your machine. I went with the information you listed, and prayed you weren't dumb enough to actually draw the full load from the power supply. Sorry, guess I shouldn't have given you the benefit of the doubt there. Beyond that, it is very difficult to predict the actual consumption of your machine apart from comparing to my own. With that thought, a similar machine of mine sits at about 310 watts under a full load (from the wall). That is still about 3.5 times more power draw than a mini for about a 2x gain in performance.
3.Ok, not sure what you are getting at here... you have a problem with something I own? Something to which you obviously don't understand how it is being used. And you are making assumptions that some Roku box does everything I need? Good job. Troll harder next time, because this one didn't even make enough sense to be effective.
4. Once more, this is your game, not mine. Secondly, good for you. I don't care about the substandard parts you use though. 9x8x2.25? Sounds like it is a good deal larger than a mini. It is also quite the hideous looking thing. Wouldn't look out of place in my truck though. And you really want to bring ATOM based boards into the discussion? REALLY?! Atom uses tech that PREDATES the PENTIUM-MMX. Intel couldn't figure out how to use this wonderful thing called OUT-OF-ORDER execution and create a low power chip. Do you know what the core difference is between the PENTIUM and a 486 is? OoO execution! Yes, your little sub-par media thingy is some great competition for an i5/i7... wow, and you called me the troll. That is a barrel of laughs.
5. The point was that the 6630 CAN do the job. Your 550ti is absolutely nothing to be proud of, I would stop bragging at this point. I have an 8800GT that performs as well. Shoot, the machine it ran in (built 5 years ago... and it did have 2 8800GTs) would probably still toast that garbage you are rocking today. You don't have a gamers card. You have a mainstream card meant to please the masses. Just as the 6630 is meant to please the people who buy a mini.
6. Again, no you didn't. OK, what did you prove? That you have no point of comparison to adequately prove that Apple is overpriced. That is all. When you stop back by with a TINY machine that is built well, with an i5 or better processor, doesn't looking like it belongs in the garage, and has a video card topping the 6630, then you might have a point. Though, crap like this, isn't going to help your case. $700 for that, and you get a plastic fantastic with 8 million ports on it (because more ports is what we all need - even VGA!) and Intel IGP! Yep, that Mini is looking might expensive now... Oh... wait.
HERE WE GO! How about a version with an Nvidia 540m!? That performs right on par with the 6630, so it should work to prove your point! Yep, it is $1189 without a hard drive, or ram. How much was a complete mini again? I would love to say that ASRock was charging more for a faster processor, but they aren't. Or that ASRock was selling a faster video card, but they aren't. It is just hard to compete with Apple on Apples terms. As soon as you understand that, you can move on living a happy life. As I have. Nothing Apple in my home (yet), and it doesn't bother me. I see what they are selling, understand their market, and understand that I AM NOT THEIR TARGET AUDIENCE.

First, lets clarify who is the troll. I've been a member since April 2007 with 7 posts. You have been a member since October 2008 with 11,762 posts. You win - you're the troll!

You're the type of person who sits behind his computer and call someone an idiot, stupid, dumb, and etc. You're what "Internet Tough Guy". You don't want to understand someone's point of view besides reading your own irrelevant comments. In addition, you're what same guy who thinks he knows it all, proved by your 11,762 posts.

I commented about building a Windows computer for less than a Mac Mini.Whether you like it or not, it's a fact! Then you came along spouting from your pie-hole to your keyboard about some irrelevant stuff.

I never said the Macs were a bad thing. The average computer consumer cannot afford a Mac verses an affordable Windows computer. It's a fact. If it wasn't true, then OSX would be the dominant OS.

Your own writing proved my point. You said,"You decided to make the insane comparison between an elegant little machine targeting one audience, and comparing it against a monster targeted at a completely different audience". Regardless of the audience, the monster audience will buy more Windows computers than one audience buying a Mac Mini. How's OSX going to become the dominant OS? Do you work for Apple's marketing department? Because you seem to know there's only one audience for the Mac Mini. I can name three - People starting to use Mac, people using it as a desktop, and people using it as a media center. I use mine as a full-time desktop and a part-time Plex Media server. Oh, do you own a Mac Mini?

