CD Drive

"Instead, Apple relies on other Macs hosting a CD for it to do an OS reload."

Cant' it use a USB CD Drive? That would surely be easier.

By davidbryant4 on 3 Dec 2009

Errrr

davidbryant4:

"Not all USB CDs are bootable by the Mac mini firmware, so those wanting a mirrored drive setup should add £56 exc VAT to their budget for the external SuperDrive."

should be relevant, no?

jon honeyball

By JonH_ on 3 Dec 2009

I'll stick with my HP rack mounts, thanks! Where is all the heat, the sound?

You can't call such a tiny box, which is nearly silent and doesn't generate significant heat a server! Heracy! :-D

An interesting concept and my iMac should do as a DVD drive... Hmm, tempting...

By big_D on 3 Dec 2009

xserve

I think the gentleman should look at xserves -- all the sturm unt drang that he could wish to have :-)

jon honeyball

By JonH_ on 3 Dec 2009

Non-server

Is there gonna be a review of this as a regular computer, rather than a server?

By Kid_Spock on 3 Dec 2009

Server 2008 R2

What I wanna know is if you can boot camp this badboy and stick Server 2008 R2 on there. If you can, I'm all over it!

By theloz1 on 3 Dec 2009

So easy to underestimate...

I quite agree with you on this - it's one of the most exciting products Apple has launched for the last couple of years, in my view. Although I was a little saddened by your generic criticism of other NAS servers - the Synology management front end is actually very impressive; only the lack of a built-in search engine prevents it from being an all-in-one solution. Having said which, there's clearly no comparison with the OS X server system. As a small-business IT manager myself, I'm ecstatic! My only gripe? Try organising a demo at an Apple Store. No, really: they aren't geared up for demos of this little beauty at all - I've been waiting 5 weeks to see one (or more importantly, actually use one) in action. Amusing!

By WJMaslen on 4 Dec 2009

Recognised a mouse

Well thats me sold! How can you seriously give that as a reason to use this device? XP is ancient and Snow Leopard is the newest of the new, and XP wouldn't be on a server in any case.

Why are you comparing this to NAS? Any other NAS at this price offers more storage and the crap OS doesn't matter so much since its only NAS. This is running Apple's full featured Server OS, a better comparison would be a box running Windows Server 2008. Where is the comparison to Active Directory and Exchange? The hardware specs look great but there is very little else in this review that explains the great score. If this is sitting in a backroom somewhere the looks will mean nothing and the size was great for under the television but doesn't matter so much for a server.

By windywoo on 4 Dec 2009

Nice one Windy

Having had far too much of my life sucked up by "Crap OSes that don't matter" when justt rying to get along with NAS boxes, I'd say the comparison is rather important. I also think you might be missing the point about the mouse- what could it be about any mouse made in 2009 that magically stops an older OS from seeing it? It's an absurd idea, and that MS are the maker of the mouse puts the icing on the cake. There is no comparison to Exchange and AD because 1) it's a short review 2) it doesn't try to compete with Exchange 2010, which is unmistakeably a massive enterprise-grade heavy metal messaging system and 3) when I talk about how OSX Server authenticates Windows Domain members, people like you are so disbelieving that the scoffing and emotional reactions totally overwhelm the facts...

By Steve_Cassidy on 5 Dec 2009

For WJ...

I passed your comment about an applecentre back to Apple. If you can get in touch via the email addrss on my column, and let me know where in the country you are, I'll ask whether they have somewhere (or someone) nearby who can help.

By Steve_Cassidy on 5 Dec 2009

For TheLoz...

You will need an external CD, as the review says. I'm not sure that 2k8 R2 will be all that useful on a machine with only 2 cores and 4GB...!

By Steve_Cassidy on 5 Dec 2009

@Steve

The point was that a NAS doesn't require a fully fledged OS so this product is intended to be more than that. There are NAS with crap UIs but there are also ones with UIs that fit the needs of the device so to compare simply to the worst ones seems like you are trying to sell this device on an irrelevant issue.

When you say XP didn't recognise the mouse are you sure that it wasn't just during the install? We are talking about an OS that dates back to pre-USB 2 and only has support for that standard through a service pack. I would expect some issues to occur because of this. Did you try the same mouse in a machine running OSX Tiger? Or maybe even Puma which was released around the same time. That would be a more fair comparison. I will tell you a mouse that XP will recognise and the Mac Mini won't: any PS2 mouse without an adapter.

Exchange CAN be used at Enterprise but small businesses see benefits from it too. I never scoffed at the fact that OSX server authenticates Windows domain users, I simply would have liked mention of how sophisticated the Apple package is in comparison. Does it integrate mail accounts well? Is there control over internet use? It seems to me the time you spent comparing it to NAS and promoting its mouse compatibility could have been used better to explain more about its functions as a small business server.

