Apple: Mini Mac, iPod Shuffle, slew of new software

  • Thread starter Thread starter LoudMusic
  • 61 comments
  • 3,547 views
The iPod Shuffle is priced around mp3 players with 128-256MB. It's got 512MB on the base model which is darn good for only $129.99. đź‘Ť That Mac Mini look's really good, but it's no iBook. :dopey:
 
Mine was $190... and they game me a free extra batt. (look back to my other post for the features it has) oh yeah did I mention mine is 512mb also? :trouble:
 
VipFREAK
I guess I'll be the first to admit I have been brain washed to only use PC but I'd rather do that then be confind to apple. Even if I switch mice which I already know you can that doesn't mean that the operating system is the same.
Click to expand...

The OS not being the same is a bonus. You loose.

right right... uh huh... I like my blue screens better thanks. :dopey:
Click to expand...

OS X crashes / bombs less often than Windows XP. I attribute this to Apple locking OS X to their hardware only, where as Windows runs on a plethora of hardware, not all of which is quality. If you compare a Mac to a Dell PC with XP you'd probably have about the same number of minimal problems. And further more, what do blue screens have to do with a Mac being energy effecient and not needing to be turned off?

So, say again what's so special about this "shuffle"?? mine can already do that... as well as be a radio, recorder, transmitter and oh yeah a jump drive. :)
Click to expand...

I'm happy for you. Not everyone needs that, and not everyone has nearly $200 to spend on an Mp3 player. And a lot of them would rather use Apple's music format.
 
LoudMusic
The OS not being the same is a bonus. You loose.
Click to expand...

oh well.. I know I am losing with xp because it's ****ty but it's not gonna get better with apple.

LoudMusic
OS X crashes / bombs less often than Windows XP. I attribute this to Apple locking OS X to their hardware only, where as Windows runs on a plethora of hardware, not all of which is quality. If you compare a Mac to a Dell PC with XP you'd probably have about the same number of minimal problems. And further more, what do blue screens have to do with a Mac being energy effecient and not needing to be turned off?
Click to expand...

it has nothing to do with macs I'm just being sarcastic that I love... yes you heard me... loveeeeeeee blue screens. :rolleyes:
 
VipFREAK
oh well.. I know I am losing with xp because it's ****ty but it's not gonna get better with apple.
Click to expand...

I think it depends on what you're looking for. If you want nearly limitless options for software and hardware you should go with a Windows computer. But if you don't care and are willing to do it someone else's way and just want it to work then an Apple is right for you. Just don't expect to have all the options along the way.
 
Well, actually yeah when you put it that way I have no choice but to use PC because my major/career utilizes CAD/3D Rendering so we have no choice but to use PCs. Most of the programs are not compatible with apple.
 
This is really a useless, pointless argument.

I hate Macs. I think they're overpriced, overrated, works of 'art'. Yeah, they look pretty, but that's where it ends. The only thing I do like is the iPod.

On the iPod shuffle, it sucks. Advertising a complete MP3 player on the basis is can shuffle is completely rediculous. Then, when you choose to go out of 'shuffle' mode, navigating through that many songs would be ludicrous without an LCD screen. However, unfortunatly, I'm sure they're selling like crazy.

And on the Mini Mac. Man, it sounds 'great', but $500 for such a slow computer, no monitor or keyboard, or anything, it's not that good. Like I said, Macs are rediculously overrated. They aren't that much faster. The only reason it's so amazing is people are used to paying such a high premium for Macs that it sounds cheap. That's it.

...And OSX vs Windows on stability? It's insane to even think about comparing them. Windows OS has to deal with so many different things it's stupid. Everything Mac is just that, Mac. Software, hardware, all Mac stuff is by Mac. Windows deals with so much hardware alone, the few problems people do have with it are redeamed by it's huge market. The software aspect, do you know how many millions of plain old stupid programmers make programs that might be installed on someones computer at any given time? Or, spyware. That can easily debilatize a whole computer alone. Most of the blue screens you may ever encounted are usually either hardware based, or spyware based. That or, of course, user stupidity. The core OS I'd go as far as to say is easily better written than OSX. Yet, still, I haven't had any kind of error causing my PC to cease working in the longest time, and the most recent that I can recal are hardware related (overclocking, so.
 
Burnout
This is really a useless, pointless argument.
Click to expand...
You're only adding fuel to the fire. Case in point:

Like I said, Macs are rediculously overrated. They aren't that much faster. The only reason it's so amazing is people are used to paying such a high premium for Macs that it sounds cheap. That's it.
Click to expand...
Other than the G5, Apple has rarely focused on advertising speed on its computers in the last few yearsÂ… I'm not sure wherever you got the idea that they're overrated because of speed (I definitely knew my iBook wouldn't be a speed demon when I bought it). CPU speed is starting to make less and less of a difference anywayÂ… RAM is a huge factor, and for the past couple years Apple has offloaded many processes onto the GPU, which makes a huge difference.