You wrote, "LOOKS are the number one factor between an Apple and a PC. Not just the machine, but the OS as well. Dismiss that, and you dismiss 90% of what makes Apple different, and you dismiss their entire target audience. Amazing how this part works". Like I said it before, affordability will trump looks.

Power Supplies - you're still wrong about the Mac Mini 85w consumption. It's the maximum continuous power at max load. It idles at 12.97w, Sleeps at 1.16w, Shut-Off at 0.021w. You questioned the power supply in my Intel Atom HTPC. Your inexperience shines through. Why would I try to run a 65w power supply at max load when I just watching videos from it.

Here's another useless and fanboish comment, "the audience doesn't care about the spec sheet?" Man, you know a lot about Apple's audience. Why does Apple let you select different processors, hard drives, SSDs, graphics, and memory? Becuase people care about specs. Lets test your comment. I want buy a Mac Mini and do some light to medium gaming. I go online to buy one. Do I choose the Mac Mini for $599 or $799? Wait, I need to look at the specs. Debunked!

Yet another useless and fanboish comment, "I don't care about the substandard parts you use though". Apparently, you don't understand or won't understand the purpose of the Atom base Mini-ITX motherboard. These boards are commonly used in DIY HTPC playing 1080p, NAS servers, and firewalls. Your wiki search about the Intel Atom and trying to sound smart doesn't stop people from buying these motherboards. I have a NAS server with a SuperMicro Atom Mini-ITX board and it's been running for 2 years 24/7 without a problem as well as my HTPC.

I won't even address the other crap you wrote.

This post has been edited by kazvin: 12 April 2012 - 05:37 PM

[waldojim]

kazvin, on 12 April 2012 - 05:25 PM, said:

First, lets clarify who is the troll. I've been a member since April 2007 with 7 posts. You have been a member since October 2008 with 11,762 posts. You win - you're the troll!

Do you need me to point you to a dictionary? I can. ACTIVE member, and TROLL are two different things. Troll. One of us also spends a considerable amount of time helping other members in the other portion of the forums. I take it you never considered this?

Quote

You're the type of person who sits behind his computer and call someone an idiot, stupid, dumb, and etc. You're what "Internet Tough Guy". You don't want to understand someone's point of view besides reading your own irrelevant comments. In addition, you're what same guy who thinks he knows it all, proved by your 11,762 posts.

I commented about building a Windows computer for less than a Mac Mini.Whether you like it or not, it's a fact! Then you came along spouting from your pie-hole to your keyboard about some irrelevant stuff.

No, you are trying to prove that somehow Apple is overpriced. Go read your own post leading up to all this. My point, was that you refused to consider the MARKET. The MARKET is not over a 50lb gaming machine. The MARKET is for a 2lb media box, that is both elegant and powerful. This once again, since you missed that point, is no different than you commenting on how a $30,000 sports car is overpriced sitting next to your 20,000 V8 truck. Yes, you might have more power. Yes your truck may be more "useful". No they are not the same audience, and looking at a piece of paper detailing specs isn't going to cover it.

Quote

I never said the Macs were a bad thing. The average computer consumer cannot afford a Mac verses an affordable Windows computer. It's a fact. If it wasn't true, then OSX would be the dominant OS.

Your own writing proved my point. You said,"You decided to make the insane comparison between an elegant little machine targeting one audience, and comparing it against a monster targeted at a completely different audience". Regardless of the audience, the monster audience will buy more Windows computers than one audience buying a Mac Mini. How's OSX going to become the dominant OS? Do you work for Apple's marketing department? Because you seem to know there's only one audience for the Mac Mini. I can name three - People starting to use Mac, people using it as a desktop, and people using it as a media center. I use mine as a full-time desktop and a part-time Plex Media server. Oh, do you own a Mac Mini?

