In article < .com>,
wrote:
> Well if you're buying a Mac coz it looks good maybe.
That is one of the reasons people buy Macs, true.
> But I was under
> the impression Mac OS X is the best thing ever and Macs are the best
> thing ever etc etc not because of the looks but because of
> functionality, speed, etc.
True, OSX is pretty smooth. And it has functionality and speed. Whoever
said you have to choose between form and function?
> Personally, I think it's mostly bull but
> regardless if what Mac fanboys keep telling us is true, then someone
> who wants all this advanced goodness but doesn't give a damn about what
> it looks will be mroe then pleased.. Besides isn't one of the ideas of
> the Mac mini that it's easy to hide so if you prefer black and don't
> want to show of the ugly POS that IMHO the Mac minis are, this will be
> better.
Only a barbarian would want to hide something as elegantly minimalist as
the Mini?
I find black monitors are much harder on the eyes. Too much contrast
between the LCD and the black surround. Of course, it may be possible to
swap the black Philips for an equivalent silver one.
> I would agree tho that using an analog input LCD is not the best but
> then LCDs are still quite crappy compared to CRTs in so many areas
> (other then space) so if you're going to go for LCDs, it would be
> better to get a good LCD with analog input then a crappy LCD with
> digital input (I don't know if it is a good LCD but this is a good
> point). It def isn't 20th century.
The odd thing about the MiniMac is that its maximum video out is
1920x1200, waaay above any of the average LCDs. Even in the Apple range
the only monitor that can meet that is the 23" Cinema (the 30" needs
extra video drivers) which costs about 3x the Mini.
Most of the average LCDs seem to max out at 1280x1024 or so, even the
19" models.
I'd hazard a guess that BIG STEVE has something up his sleeve for the
Mini.
--
Chas Right