Everything Mac is just that, Mac. Software, hardware, all Mac stuff is by Mac.
Click to expand...
First off, I think you mean Apple, because "Mac" isn't a company. Secondly, you're correct to a point – Apple has a monopoly on its own operating system and hardware, which totally works in its favor (it's the reason Apple will never do an x86 port). Also, you seem to have this idea that there is very little software available for OS X, and that it's all made by Apple. Last I read, there were over 12,000 applications available for OS X. Did you know I have MS Office on this machine? It works fine, as do Dreamweaver, Fireworks, Photoshop, hell even Gimp (if I really wanted to).

Yet, still, I haven't had any kind of error causing my PC to cease working in the longest time, and the most recent that I can recal are hardware related (overclocking, so.
Click to expand...
That's nice – neither have I. One thing being good doesn't make the other bad… that's faulty rationale.
 
Sage
You're only adding fuel to the fire. Case in point:


Other than the G5, Apple has rarely focused on advertising speed on its computers in the last few yearsÂ… I'm not sure wherever you got the idea that they're overrated because of speed (I definitely knew my iBook wouldn't be a speed demon when I bought it). CPU speed is starting to make less and less of a difference anywayÂ… RAM is a huge factor, and for the past couple years Apple has offloaded many processes onto the GPU, which makes a huge difference.


First off, I think you mean Apple, because "Mac" isn't a company. Secondly, you're correct to a point – Apple has a monopoly on its own operating system and hardware, which totally works in its favor (it's the reason Apple will never do an x86 port). Also, you seem to have this idea that there is very little software available for OS X, and that it's all made by Apple. Last I read, there were over 12,000 applications available for OS X. Did you know I have MS Office on this machine? It works fine, as do Dreamweaver, Fireworks, Photoshop, hell even Gimp (if I really wanted to).


That's nice – neither have I. One thing being good doesn't make the other bad… that's faulty rationale.
Click to expand...

My case and point, all of this software and hardware owned by the Apple monopoly is expensive, comparativly. Secondly, yes, it does work in Apples favor, not the consumers. Companies fighting for consumer purchases in the PC world reduce prices and force manufactures to offer more for the money, continually.

The 'faulty rational' mentioned was not intentioned as a initiative towards an opinion of Mac OSX, or Apple hardware, sucking. However, a lot of Apple people would use that exact point against PCs, saying they have way more breakdowns compared to a Mac. Which is also rediculous, considering there are only, what, 98 times more PC users to Mac?
 
Burnout
And on the Mini Mac. Man, it sounds 'great', but $500 for such a slow computer, no monitor or keyboard, or anything, it's not that good. Like I said, Macs are rediculously overrated. They aren't that much faster. The only reason it's so amazing is people are used to paying such a high premium for Macs that it sounds cheap. That's it.
Click to expand...
Sure, it may *seem* slow, but in truth, it's not. The Mac OS is just like a stage 1 installation of Gentoo Linux. It's completely optimized for the hardware on the computer. That allows you to use the processor to it's fullest and to push it harder with much less system slowdown. My bro's mac has a 1.4 gig G4, 256 megs of ram, and a 64 meg Radeon 7500. For graphical apps and for multitasking, the mac kills our Windows machine (athlonxp 2000+, 512mb, Radeon 8500 with 128megs of ram).

There is no comparing the performance our mac to our windows box. $500 for a system that has been completely optimized with almost all the software I'll ever need pre-packaged, or $500 for a 2ghz celeron with only Windows XP Home. I'll take the mac.
 
Burnout: you need to use a modern Macintosh on a regular basis before you make those kinds of claims.

Sage: From semi-recent history Apple had been selling computers billed as "super computers" and in the previous Mac Expo keynote Steve Jobs spent a good deal of time talking about "... we're to 2Ghz, but Intel is to 3Ghz, but we made a bigger percentage increase than they did, but we're still faster ..." so actually they do still talk about speed quite a lot. And even if they're not talking about it in the entire line, they're talking about it for one product and all the other products gain from that bit of marketing.

Apple Computer: I want a thin-client tablet PC that uses wireless to communicate with its base station and has a display area of no less than 8.5" x 11" and a frame no larger than .5" and a thickness no greater than 1" and weigh no more than 3 lbs. It needs no built in ports - they will all be on the base station. Think of the pervious iMac with a detachable pen screen.

Thank you.
 
Everyone knows it's not about clock speeds. And, on the proffesional use note, Macs are slower than Athlon 64s.

And, yes, I do know if I took a 1.4GHz G4 and compared it to a closely rated PC, the Apple would win. However, the higher speed PC component, which would be faster than a Apple, is cheaper, if not just as much as the Mac component. That's what I'm trying to say.
 
Burnout
Everyone knows it's not about clock speeds. And, on the proffesional use note, Macs are slower than Athlon 64s.