Now, this is a good point. There is no good answer to this. The questions of course are simple though: How many people are being influenced by Windows owners? How many of them never considered the $599 mini? $599 is actually fairly reasonable as far as pre-built machines go. How many dismissed it because they KNOW Windows?

As for the rest of your thoughts trying to dismiss my statements because I don't work for Apple... good try. But watching how they market an item, and seeing the item itself, and its capabilities will tell you a lot. You have to pay attention though.

Quote

You wrote, "LOOKS are the number one factor between an Apple and a PC. Not just the machine, but the OS as well. Dismiss that, and you dismiss 90% of what makes Apple different, and you dismiss their entire target audience. Amazing how this part works". Like I said it before, affordability will trump looks.

Power Supplies - you're still wrong about the Mac Mini 85w consumption. It's the maximum continuous power at max load. It idles at 12.97w, Sleeps at 1.16w, Shut-Off at 0.021w. You questioned the power supply in my Intel Atom HTPC. Your inexperience shines through. Why would I try to run a 65w power supply at max load when I just watching videos from it.

I mention MAX power based on the information I have on hand. And no, I never once commented on the power consumed by your ATOM. Only the weak little gaming machine you brought up.

Quote

Here's another useless and fanboish comment, "the audience doesn't care about the spec sheet?" Man, you know a lot about Apple's audience. Why does Apple let you select different processors, hard drives, SSDs, graphics, and memory? Becuase people care about specs. Lets test your comment. I want buy a Mac Mini and do some light to medium gaming. I go online to buy one. Do I choose the Mac Mini for $599 or $799? Wait, I need to look at the specs. Debunked!

Yet another useless and fanboish comment, "I don't care about the substandard parts you use though". Apparently, you don't understand or won't understand the purpose of the Atom base Mini-ITX motherboard. These boards are commonly used in DIY HTPC playing 1080p, NAS servers, and firewalls. Your wiki search about the Intel Atom and trying to sound smart doesn't stop people from buying these motherboards. I have a NAS server with a SuperMicro Atom Mini-ITX board and it's been running for 2 years 24/7 without a problem as well as my HTPC.

I won't even address the other crap you wrote.

Foolish? Think about what you say once in a while. If you want to game (realistically), you buy a PC. Not a mac. Beyond that, the differences are there for those who KNOW WHAT THEY NEED, AND need more than the average person. More often than not, and yes I used to work in retail, so I know this firsthand, the customer will simply walk in the store and say something like "I want something that can play this new game, Oblivion". Then what do YOU do as a sales person? Sell them the machine that does what they want. Wow. That was hard.

Actually, no, there was no wiki search here. This was a good deal of research that was done before buying a Lenovo X100e. If you look into the difference between an AMD Athlon Neo 1.6Ghz chip, and the Intel Atom, you would understand why I went with a Lenovo. Because of the core design, the AMD Neo can run circles around even a dual core Atom. I was absolutely stunned when I dug deeper and found that Intel was SO focused on reducing the CPU power consumption they killed everything that gave the current CPU's the raw power they have. Instead hoping that a massively deep pipeline would be enough to bump up the raw speed. While obviously not considering how much a stalled pipeline hurts performance. All that, and they stuck a 1.5watt processor with (initially) a 20Watt chipset. What was the point? In the end, AMD did the exact opposite. They managed to keep ALL current technology, a proper pipeline and thus a modern chip with a modern chipset and reduced the TOTAL draw down to 25 watts. Did they hit Atom levels? Nope. But I'll be damned if I didn't see 6 hours of battery life out of my machine. It absolutely smoked my wifes little Acer One, both in runtime, and in performance. One of us could even play games! There are many limitations in the Atom processor. That you weren't willing to do research on this, is not my problem. That you have to resort to "wiki search" comments make me laugh. My HTPC is a quad core AMD with 4GB of ram, and a 550Ti. It also runs a raid array, stripped with parity, and houses my content server. It does on the fly transcoding so I can watch TV on my phone. It is also a file server. It also houses my Blu-Ray backup and transcoding functions. Actually, about 80% of the traffic on my network, are files/movies/TV shows that are being handled exclusively by it. It gets restarted for updates only. It has been running... You know, I don't know how long it has been running now. A couple years at least. Does it sip power? Meh, about 80 watts idle. And no, I don't care. But when I want a 3d movie, it serves it up without question, while still handling its other roles. If I want to play WoW, it does so without skipping a beat. The only thing it doesn't like is Fallout, and that is a strange AMD issue I have yet to understand.... it affects ALL my AMD machines, and none of my Intel. Still, if that is the only thing it doesn't do, I think I can live with that.

