CNET posts review of new entry-level Mac mini

[admin]

CNET posts review of new entry-level Mac mini
Wednesday, March 4, 2008
Posted by: Brian

CNET just posted a review of the new entry-level Mac mini. The review was sort of mixed, but here's the bottom line as they say. "With this $599 model, Apple adds significantly improved Nvidia graphics, a new 2GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor, and a larger hard drive. Those changes are welcome, and we're also impressed by the Mac Mini's power efficiency, as well as its ability to handle multiple programs at once. We still take issue with the Mac Mini's overall value. The Mac Mini remains a distinctive-looking computer and it has more than a few useful features. We can easily imagine it in a light-duty work role. But if your goal for a lower-cost desktop is core hardware bang for the buck, you're better off with a more well-rounded Windows system," writes Justin Yu of CNET.

I always get a little mad when they compare the Mac mini to other entry-level Windows machines, but what are you doing to do? Anyways, CNET gave the new entry-level Mac mini a score of 3.5 out of 5 stars. CNET also posted a review of the new 24" iMac earlier today. You can read that review here if you're interested. It basically came away with the same score as the Mac mini.



http://www.123macmini.com/news/story/1156.html

[ESUNintel]

I really think 3.5 sounds unfair. I agree, A Mac CAN NOT be compared to a PC, PC's can't run OS X. ...and the 90 day support is fine, statistics always show Mac products are superior to most others, and if you need a longer warranty, AppleCare is offered. ...but for some of us, the warranty might not even matter if we start upgrading the Mini.

[zen]

I'm so sick of reviews that say a mac is less powerful than wintel box of the same cost. Thats not even the point! Are these reviewers so thick headed that they don't understand that those wintel boxes don't run OS X?

If it doesn't run the same OS why are they comparing it in that aspect? A huge oversight by people that should understand looking at things from all angles. If you want/need to run OS X the more powerful wintel is useless to you!!! Sorry for the rant but these people are clueless.

[zen]

[troy.w.banther]

Yes. I see "thick heads" every day.

Most people think in a very dualistic form and then there are those who are singular.

The singular people are generally in leadership positions or product reviewers.

Reviewers are like tissue paper.

[microfox]

I bought my first mini in late 2005 and two days later I was already madly in love with Tiger. I, then, swore I would never buy anything but a Mac.

I'm in still love with my OS (Leopard) but I find it hard not to agree with the guy if you strictly consider his hardware comparison. Obviously, 1gb of RAM in 2009 is absolutely ridiculous. More obviously, when you consider how much Apple is selling their RAM, they should be charged with highway robbery. Why do Apple feel the need to rip people off so much is way beyond my understanding.

All things considered, I'm not so sure anymore about never returning to the Dark World.
_________________
iMac 2010, 21.5", 8Gb of RAM

2.0GHz Core2Duo Mac mini, 2 Gb RAM,120Gb HD + 1Tb LaCie external HD, Hauppauge PVR 950 USB TV Tuner stick, running 10.8.2

iPad 3rd generation, 32Gb

IPod Touch 4th generation 32Gb

[troy.w.banther]

"All things considered, I'm not so sure anymore about never returning to the Dark World."

Although my primary duties at work are OS X and RHEL servers, I also work with the 'dark world' server product line. You're seriously not missing much.

[zen]

I see someone has hijacked my avatar..

[microfox]

[Yvan256]

The reason to buy a Mac is the same as a Nintendo console (for me, anyway): I bought a Mac to run OS X just like I bought a Wii to play Metroid and Zelda.

I don't remember who said that, but it sums up as "it's the software, stupid".
_________________
Mac mini 2010 (Core 2 Duo 2.4 GHz/8 GiB)
12" PowerBook (G4 1.5 GHz/512 MiB)
1st gen. iPod touch (16 GiB)
2nd gen. iPod shuffle (1 GiB)

[Dan__]

[somefreak90]

That review is very biast towards windows PCs. First of all, they only showed a bottom-line, off the shelf Mac mini with no BTO options. They didn't mention how you can get a 320 GB HD, 4 GB of RAM, and a 2.16 Ghz Intel Core 2 Duo processor (this, by the way, is somewhat similar to the specs of the 2006 iMac.) It's obvious that they support PCs because otherwise they would've given a more of a fair review, and the higher end model with 2 GB memory and a 320 GB HD that's off the shelf for only $200 more.

[Albert76]

Mac + OS X + iLife + all the wonderful Mac apps out there = priceless. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it Cnet. I will never go back to Windows. These new Mac minis are the bomb. I just wish that I would have waited for one of them.

[papa13wg]

I would take a base Mac mini over the highest end PC any day of the week. I have a 1.66 GHz mini that has literally been running 24/7 for over 3 years. Best computer I have ever owned.
_________________
1.66 GHz Mac Mini (Intel)
2.0 GHz 13" MacBook
2.53 GHz 15" MacBook Pro

[lumberjack]

Well done papa13wg, that says it all.

My base 1.66 GHz model has worked very hard, perhaps 9 hours a day from June 2007 and has been first class with no worries.

It will continue to serve in the future, in parallel with the new BTO model, already on order.

Its good points have been...

quick to load, runs OS X, its beauty, quiet, cool, low profile, low heat, low electricity, plenty of ports, and on and on.

It has been limited by the Combo drive.

Its bad point, it doesn't make tea.

Compared with a Windows machine, it will have come tops on nearly every aspect and still will continue to work long after most of the PCs have been turned into dog food cans.

My score .... 5 stars.

The experience has been great. Thank you Apple