Apple's Mac mini - Tempting PC Users Everywhere
by Anand Lal Shimpi on January 25, 2005 7:39 AM EST- Posted in
- Mac
Despite the lack of a spreadsheet application, Pages does have rudimentary support for charts - including a small spreadsheet-like tool that lets you input data for your charts. The charts themselves look great and the default color schemes are worlds better than those produced in Excel, but if Apple expects iWork to succeed, they need a fully functional spreadsheet application out soon.
As you can expect, Pages has the ability to import Microsoft Word documents, and so far, it's actually done a pretty impressive job of importing Word documents without any issues. When I say that Pages supports importing of Microsoft Word documents, I mean just that. Even if you open a Word document with Pages, the application will simply import the document into a blank Pages document, instead of opening the Word document that you clicked on.
Much like Keynote, Pages can export to a variety of formats - PDF, Word Document, HTML, RTF and plain text. Pages relies heavily on CSS for its HTML output, but it would be nice for Apple to include a simplified HTML export for people like me who just need something to produce clean, simple code without any need to preserve font styles. To Apple's credit, Pages does an excellent job of making sure whatever it exports looks just like what you've typed in Pages.
As a Microsoft Word competitor, Pages is unfortunately lacking in a number of areas - not because Word does things better, but because Word still has a number of features that weren't implemented in Pages 1.0. There are no document tracking options in Pages to track changes by multiple authors to a document, there's no support for mail merge, no grammar check (which may be a blessing in disguise as I've personally never appreciated Word's grammar check), and as I mentioned before, no spreadsheet complement with which to interface.
The one thing that Pages does an extremely good job of is not thinking that it knows what you want to do. Pages will not look at something that you're typing and suggest a different or better way of doing it. Personally, that's one of the biggest issues that I've had with Word since it started gaining in "intelligence".
As a publishing application, Pages does make creating flashy documents extremely easy. Much like many of Apple's other applications, Pages accomplishes this simplicity by including a number of well designed templates that are quite modifiable.
An example of a Pages template
Using Microsoft Word templates is taboo, since pretty much everyone has Word and can spot a Word template from a mile away (e.g. the resume templates), but one of the benefits of Pages is the templates that are unique enough that you do avoid that embarrassing problem. Granted, if Pages catches on, the novelty and exclusivity will fade, but the one thing about Pages is that modifying, customizing and personalizing the templates is extremely easy. Much like OS X, everything in Pages templates is drag-able, but unlike other applications, you can pretty much drag or resize anything without screwing up the pagination of your document or the layout of the template.
Performance-wise, Pages does extremely well - it's just as fast and as snappy as you would expect an application to be. The one exception seems to be when manipulating images in templates. Even on a G5, things aren't as smooth as they should be. Hopefully, it's something that Apple will address in future updates to Pages.
Right now, Pages has a great deal of potential, but it's not there quite yet as the clear (preferred) alternative to other applications. Apple also seems to know this as they have built-in a comment submission system into Pages for suggestions and improvements directly to Apple.
For what it does, it does very well, but it is the missing features and supplementary applications that hurt Pages the most. It's an application to keep an eye on, but right now, Pages and the iWork suite just aren't at the same level of quality and superiority as the OS on which they run.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
198 Comments
View All Comments
KirinRiotCrash - Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - link
#25, you can check Crucial's website for memory that will be compatible for the Mac mini: http://www.crucial.com/store/listparts.asp?Mfr%2BP...Burbot - Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - link
I am interested in a machine for Java programming and some amateur photochopping and recording. This sounds like traditional Mac domain, but lack of connectivity and expansion of Mini makes it a lot less fitting. First of all, it takes one memory stick, and 1GB SODIMM prices are fairly costly. Then I would like to get an external hard drive (sounds pretty reasonable for my needs), external sound card, mouse, keyboard, printer, scanner, hub to connect all USB stuff to one port, patience to deal with USB problems after those hordes of devices begin talking on the same port... see where it is going? Mini might be a neat thing by itself, but as soon as you try to do something serious with it, you get a rat's nest of external boxes and wires.A regular PeeCee SFF box might not be that nice looking, but it will take a couple of disks, a sound card, two memory modules, and will have a quite sufficient number of USB ports (4 rear/2 front is a common combination). So guess which one I will be getting, after all.