As for the rest that you wouldn't address... I already understand. When push comes to shove, you have no answer.

When told to compare on equal footing, you can't.

[JLankford]

CaniblCat, on 10 April 2012 - 05:20 AM, said:

2 years until Microsoft market share plummets unless they manage to create an OS that is truly superior to any other.

2 years until OSX becomes the dominant OS.

2 years to Linux becomes a mainstream OS.

Sounds like a win/win (no pun intended) situation for consumers to me.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but Windows 7 is already a far superior OS than Windows XP.

[kazvin]

CaniblCat, on 10 April 2012 - 05:20 AM, said:

2 years until Microsoft market share plummets unless they manage to create an OS that is truly superior to any other.

2 years until OSX becomes the dominant OS.

2 years to Linux becomes a mainstream OS.

Sounds like a win/win (no pun intended) situation for consumers to me.

kazvin, on 10 April 2012 - 03:15 PM, said:

Before I clicked on this article, I knew someone had to interject something about OSX or Linux.

OSX will never become a dominant OS, because Macs are very expensive (Mac Mini starting at $599, Macbooks starting at $999, iMac starting at $1199, and Mac Pro starting at $2499). I can build a PC, upgrade components, and it will kill each Mac model, excluding the Macbooks. Here's a quick comparison, since the Mac Mini is considered a desktop/Media computer.

Mac Mini (no Upgrades): OSX Lion, Intel Core i5-2415M, 2GB Memory, Hard Drive 500GB 5400RPM, Intel HD Graphics 3000 (No Superdrive, Mouse, keyboard) - $599
My Build: Windows 7 64-bit, Intel Core I5-2405S, Biostar TH61 Mini ITX Motherboard, G.Skill 2GB Memory, Western Digital 500GB 5400PRM, Intel HD Graphics 3000, IN WIN BP655.200BL w/220W PSU Case (No DVD Drive, Mouse, keyboard) - $560 ($465 w/ Intel Core i3-2100)

Mac Mini (w/ all upgrades): OSX Lion, Intel Core i7-2635QM, 8GB Memory, 256GB SSD, AMD Radeon HD 6630M, Superdrive, Mouse and keyboard - $1916
My Build: Windows 7 64-bit, Intel Core i7-2600S, Intel BOXDH67CFB3 Mini ITX Motherboard, G.Skill 8GB Memory, Crucial M4 256GB SSD, EVGA GeForce GTX 550, DVD drive, Silverstone Sugo w/450W PSU Case, Mouse and keyboard - $1200

I could go on and on comparing each Mac model.....

Tell me why you think Linux will be a mainstream OS. They aren't even close.

waldojim, on 12 April 2012 - 09:02 PM, said:

you are trying to prove that somehow Apple is overpriced. Go read your own post leading up to all this. And then Blah Blah Blah and more Blah Blah Blah….

My comment was about "OSX will never become a dominant OS, because Macs are very expensive". This was solely about the dominant OS. Then you came along and tried to spin it into your irrelevant information. Regardless, buying or building a Windows computer is cheaper than buying a Mac - that's fact! I don't care if you disapprove of my examples, you still cannot prove me wrong. Using words like elegant Mac Mini and hideous/monster PC doesn't make the Mac Mini less expensive than a Windows PC.

