Any PCs comparable to new mini?

[jsw]

Since people seem to be complaining so much about the huge mistake Apple made in using integrated graphics and by bumping the price, I can only assume that there must be comparable products in the PC world that they're using for comparison.

So, would someone please post links to PC products which have the same volume (roughly) as the mini, include Core Duo chips (or faster) and have non-integrated graphics?

I'll ignore the remote control which was added. I'll ignore the value of the OS and the suite of bundled apps. I'll even ignore the styling.

I'd just like links to PCs which are as fast, as small, at least as cheap, and which include better graphics solutions.

Thanks! I'm sure there must be many examples, because otherwise people wouldn't be complaining so much.

 

[Eidorian]

Wait, do we have to take into account physical size? I don't think there are many Windows desktops using the Yonah CPU line. I've only seen them in laptops. One more thing, does it have to be Intel too?

 

[jsw]

Wait, do we have to take into account physical size?

Of course - to me, the defining characteristic of the mini is, well, the mini size.

And I don't need Yonah chips - just something as fast as the Core Duo.

 

[Timepass]

Wait, do we have to take into account physical size? I don't think there are many Windows desktops using the Yonah CPU line. I've only seen them in laptops. One more thing, does it have to be Intel too?

well the size restriction just made it impossible to beat. minus a laptop noughting is made that small.

I going to declear it unfair and state the goal should be for the same amount of money find a PC that has the same specs at least for the price.

Sorry the size is a plus to the mini but it selling point is the cost of it compared to the other macs.

 

[Eidorian]

Of course - to me, the defining characteristic of the mini is, well, the mini size.

And I don't need Yonah chips - just something as fast as the Core Duo.

Umm...yeah you're not going to fine dual core chips in anything less than $799 on the PC side. That's off of HP using Intel Pentium D. Dell offers the XPS 200 with Intel Pentium D as well for $999 with a 17" LCD included.

The HP tower is huge and the Dell one is barely expandable. The HP Media monster comes with a 6200se and the Dell comes with a GMA 900 stock. You either have to get the $1499 model to get an X600 or upgrade the $999 model.

But but, $1299 for an iMac with a X1600?

 

[jsw]

well the size restriction just made it impossible to beat. minus a laptop noughting is made that small.

Sounds like you're conceding that the Apple mini is unbeatable. Surely the PC makers have a better example for less?

I going to declear it unfair and state the goal should be for the same amount of money find a PC that has the same specs at least for the price.

Sorry the size is a plus to the mini but it selling point is the cost of it compared to the other macs.

No, the size is not something you can discount. People who are complaining about the price and the components need to find an example that is in the same catagory as the mini. We all know that reduced size results in compromises and increased costs - witness notebooks. The selling point of the mini is not cost. Apple was not trying to produce the cheapest possible Mac. Apple was trying to produce a lower-end Mac with Apple style.

 

[Timepass]

why dont we go for the first one of just beating the specs for the price first. Then we can worry about the size restictions. Problem is computer PC that size are designed for a differnt market than the mini that why you will not find something like it.

I think you are trying to make a goal that you know full well noughting is going to come close just to state that apple can do no wrong.

I say lets look at the market the mini plays in first and that is agaist cheap dells. Find something there first and we move on.

 

[Eidorian]

why dont we go for the first one of just beating the specs for the price first. Then we can worry about the size restictions. Problem is computer PC that size are designed for a differnt market than the mini that why you will not find something like it.

I think you are trying to make a goal that you know full well noughting is going to come close just to state that apple can do no wrong.

I say lets look at the market the mini plays in first and that is agaist cheap dells. Find something there first and we move on.

In the consumer store Dell only offers dual core CPU's in the XPS line. That starts off at $999 with 17" LCD but Intel GMA 900 graphics.

XPS 200 Dimensions: (H x W x D): 12.2" x 3.6" x 14.3"

Intel Mac Mini Dimensions: (H x W x D) 2" x 6.5" x 6.5"

 

[jsw]

why dont we go for the first one of just beating the specs for the price first. Then we can worry about the size restictions. Problem is computer PC that size are designed for a differnt market than the mini that why you will not find something like it.

I think you are trying to make a goal that you know full well noughting is going to come close just to state that apple can do no wrong.

I say lets look at the market the mini plays in first and that is agaist cheap dells. Find something there first and we move on.

OK, first, find a dual-core system for under $800.

Then, show me why it's better.

Then, justify why the improvement justifies the vastly larger and uglier case.

The mini does not play in the same market as cheap Dells. It plays in a more upscale market. People seem to want it to play in the bottom of the market, but it's not intended for there. People who want to spend $400 on a computer should just buy the ugly Dells. They work fine for low-end and non-stressful apps.

This is like saying the Porsche Carrera sucks because a Chevy Suburban has the same powered engine for less.

 

[emw]

why dont we go for the first one of just beating the specs for the price first. Then we can worry about the size restictions.

Isn't the size part of the specs? Besides, we all know that style plays into perceived value.

I think you are trying to make a goal that you know full well noughting is going to come close just to state that apple can do no wrong.

I doubt that. His original post summed up what he was looking for - a better PC than the mini for the same (or similar) price. If indeed there is nothing out there that comes close, then, well, Apple did right here. It's easy to complain that an upgrade "wasn't good enough" but unless you're comparing to other real alternatives, then it's just bitching for bitching's sake.

 

[Nickygoat]

Shuttle PCs come close (as close as any I can think of).
Minuses: it's not a Core Duo (don't think so anyway) but it is 1.73GHz, is larger than the mini's 16.5x16.5x5 at 31x20x18.5 and costs (here at least) £840 vs £599 for the mini.
Tough one

 

[cube]

Who cares about competing products? Apple is supposed to make good, well balanced machines even if it costs a little more.

