It would cost more because you would want at least the base i7 version ($799) if not the faster model.
We have tried the base version, and did not think that performance was acceptable either with VirtualBox, or with the somewhat better performing Parallels. Your mileage, of course, may differ. Thanks, Cary On Aug 12, 2013, at 11:03 AM, Ross Singer <[email protected]> wrote: > Why would it cost >$1k++? > > We have the 2.5 Ghz dual core i5 ($599 new) which we upgraded to 16GB > ($131.99 via Crucial.com - no doubt there are cheaper alternatives). Runs > Windows fine in a VM (although, like you, I really only use it for IE > testing). > > Certainly this doesn't account for keyboards, mice or monitors, but that's > the nice part of the mini: many libraries have those things lying around > anyway. > > If all you want are web browsing machines (or suspect that that is all they > will be used for), I absolutely agree this is probably a waste of money. But > if you want to get the most versatility in a machine, it's a pretty good > bargain, I think. > > -Ross. > > On Aug 12, 2013, at 1:37 PM, Cary Gordon <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Aside from the aforementioned support hell issue, a Mac Mini that would run >> Windows 8 and Mountain Lion or Mavericks with decent speed would cost over >> $1k ++. I run them both on my fairly maxed-out two year old MacBook Pro, and >> while the results on the PC side are acceptable for what I need — mostly >> site testing in versions of IE — they are by no means spectacular. >> >> Someone should try setting up something like this as a science project. >> Please report back. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Cary >> >> On Aug 12, 2013, at 10:13 AM, Ross Singer <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> If you want to go with Mac Minis (which, having had to use one as my >>> primary work machine for the last two weeks while my Macbook was in the >>> shop, seems like a perfectly inexpensive and awesome choice), I would >>> probably just max out the RAM on them and opt for putting Windows in >>> VirtualBox (or its ilk) rather than worry about Bootcamp. >>> >>> It would give you more options (Windows 7/8, Linux, etc.) and wouldn't >>> require rebooting. >>> >>> I do like the idea of more versatile public computers, although I'm not >>> sure how much real use they would get beyond web browsing, in practice. I >>> would imagine that probably depends a lot on what you make available and >>> how you promote them (for example, offering iMovie and making firewire >>> cables available, etc.). >>> >>> Also, I can't comment on what the maintenance overhead would be. Obviously >>> in the library world, there's probably a lot more acquired knowledge on >>> imaging and locking down Windows than alternatives. >>> >>> -Ross. >>> >>> On Aug 12, 2013, at 11:57 AM, Nate Hill <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Is anyone on the list using mac computers and bootcamp or some other >>>> partition to offer public access to either a mac or windows environment for >>>> their users? This seems like ti could be a pretty cool option to present >>>> folks with. >>>> >>>> Any thoughts on the matter? I'm trying to figure out what to replace our >>>> public computers with here in Chattanooga. Obviously I want them to be >>>> both inexpensive and awesome. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Nate Hill >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://4thfloor.chattlibrary.org/ >>>> http://www.natehill.net