Where did I said Macs were overpriced? Since you're accusing me of trying to prove Apple is overpriced, then why would I own a Mac Mini, two Macbooks, iPad wifi/3G 64GB, iPad 2 wifi/3G 32GB, and iPhones and iPods. Where's your logic? I would never buy something overpriced, like Apple's SSD 256GB for $600, now that's overpriced. Do you see the difference with expensive vs overpriced? I'll ask again, do you own a Mac?

Also, you keep saying the Mac Mini market is for a media box and one audience. I told you it has several audiences, like first-time Mac users, people using it as a desktop, and people using it as a media center. You don't know crap about the market.

Again, I don't need to address your other irrelevant comments - why? - because they're irrelevant. Not because "When push comes to shove, you have no answer" as you put it. There's no need to answer irrelevant crap.

This post has been edited by kazvin: 15 April 2012 - 05:04 PM

[waldojim]

kazvin, on 15 April 2012 - 04:32 PM, said:

waldojim, on 12 April 2012 - 09:02 PM, said:

you are trying to prove that somehow Apple is overpriced. Go read your own post leading up to all this. And then Blah Blah Blah and more Blah Blah Blah….

My comment was about "OSX will never become a dominant OS, because Macs are very expensive". This was solely about the dominant OS. Then you came along and tried to spin it into your irrelevant information. Regardless, buying or building a Windows computer is cheaper than buying a Mac - that's fact! I don't care if you disapprove of my examples, you still cannot prove me wrong. Using words like elegant Mac Mini and hideous/monster PC doesn't make the Mac Mini less expensive than a Windows PC.

[/crap]

You made a claim, and tried to back it up with nonsense. I refute your nonsense, and ask you to come up with something better. You chose not to.

When considering the value of a product, the target market is always a consideration. Is a brand new Mazda RX 8 expensive? Sure it is. Compared to a work truck? Even more so. Compared to cars in the same market? Not at all. You really need to learn the difference between COST and VALUE.

I never once said the Mini was meant as a media box. That was you. I pointed out the reasoning I have for considering one. Amazing how that went right over your head.

In the end, you have once more resorted to yammering on about something without thought.

Side note: For what it is worth, how is $600 expensive? You compare, and compare again - several times, against various machines and for some reason, always come back to it being expensive. Not a better or worse value. But expensive. That little gaming machine, brand new, and store bought, would easily cost two times what Apple is asking for a mini... yet you don't consider it expensive. I find your logic without merit.

[kazvin]

waldojim, on 15 April 2012 - 05:56 PM, said:

Blah blah blah

Ok, Genius!

After Windows XP retires, how is OSX going to be the dominant OS in 2 years?

Can you buy or build a Windows PC cheaper than a Mac? Yes or No

waldojim, on 15 April 2012 - 05:56 PM, said:

I never once said the Mini was meant as a media box. That was you. I pointed out the reasoning I have for considering one. Amazing how that went right over your head.

Man, you don't even believe your own comments. My comments were based on YOUR words.

You wrote:

An elegant 7.7" Square at 1.4" tall, weighing less than 3lbs and consuming less than 85watts VS your 450watt, 20lb monster that would be absolutely hideous sitting next to my TV. Not to mention how badly it would clash with my Denon Receiver, or my Akai turntable. Different machines have different usage. You MIGHT want to consider learning the differences between market goals when posting.

You decided to make the insane comparison between an elegant little machine targeting one audience, and comparing it against a monster targeted at a completely different audience.

The MARKET is for a 2lb media box, that is both elegant and powerful.


I wrote:

Mac Mini is considered a desktop/Media computer

I said the Mac Mini is considered a desktop/media computer. I know you can use it as a standalone HTPC. I use my Mac Mini as a primary desktop computer with two 22" monitors.

People starting to use Mac, people using it as a desktop, and people using it as a media center. I use mine as a full-time desktop and a part-time Plex Media server.