Stylex - Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - link
I want to buy one of these, but I don't want to pay apple's ourrageous prices for RAM, what kind of memory should I buy besides apple's? I was unaware that the SPD of the modules would be an issue. Is there any 'safe' non-apple ram for this?lookmark - Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - link
Nice article, very balanced.re hopejr. (#13) -- I imagine the mac mini would be pretty decent for intermediate audio editing, but you'd have to purchase a USB audio adapter like Griffin's iMic (around $40), as the mini has audio line-out only.
Questar - Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - link
#18,The reason why people rudely rant and rave against Macs, or Intel, MS, Etc. is due to their need for validation.
Most people here are AMD PC users. There is a herd mentality, kind of "you're ok, I'm ok". People are looking for the assurances from others that their decisions/prejudices are the "right" ones.
Just look at way people here gang up in Intel. I can just see it now, people will respond to this saying Intel makes crap..etc. But Intel makes fine products, just like Apple. Most people here feel elevated by tearing down someone/something that is not their personal preference, and feel pumped up that others support them.
rivieracadman - Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - link
#12 It would be important to remember that the Dell (or any other cheap PC for that matter) only come with a 30 Day warrenty. Don't get me wrong, I'm a PC guy through and through, but I have had to repair more of those pieces of junk then I can count. Not to mention that the mini is quieter, nicer to look at, and much smaller. I have even considered buying one. It would be great for a support unit. A RAM upgrade is only $70 more, and most people already have a keyboard, mouse monitor, and speakers. If I couldn't build my own systems I would perfer to select what I wanted as well. I hate LCD monitors BTW...On a side note, you have to consider the market as well. My mother in law is very happy with her 400mhz K62, and my mother is very happy with her 1Ghz Athlon. Both running Mandrake Linux. They play games, edit photos from their digital cameras, surf the web, and who knows. Both machines only have 256MB of RAM and 32MB/64MB MX Nvidia Cards. If they ever allow me to upgrade their machines I think I may go with the minis.
ehanneken - Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - link
Hm, make that a, b, c, and d (not a, b, b, and c).ehanneken - Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - link
I bought a Mac Mini for two reasons. First, I was curious about OS X. Second, I was looking for a Unix file server thata) was small
b) was inexpensive
b) consumed little power
c) looked reasonably attractive
The Mac Mini fit those criteria reasonably well. My next best option was a mini-ITX PC, but I gathered from my research that they tend to be noisier and less powerful than the Mac Mini.
brichpmr - Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - link
Excellent article, Anand. My own 1.33 ghz G4 is quite snappy with sufficient ram, so the 512 mb suggestion is right on the money.tinydancer - Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - link
Nice review Anand! Thanks for the objectivity, which is more than I can say for some of your readers. I usually don't respond in these posts, but this I can't avoid. Why people hate on Macs is beyond me. Mac haters were weened to early and have an inferiority complex, which translates into an inability to LET IT GO!. The fact is that Macs are about style and creativity seperate from function. Macs do what they do very well and with reliability. No...Macs are not the fastest, baddest computers on the planet, and who cares--only PC users that have no life except to worry about wether their GPU will handle Doom III. Hardware is hardware, where apple makes up the difference is in the OS and apps. The Mini will fill a void in the market for some wether they have a mouse, monitor or not. But you know what....keep hating. I like being part of the 2% market share, because I don't have to deal with the other 98% of you @$$#0!&$. It really doesn't matter to me if you ever get the point. Enjoy your grey box and your blue screen after it crashes!