Mac Mini clone

It has, and I believe it's a welcome addition. They not only offer Windows but they also give you the option of getting it preinstalled with Linux. To be fully cliche, "imitation is the sincerest form of flattery." ;) Besides, though it looks quite like it, it does have its differences when you compare it to the Mac mini.

The original company that created/copied :p this was AOpen. They usually make laptop and desktop designs (like Asus) and sell the hardware to other companies here in the US or elsewhere with those companies' names slapped over their design. This Evesham Mini PC is actually manufactured by AOpen, and the news about AOpen making this has been around for a few months. So far, Apple doesn't seem to mind, and I'm glad for that.
 
it doesn't look anywhere near as well made as the mac. the mac is a single tubular piece of thick aluminium with highquality plastics filling in the gaps.
 
lol,

but hey we got Mac OS wannabe's and now mac mini wanna be's still will never compare to the performance of the G4 the mini has, but hey.... let them dream!
 
Compare
Machine: Mac mini vs PC mini
CPU: 1.25 GHz G4 1.4 GHz Celeron M
OS: Mac OS X Windows Media Center Edition
RAM: 512 MB DDR 333 512 MB DDRII 533
HD: 40 GB 40 GB
Grph card: Radeon 9200 Embedded Intel 915
UK Price: 359 L 499 L

Who said Mac are expensive ?
 
While I agree with all the points made, I still think a machine like this has its place. I would definitely buy it, especially for Linux. It makes a great low-end machine for personal use. Of course, I wouldn't expect it to be a speed demon anyways. Regardless, I think choice is great which is why I welcome it as I welcomed others that Apple decided to chase after. Thankfully, they haven't done so yet. And with Intel releasing VIIV, I can only see it getting better.

Consider that if Apple weren't around for them to get these ideas, we would surely be in a stagnated industry with boring ideas (and boy are there a lot of them already!).
 
chevy said:
Compare
Machine: Mac mini vs PC mini
CPU: 1.25 GHz G4 1.4 GHz Celeron M
OS: Mac OS X Windows Media Center Edition
RAM: 512 MB DDR 333 512 MB DDRII 533
HD: 40 GB 40 GB
Grph card: Radeon 9200 Embedded Intel 915
UK Price: 359 L 499 L

Who said Mac are expensive ?
Click to expand...

Personally, I don't know about the performance (or lack thereof) in the Celeron M. I do remember using a laptop (HP laptop to be exact) that did have it, and the performace for everyday use was OK. Of course, gaming might not be an option for it (even less so than the Mac mini, which has a decent graphics chipset with DEDICATED memory, not the shared memory of the Intel 915 GMA).

Of course, consider that the mini PC has DDRII memory while the Mac mini is still using single-channel DDR333 memory. I would say that the only thing holding this computer back is Windows, especially considering all of the background apps you need installed in order to keep that mini PC protected from all the "Windows Nasties (R)". :D I'm sure a well-tuned Linux install would make this system quite snappy, but unfortunately we might not see that configuration selling as much to the general public.

While I would pick this machine for a Linux install, I would definitely recommend the Mac mini for a normal everyday user.
 
ddr 333 is not single channel memory. ddr stands for dual data rate sends info on up cyle and down cycle. ddr2 is just the latest inprovment to to ddr. I think they should have at the very least put in a 64mg video card in the clone. But intel is famous for trying to get away with inbedded video that shares system memory.
 
'get away'?

it's much cheaper way of doing things, and 80% of people are never going to notice. this 80% of the public use computer for word processing, internet, msn chats... and not much else. you don't really need a 7800GT witch 1gb of video ram for that.

horses for courses. the mac mini won't be used as much of a games machine anyway, as the range of games available for the mac are meagre, and slow as well.
 
Not to mention a lot of the latest games require a 1.5GHz G4 or above, recommending G5S...a trend that's bound to continue.
 
hawki18 said:
ddr 333 is not single channel memory. ddr stands for dual data rate sends info on up cyle and down cycle. ddr2 is just the latest inprovment to to ddr. I think they should have at the very least put in a 64mg video card in the clone. But intel is famous for trying to get away with inbedded video that shares system memory.
Click to expand...

When I mentioned single-channel, I wasn't referring to the data rate. Dual-channel DDR1 modules exist and they can be backwards compatible. I only mentioned that DDR333 (which is Double Data Rate as you mentioned) uses a single channel to pass that data through, so in a sense it's not as beneficial as DDRII, which as you said was an improvement on the original DDR. By adding the description of "single channel DDR333" I was making it obvious that the technology used in the Mac mini isn't as up to date as the one in the mini PC. Yes, dual-channel DDR333 memory modules exist, but I don't think the Mac mini has the capabilities to take advantage of dual-channel DDR memory. The iMac G5 and the Power Mac G5 do.

I did a Google search and came up with this (this is from Google's cache).

http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cach...df+dual+channel+single+channel&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Scroll down to Page 3 and you'll see the analogy they make. The difference between single channel and dual channel has nothing to do with the data rate, but instead with how it transfers that data to the CPU. Single channel only has one channel (sending 64 bits of dual-rate data down the pipe), while dual channel has two (sending 128 bits of that dual-rate data down the pipe).

Getting back on topic, the video doesn't bother me so much since this isn't intended to be something for a gamer. And if you decide to use this as a mini-server (no pun intended), then video shouldn't matter so much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top