Also, you keep saying the Mac Mini market is for a media box and one audience. I told you it has several audiences, like first-time Mac users, people using it as a desktop, and people using it as a media center. You don't know crap about the market.

waldojim, on 15 April 2012 - 05:56 PM, said:

Gaming?

Again, you don't even believe your own comments. My comments were based on YOUR words. The only time I mentioned gaming, when you said, "the audience doesn't care about the spec sheet?"

You wrote:

Though I might point out that the Mini with all the options does have AMD 6630 graphics, which works out quite nicely at 1080P with ALL the current games

Foolish? Think about what you say once in a while. If you want to game (realistically), you buy a PC. Not a mac.

That little gaming machine, brand new, and store bought, would easily cost two times what Apple is asking for a mini... yet you don't consider it expensive. I find your logic without merit.

I wrote:

Here's another useless and fanboish comment, "the audience doesn't care about the spec sheet?" Man, you know a lot about Apple's audience. Why does Apple let you select different processors, hard drives, SSDs, graphics, and memory? Becuase people care about specs. Lets test your comment. I want buy a Mac Mini and do some light to medium gaming. I go online to buy one. Do I choose the Mac Mini for $599 or $799? Wait, I need to look at the specs. Debunked!

This post has been edited by kazvin: 16 April 2012 - 11:55 AM

[waldojim]

kazvin, on 16 April 2012 - 11:46 AM, said:

Man, you don't even believe your own comments. My comments were based on YOUR words.

You wrote:

An elegant 7.7" Square at 1.4" tall, weighing less than 3lbs and consuming less than 85watts VS your 450watt, 20lb monster that would be absolutely hideous sitting next to my TV. Not to mention how badly it would clash with my Denon Receiver, or my Akai turntable. Different machines have different usage. You MIGHT want to consider learning the differences between market goals when posting.

You decided to make the insane comparison between an elegant little machine targeting one audience, and comparing it against a monster targeted at a completely different audience.

The MARKET is for a 2lb media box, that is both elegant and powerful.

Very good job. You quoted me, then managed to twist the statement. Note the MY receiver comment, and the MY AKAI turntable. You see, those are qualifiers that indicate MY reasoning to desire such a machine.

Very good job you did there, maybe you should consider a line of work listening to people? Or not.
[snipped out your garbage]

Quote

I wrote:

Here's another useless and fanboish comment, "the audience doesn't care about the spec sheet?" Man, you know a lot about Apple's audience. Why does Apple let you select different processors, hard drives, SSDs, graphics, and memory? Becuase people care about specs. Lets test your comment. I want buy a Mac Mini and do some light to medium gaming. I go online to buy one. Do I choose the Mac Mini for $599 or $799? Wait, I need to look at the specs. Debunked!

For the same reason BMW gives the stupid little blonde girl a choice. Do you want fast, or faster? You do realize that choices like this are there explicitly to help Apple's bottom line, right? They offer that up for the person that says: "I want the best". And Apple replies: "Sure, that is an extra $1,000! sucker". You debunked nothing. You did however, shed light on your own ignorance, and arrogance. Of course, then there are the "But I want to play Half Life 2 on here" people. Which Apple then replies: " OH, well you need this machine with xxx video card!". You see how this works? People don't HAVE to know specs to know they want to play a game. The don't have to know specs to know they need a fast machine for Autocad, or iMovie, or whatever they intend to use. All they have to know, is how to ask Apple to help them. Imagine that.

This post has been edited by waldojim: 16 April 2012 - 10:13 PM

[JamesEvens]

Quote

In June 2011, a Microsoft manager said it was "time to move on" from Windows XP, while earlier that year an executive on the Internet Explorer team belittled XP as "lowest common denominator" when he explained why the OS wouldn't run the then-new IE9.

Note to Microsoft: When I move on from Windows XP it will be for another operating system, possibly a flavor of Linux. As for IE9, there are also alternate browsers that will run HTML5 that will work on XP. While I agree that, as a company, you have the right to decide whether to support any specific platform. I am the consumer. I drive the marketplace.