my co-worker just received one of these, and all I can say that it definatly has that "wow" factor. I read on their site that I can get DVI output to an HDTV / and or Component/S video. I like these ideas for getting my son his own computer into his bed room, I'd be replacing his DVD player and installing a computer all at once without cluttering it all up.
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 10:37:59 +0100, James Boswell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mar 29, 2005, at 05:43, Ben Ruset wrote: > > > Carroll Kong wrote: > >> Ben Ruset wrote: > >> I find it hard to believe it is all one file so to speak. I am sure > >> underneath the hood it has files roaming around. In fact, I was > >> fairly certain I read tech support issues where people did have to > >> dig down to find some small files to do certain tweaks. > > > > Maybe something in the user preferences, but for installing it's click > > and drag one file. > > a .app bundle is actually a directory.. :) but yeah, from the end user > POV, it's a single click and drag. and that's the important part. > > >> That was not to down play the simplicity of the system. It probably > >> does have a very well oiled package system. > > > > For the most part. Installing non-native X11 apps can be hairy. > > > >> Firefox and Thunderbird running 75% slower than on Windows? No, I > >> think you are wrong here. My guess is the problem is not Windows. > >> The problem is Apple hardware is much slower than x86 hardware for > >> cost. > >> My rationale? I have worked with Mozilla and Thunderbird on much > >> slower machines that would be comparable to the Macmini (Dual Pentium > >> III 933). I have seen it on a K6-200. Firefox and Thunderbird are > >> just very slow with regards to response time and load time. Sorry, > >> but the Mozilla people just write some of the slowest applications I > >> have ever seen. To some level, it is almost slower than java applets > >> which is very disappointing given that Firefox and Thunderbird was > >> supposed to be written in C++. > > > > You could be right. I am comparing my Mini to a 3.2ghz HT P4 laptop > > with 1.5gb of RAM. (Coincidentally, it's for sale to fund a Powebook > > purchase.) > > Well, 1.25Ghz G4 vs 3.2Ghz P4?, even on the best tweaked Altivec code > it's got no hope of keeping up :) > But I'd suggest trying http://www.caminobrowser.org > > (and don't forget, Tiger is incoming RSN - that'll make a significant > difference to the performance of quartz rendering. amongst lots of > other things) > > > -JB > > -- -Francisco http://pcthis.blogspot.com | PC news with out the jargon! http://sqlthis.blogspot.com | Tsql and More...