And, yes, I do know if I took a 1.4GHz G4 and compared it to a closely rated PC, the Apple would win. However, the higher speed PC component, which would be faster than a Apple, is cheaper, if not just as much as the Mac component. That's what I'm trying to say.
Click to expand...

I believe that's because you're not taking into account the software that runs on Macs that is free. There is roughly $1000 worth of software that they give you "free" for owning a Mac, including the OS, that is not available on other platforms (like Windows). So I'm not talking about Quicktime and iTunes.
 
LoudMusic
I believe that's because you're not taking into account the software that runs on Macs that is free. There is roughly $1000 worth of software that they give you "free" for owning a Mac, including the OS, that is not available on other platforms (like Windows). So I'm not talking about Quicktime and iTunes.
Click to expand...
The fact that they give it to every Mac owner subordinates its value of “roughly $1000”.

Then again, considering the value of a program is based exclusively on the user at hand,a Windows user might consider these programs not available for PC completely void of value, including the Mac OSX.

I suppose it’d be safe to say this is an argument that there is no “triumphant victor”. Neither is superior to the other in everything, it all comes down to the user, and what the user needs. I have used Apple computers, but I just plain old do not like them. That’s me. Of course, you and Sage, exact opposite.

Arguably, the PC is better. You canÂ’t change that, for me. However, that is simply my opinion, obviously differing from yours. Final word?
Different folks, different strokes.
 
LoudMusic
Sage: From semi-recent history Apple had been selling computers billed as "super computers" and in the previous Mac Expo keynote Steve Jobs spent a good deal of time talking about "... we're to 2Ghz, but Intel is to 3Ghz, but we made a bigger percentage increase than they did, but we're still faster ..." so actually they do still talk about speed quite a lot. And even if they're not talking about it in the entire line, they're talking about it for one product and all the other products gain from that bit of marketing.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I see what you meanÂ… it's just that, as an example, I've never heard the iMac's speed being touted (except for it being faster than the previous-gen, which is a "duh"), but rather they concentrate more on the all-in-one package and the software. Anyway, I kinda think they need to make a little noise about the G5 just to say, "Hey, our computers aren't total lard-a**** anymore". ;)

Apple Computer: I want a thin-client tablet PC that uses wireless to communicate with its base station and has a display area of no less than 8.5" x 11" and a frame no larger than .5" and a thickness no greater than 1" and weigh no more than 3 lbs. It needs no built in ports - they will all be on the base station. Think of the pervious iMac with a detachable pen screen.
Click to expand...
I saw someone turn their iBook into a tablet PCÂ… I should probably dig that up. Pretty ambitious project.
 
on the note of mp3 players, i got my 256 meg for $50 on sale and at the same store they had the 512 meg version for $140. these have a small lcd, fm radio, and a voice recorder. đź‘Ť
 
Burnout
Most of the blue screens you may ever encounted are usually either hardware based, or spyware based.
Click to expand...
I disagree with the spyware thing. Both Windows 95 and Windows ME used to bluescreen on me on a regular basis. That included before I ever hooked my old Windows 95 PC up to the 'net. Since I've had Windows XP I've also had broadband so I'm always hooked up to the internet. Before I dumped Internet Explorer, I had regular spyware and adware problems, but the PC never hung or crashed. It had slowdowns and behaved weird, but after cleaning up the spyware mess and switching to Firefox, I've had no problems.

I think that older versions of Windows like 95 and Millenium were just plain bad operating systems.

I'm no fan of Microsoft but they've done something about making their operating systems more stable and crash friendly. At least if a piece of software does crash under XP, it doesn't take the whole system down with it. I don't think my system has hung once since I've installed Windows XP on it. And at last I don't have to restart it time I change the settings or install a piece of software.


KM.
 
Apple always uses Li-Ion batteries. AFAIK, the Shuffle only recharges when plugged into your computer's USB port.
 
I have another question; when your using the iPod Shuffle, can you enable or disable the "Shuffle" feature?

Yes or No?
 
Sage
Apple always uses Li-Ion batteries. AFAIK, the Shuffle only recharges when plugged into your computer's USB port.
Click to expand...
Or when plugged into one of these. :cool: It's a little adapter that connects a 9 V power source to USB-powered devices, for extra run time, and charging when a USB port isn't available.
 
My computer teacher has an iPod shuffle and I was able to take a good look at it and the first thing that I thought was how small the device was.
 
sUn
I have another question; when your using the iPod Shuffle, can you enable or disable the "Shuffle" feature?
Click to expand...
Yup. There's a switch on the back that turns it off, on in Shuffle mode, or on in Play-In-Order mode (I made up that name, but you get the point).
 
Sage
Yup. There's a switch on the back that turns it off, on in Shuffle mode, or on in Play-In-Order mode (I made up that name, but you get the point).
Click to expand...
Great, thanks! :)

There's defiantly nothing like that for $129.99 on the market, my dad has also found a recent interest in Apple because there stocks have gone up considerably from before.
 

Latest Posts

Back