Those specs are fine for Windows 2008 in a small business although perhaps we have different ideas of what counts as small. I am talking about at most 30 users.

I see too many reviews of Apple's products that simply gush about useability but ignore features. Its not uncommon for Apple to have a great UI only for the feature set to let them down. Therefore I am mistrusting of a review that states mouse support as a benefit.

By windywoo on 5 Dec 2009

Actually he has a point. You did compare the latest OSX server platform to Microsoft's XP which is very nearly nine years old. That isn't very informative and is quite biased. Can you imagine saying that Windows 7 supports touch unlike Apple's OSX 10.1 Puma.

By TimoGunt on 5 Dec 2009

Microsoft are apparently making a mouse which is better supported by Apple than by their own systems; if there's bias at work I'd look there, if I were you, chaps. Windy: I haven't said anything about benefits of Exchange: I've passed on the comments I was getting from Exchange 2010 product managers at TechEd. You want to disagree with someone; start with them. However, it sounds as if a lot of people are curious about how things-that-aren't Windows do the work that AD makes easy or perverse (depending on who you ask). I think a few columns on working practices are in order (though Windy will need to convince me of the need to have integrated mail accounts, since these cause at least as much trouble as they resolve...)

By Steve_Cassidy on 6 Dec 2009

Falls between too many stools

I know the illustrious Mr Honeyball is in his "Green" phase, but how can this thing get such a rave review, and support from him?

Its a little plastic box with a slow processor, not much RAM and 1GB of HDD (unexpandable). It costs £700!(+VAT) It hasn't even got an E-sata interface, which would allow easy storage expansion.

So what's it for? I read the review, I'm not really any the wiser. What is anybody in the "Real World" as opposed to Journalist enthusiasts actually doing - specifically?

For this kind of money you can get WHS which will allow you to back-up up to Eight PCs and provides a central file-store as well. If you get enthusiastic you can run all manner of additional Windows servcies and specially written Applications. You'd also get expandibility and much more HDD space.

Less gush and more rationality please.

By wittgenfrog on 7 Dec 2009

Were you reading some other review entirely?

You are quite wrong about the Unexpandable bit. That's why I mentioned the Promise array that Apple brought to my attention (but couldn't supply). And you will excuse me but I seem to get published in the Real World section, which is all about people who aren't quite "Journalist enthusiasts". When I checked the WHS machines available, their *as delivered* drive space was on a par with this machine, and I would refer you to www.versiontracker.com list of add-ons for OSX and OSX Server. Oh; and it's not plastic, it's heavy cast alloy. Otherwise, full marks!

By Steve_Cassidy on 7 Dec 2009

-- snip --
Apple relies on other Macs hosting a CD for it to do an OS reload.
-- end snip --

Or you could just get the very transportable DVD drive Apple designed for the MacBook Air.

By SwissMac on 8 Dec 2009

Bias? Maybe the sentence is?

I have no bias towards either Microsoft or Apple. This comment is purely based on observation. When I read:

Quote "Microsoft are apparently making a mouse which is better supported by Apple than by their own systems; if there's bias at work I'd look there, if I were you, chaps"

I cannot help but think the sentence ought to be worded:

"Microsoft are apparently making a mouse which is better supported by Apple (on a brand new 2009 OS) than by their own (9 year old OS) systems;....."

I think the missing clarification on the ages of the systems makes it very misleading although I do see the irony in it!

By pveater on 9 Dec 2009

Galloping Goalposts, Batman!

The "Bias" is in response to the accusations of bias. I can see that there is a good basis here for a review of the mouse, to follow up on the server... My point, to rephrase it yet again, is that all the mice (ALL of them) I've seen so far, no mater what their extra doo-daahs nor who makes them, all the way from a Logitech trackball so large it could gobstopper an Orang-Outang, right through laser pointers for projectors, gyroscope mice, every last one of them... would work without drivers in XP, at least as far as basic point n click capability goes. This one (somewhere on my desk), doesn't do that. The only useful measure at work here isn't about the mouse or indeed (heaven forbid) the device I was actually trying to write about - it's simply about measuring just how crazy and pointless the emotional accusation types get to be when Apple is even mentioned...

By Steve_Cassidy on 9 Dec 2009

Not Convinced by Apple Fanboy

For £300 I could build a server with better upgradability potential, storage space, connectivity and performance. Granted this would take up more space and possibly power, but for heavens sake who is honestly going to use a mac mini when it doesn't even have dual ethernet ports?