And it didn't have to cost more, just replace the bad choice of Core Solo (costing about 10% less than a Duo) for a perfectly serviceable Celeron M and use the savings to put some nice graphics.

 

[stonyc]

Hmm, I'd have to side the OP on the parameters of this "contest"... the size of the mini is inherent to part of its appeal. That would be like saying...

Let's take the specs of the new iMacs and part by part try to match it with a PC solution. Of course you could more than likely build a PC with specs that meet or even beat those of the iMac at that price point (especially if we bring in AMD chips into the mix). But that ignores the all-in-one nature of the iMac (which I personally don't like all that much, but many others do).

Similarly, I could easily build a PC with specs that meet or beat the mini's, but would be hard-pressed to compete with its size... I think placing a size constraint on this exercise is perfectly valid.

 

[Eidorian]

Ok I'm going to go all out for this post.

Apple Intel Mac Mini Duo Core $799

Dimensions: (H x W x D) 2" x 6.5" x 6.5"

Intel Cuo Core 1.67 Ghz
512 MB Dual Channel RAM
80 GB Hard Drive
667 MHz Front Side Bus
x8 Super Drive
Intel GMA 950
Front Row Remote
Built-In 802.11g/Bluetooth
Optical Audio In/Out
Mac OS X
iLife 06


Dell XPS 200 Small Form Factor PC $1018

Dell XPS 200 Dimensions: (H x W x D): 12.2" x 3.6" x 14.3"

Intel Pentium® D Processor 820 (2.8 GHz)
512 MB Dual Channel RAM
80 GB Hard Drive
533 MHz Front Side Bus
x8 DVD-Burner (Upgrade from Combo Drive)
Intel GMA 900
Remote (Add-on)
USB 802.11g Dongle
No Bluetooth Option
No 17" LCD Bundled
No Keyboard
Dell USB Mouse (Cannot be removed from price)
7.1 Audio
Windows XP Media Center 2005 Edition

 

[gekko513]

I think placing a size constraint on this exercise is perfectly valid.

And noise.

 

[Josh]

Note to Mini-evangalists: There are barebones PC cases roughly the size of the mini.

 

[Eidorian]

Note to Mini-evangalists: There are barebones PC cases roughly the size of the mini.

Find me one that's not Mini-ITX. They only support Pentium-M chips and won't be out in force until next month.

 

[mkrishnan]

Intel Pentium® D Processor 820 (2.8 GHz)

So the Core Duo is quite a bit faster than this, correct? Or incorrect? I don't completely understand the Pentium D line.

Have any of the PCs that were supposed to be invigorated by the Intel campaign to help manufacturers develop Mac Mini - esque form factors, ever get launched?

 

[Timepass]

OK, first, find a dual-core system for under $800.

Then, show me why it's better.

Then, justify why the improvement justifies the vastly larger and uglier case.

The mini does not play in the same market as cheap Dells. It plays in a more upscale market. People seem to want it to play in the bottom of the market, but it's not intended for there. People who want to spend $400 on a computer should just buy the ugly Dells. They work fine for low-end and non-stressful apps.

This is like saying the Porsche Carrera sucks because a Chevy Suburban has the same powered engine for less.

Never stated that. It was more I just wanted to see a more even test. But going after the hardware specs and it not being able to be beaten would at least give you all that ground to fight on and dont have to use things like opinans on the form factor of X is better than Y.

Oh and lets add to the ground no custom building. I pretty sure self building a PC I could beat it but home builts are a different ball park and there high degree of customization is what makes me love them.

 

[gekko513]

Find me one that's not Mini-ITX. They only support Pentium-M chips and won't be out in force until next month.

And they're more expensive and have worse specs than the mini, when you add it all up, aren't they? Then you have to add labour for researching, putting it all together and being your own service person.

 

[stonyc]

I think AOpen's mini PC has been discussed/villified here before.

But if we're talking about the size factor, AOpen's mini rip-off comes close (roughly 6.5"x6.5"x2"). According to this site though a dual-core option doesn't seem to be available... neither is BT or wireless networking (from what I could see). Integrated graphics in this one as well.

Price point is 499GBP ($871.90) for a lower-speced version, to 699GBP ($1,221.36) for the version I linked above... those numbers include VAT according to that website, however.

 

[Josh]

Find me one that's not Mini-ITX. They only support Pentium-M chips and won't be out in force until next month.

There are several AMD Athlan 64 dual-core 2.0ghz systems in barebones cases.

 

[Eidorian]

There are several AMD Athlan 64 dual-core 2.0ghz systems in barebones cases.

Link me.

 

[jsw]

Since we seem to be having problems coming up with systems which are as small, cheap, fast, and graphically powered, how about 3 out of 4 to start? Any three would do. I'm pretty sure people could find something as cheap, as fast, and with better graphics (and, again, we'll discount the remote and the superior bundled software, because, of course, this thing is really apparently supposed to play games ).

I'd be more interested in 3-of-4 comparisons that take size into account. I'd be interested in the AMD links as well.

 

[Eidorian]

Since we seem to be having problems coming up with systems which are as small, cheap, fast, and graphically powered, how about 3 out of 4 to start? Any three would do. I'm pretty sure people could find something as cheap, as fast, and with better graphics (and, again, we'll discount the remote and the superior bundled software, because, of course, this thing is really apparently supposed to play games ).

I'd be more interested in 3-of-4 comparisons that take size into account. I'd be interested in the AMD links as well.

All of the Mini-ITX systems either use the VIA C3 processor or a Pentium-M one. I still haven't seen one without integrated graphics. Note: They're worse than the GMA 950.