![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Every armchair analyst's dreams come true
The mythical headless iMac and the mythical flash iPod both emerge from the realm of legend on the same day.
The "Mac mini" looks like an almost perfect product for what it's intended to be, except that the default RAM installed (256MB) is a little stingy (and it's supposedly not user-serviceable, so they want you to pay Apple's steep premium for additional RAM installation). I'd probably go for half a gig, which is $70 extra.
There are people on the Web complaining that Mac OS X is unusable without a gig of RAM (which will cost you something like $400 extra and completely eliminate the thing's price advantage), but you don't really need that much. I get by with half a gigabyte just fine, and I probably run this thing harder than the Mac mini's target market would. What I always say about OS X is that, since it has a decent virtual memory scheme, there's an abrupt usability threshold somewhere around 256 megs; below that the OS thrashes into oblivion, but when you get very far above it there's a realm of diminishing returns. Apple's default RAM installation for their consumer Macs is a bit close to the edge, but you don't have to have four times as much (well, maybe you could use that if you're doing a lot of complicated video editing or something).
The "iPod shuffle" is entering a crowded market; physically there's not much to distinguish it from other low-end MP3 players other than the lack of a screen. Presumably the big advantage is seamless iTunes integration (if you use iTunes). People have already started misunderstanding the name to imply that you can only use it in shuffle-play mode.
The "Mac mini" looks like an almost perfect product for what it's intended to be, except that the default RAM installed (256MB) is a little stingy (and it's supposedly not user-serviceable, so they want you to pay Apple's steep premium for additional RAM installation). I'd probably go for half a gig, which is $70 extra.
There are people on the Web complaining that Mac OS X is unusable without a gig of RAM (which will cost you something like $400 extra and completely eliminate the thing's price advantage), but you don't really need that much. I get by with half a gigabyte just fine, and I probably run this thing harder than the Mac mini's target market would. What I always say about OS X is that, since it has a decent virtual memory scheme, there's an abrupt usability threshold somewhere around 256 megs; below that the OS thrashes into oblivion, but when you get very far above it there's a realm of diminishing returns. Apple's default RAM installation for their consumer Macs is a bit close to the edge, but you don't have to have four times as much (well, maybe you could use that if you're doing a lot of complicated video editing or something).
The "iPod shuffle" is entering a crowded market; physically there's not much to distinguish it from other low-end MP3 players other than the lack of a screen. Presumably the big advantage is seamless iTunes integration (if you use iTunes). People have already started misunderstanding the name to imply that you can only use it in shuffle-play mode.
no subject
Not sure why they named it the "iPod shuffle" if they don't want people to have this mistaken idea.
no subject
no subject
They've paid attention to the fact that most iPod users bother with playlists little at all, and just shuffle their entire music collections. Of course you could always do the rough equivalent of AutoFill with a Smart Playlist, but Smart Playlists are actually beyond most users' willingness to tinker.
no subject