By subseb on 10 Dec 2009

Not convinced by grumpy mathematician, either

at last, a sensible (if emotionally overplayed) comparison! Seb; how long would this take you? No cheating and, since otehr commenters here want like for like comparisons, no using second-hand parts either. From start of idea through to walking away with happy users, I'd have to see three man-days at the absolute minimum, rising sharply with more users. Let's be fair and not put you under the gun, and call it five man-days. The gap between your £300 budget for kit, and the Apple price, is £400. That has you being paid at roughly £75/day - before tax. That makes your take-home pay about £40/day. Most computer support people are charged out at £40-£60 an *hour* in longer contracts, rather more in shorter ones. By comparsion, I already have a client thinking about the MacMini, for only one use - it's cheaper than simply *renewing* the licence on their mail server for another year, for 25 users. You don't need 2 ethernets for that!

By Steve_Cassidy on 10 Dec 2009

Confusion

A few years ago, when I was still a subscriber to PCPro, I remember reading an article by Steve Cassidy where he reviewed a very similar machine (in terms of internal hardware) to this one.

He told us, in no uncertain terms that, although the manufacturer called its product "a server", in his opinion it was *not* a server. He went on to say that to be a "server" it had to be built from high-end, server hardware and not consumer electronics.

I'm paraphrasing, of course, but that was the gist of the article. Now we have Steve Cassidy extolling the virtues of, what is effectively, a crippled laptop running, what Apple calls, a server operating system.

An interesting volte face.

By 6tricky9 on 10 Dec 2009

What Color is my Paraphrase?

I think you're referring to the R***S***** article, the subject of which we still can't identify for fear of a lot of tedious legal hassle, where you get the inverse of the macMini - a great big butch server-looking box, with a tiny little rubbish motherboard banging about inside like a pea in a whistle. Can't say as that feels like a contradiction in any way to me. But then, I only wrote it...

By Steve_Cassidy on 10 Dec 2009

More Details?

@Steve_Cassidy: Very interesting -- perhaps you could give us further details without identifying the Company.

By 6tricky9 on 14 Dec 2009

No names no pack drill

Like I say, there were some difficulties to that particular situation, so I can't be that explicit. When you look at a full-length chassis, though, and open it to encounter a mini-ATX motherboard with two miserable little PCI slots, driven by rack-style hot swap PSU's wired up not to hot-swap, with fans set to "eardrum shred" speed because the otherboard has no temperature sensor system... then yo uwill know you are in the right territory!

By Steve_Cassidy on 14 Dec 2009

Still can't see it!

Hmm -- so apart from the noise level, which could easily be addressed for very little outlay, your claim that it did not constitute a server relied on the fact that there were only *two* PCI slots, and two hot-swappable PSUs that were hard-wired. Oh, and the small size of the motherboard.

Returning to the Mac Mini (with a *very* small motherboard), how many PCI slots does that piece of equipment have, and how many hot-swappable PSUs?

By 6tricky9 on 19 Dec 2009

Not just wrong but impolite to boot

You are making criticisms which depend on presumptions. No, the noise level wasn't addressible with "very little outlay". In fact the client went just about as far down that road as they could - so what you really mean is, you've never tried to quieten a server but you've heard some people claiming it can be done. Bzzt. Wrong! Secondly, what made this box not-a-server was that the performance was unbeleivably poor. Writing down what each component *should* have been able to do would have presented an estimate of ability way, way out of sync with what it actually delivered on a real network. According to the client, this was because a very loud, confident - and wrong - self-professed expert had assured him that because it was "a standard PC", it was safe to attempt any number of modifications, expansions, and tweaks. What they ended up with was a dog's breakfast, built out of parts not fit to run a musical christmas card, never mind a core server for a small business. Perhps the biggest advantage of the MacMini, in marketplaces where ignorance like that rules the day, is that it can't be broken by those whose investigative talents are overwhelmed by their imagination.

By Steve_Cassidy on 19 Dec 2009

Still confused!

@Steve_Cassidy: I wasn't aware that I made any criticisms (based on presumptions or otherwise); I was merely analyzing your previous post. It is you that seems to be presuming that "I've never tried to quieten a server" despite the fact that I work for a company that produces silent computer systems; but, of course, you weren't to know that.

I thought that you had already told us "what made this box not-a-server", and it was that reasoning that I was analyzing.

The only salient point that I can find in your latest post is your assertion that the MacMini "can't be broken by those whose investigative talents are overwhelmed by their imagination." Well, I would certainly agree that all Apple equipment is locked, secret, and proprietary; indeed, Apple Inc is probably *the* most restrictive IT company in the world.

By 6tricky9 on 29 Dec 2009

Victims of presumption

a) once the nasty little machine in question comes free, I'm going to invite you to try to quieten it, without simply putting the motherboard in a different case.

b) are you speaking about Apple from direct experience, or distant observation? I don't see any connection betwen "proprietary" (which they surely are) and "closed" (which they equally surely, are not). Take a look at Sun or Cisco, for comparison, if you have the chance to get the kit and do the work yourself.

By Steve_Cassidy on 29 Dec 2009