Mac mini - First Impressions

My trusty iMac G5 is finally getting long in the tooth and showing some erratic behavior after five years of nearly flawless performance. Since we use this as our family workhorse, especially tracking finances and communicating with others, we needed a quick, cost effective replacement.

Of course, our household is pretty sold on Mac products, Windows XP is old, Windows 7 is still vaporware, and I wouldn't touch Vista with the proverbial 10-foot pole, so we headed to the Apple Store (online) and considered our options.

Our original plan (before old Smaug started coughing a bit too much smoke) was to buy a MacBook Pro for mommy and daddy, and then follow up eventually with a Mac mini for the kids. However, sometimes plans have to bend to reality, and there was no way we were going to be able to bridge the iMac until the second computer purchase. So, instead, we went straight for the Mac mini and put off the MB-Pro.

Of course, the mini is a BYOKMD box (bring-your-own-keyboard-mouse-and-display), so we also added a nifty 24" widescreen display from Dell and dusted off an old PC keyboard/mouse combo I had laying around. We also, following the "buy the highest performance one you can afford so it won't go obsolete next week" line of thinking, picked the $800 2GB / 250GB mini instead of the cheaper $600 1GB/150GB model.

Here are my first impressions.

Ordering Experience:

First, the ordering process was very simple. Even the "cheap" Apple products are pretty well decked out, so there weren't a gazillion options to choose from. Upgraded processor (no), memory (no), hard disk (no), a few pre-installed applications (again, no), keyboard and mouse (not yet!), accessories, and service plan. Click a few radio buttons, hit the "Buy it" button, and on through the usual checkout process. One relatively nice thing (in the "this should be expected") is that a single click-through on the confirmation status took me to the "Order Status", and a single click from there took me straight to FedEx's tracking data. Very simple and clean.

By contrast, the Dell process was not quite so simple. Don't get me wrong - Dell has a very nice website and ordering system. Still, by contrast, it was harder to find and select the best monitor choice (partly because they have so many choices!), and the checkout process was a bit less clear, due in part to somewhat over-fancy graphics. Again, I'm talking a "9" or maybe a "9.5" vs. a "10" here. It really wasn't a big deal. Dell also shipped via FedEx, and the monitor arrived a full two days prior to the computer. Granted, they were shipping from Texas, not China, but they won the race there.

Where Dell really fell short was their shipping confirmation email. It was in plaintext (not a big deal), and had no less than 10 separate links pertaining to various aspects of my order (including definitions, terms & conditions, a copy of the order confirmation, service rebates, etc.). It was difficult to pick out which one would give me the one piece of information I really wanted - the tracking info! To make matters worse, the top link on the page went nowhere. It was a real letdown in an otherwise excellent ordering experience. To me, once I get the "your order has shipped!", the only question I care about is "Where is my package?". All the rest of the stuff should be in a separate email (maybe the ironically much cleaner order confirmation?) or relegated to clearly lower priority part of the email. I want a single, boldfaced, prominent link that says "TRACK YOUR PACKAGE".

Out Of Box:

Out of box, both products scored very well. I especially noted how they were securely packaged using a minimum - and a minimal variety - of packaging materials. I got the sense that both companies have put a lot of thought into how to safely ship their product with an absolute minimum of waste. And best of all - NO PEANUTS!

The monitor, at about 17lbs, shipped in a slim brown corrugated cardboard box with folded, corrugated cardboard "brackets" to suspend the display within the box. There were also two plastic bags (one for the screen and a second for the base) and a minimal amount of plastic scratch protection over shiny parts. One clever idea: a large paper sheet served double duty as protection for the screen face and as the quick setup sheet with only a handful of pieces of tape to hold it in place. Good thinking on someone's part. Why waste another piece of paper or plastic here? The accompanying "product guide" (legal / warranty mumbo jumbo) and documentation CD were also safely but minimally packaged. Well done, Dell!

As hard an act to follow in this sense as the Dell monitor was, the Mac mini certainly gave it a run for its money. I'll have to explain this one from the inside out, though. First, the computer itself is relatively tiny, at only 6 lbs (shipping weight!), 6.5" square and 2" high, with a separate power brick. The computer, power brick/cord, remote, CDs and paperwork are packaged in tight-fitting cardboard spacers (no styrofoam!) inside a cardboard retail box that is shrink-wrapped. The retail box is then suspended within a corrugated cardboard shipping box by a pair of formed pieces of what I can only describe as the paper equivalent of particle board. The only "downer" I can see here is a nearly excessive use of a cellophane-like plastic wrap around the computer, remote and power brick for scratch protection.

Installation:

Installation couldn't be much easier. The monitor, like virtually all monitors was quite simple: snap in the base, plug in power and video cables, and turn on. The computer was not much more complex. Power, video and keyboard cables (and all other cables) plug into the back. One minor complication was in the video cabling. Because the Mac mini is so small, there is no room for a standard DVI connector on the back. Instead, it provides both a mini-DVI and an Apple DisplayPort, along with a min-DVI to standard DVI adaptor in the box.

Unfortunately, this brings up the one serious downside I have found so far. Cable management is an important issue. Right now, I have five cables coming from the back of this small box: power, video, ethernet, keyboard and an external USB hub. The mini is sitting on my desktop and the cables dangle off the back of the desk. It presents a relatively clean appearance. However, none of the connectors provide more than simple friction to keep them in place. I have already accidentally unplugged the power and mini-DVI connectors more than once while messing around with my desk organization. Losing video is disconcerting, but the computer recovers happily. However, losing power will cause the computer to crash. While OS X is relatively robust to accidental loss of power, this is never a good thing for a computer. For this reason, a better design would provide a more secure power connection. However, it doesn't seem likely that once I get things settled I'll be moving the thing around and knocking the cables loose, and some careful cable management behind the desk will likely further protect things.

Initial User Experience:

Now that I've been using the new mini for a few weeks, I can comment on the user experience. First, this little guy is quiet! Our G5 iMac had a rather annoying fan control bug that caused it to be quite loud. Since my wife suffers from migraines, this did not endear her to the computer. Not so the Mac mini. It is sitting atop my desk at approximately chest level, and I have yet to hear a peep from it, except when loading a DVD. It is virtually silent.

It is also remarkably fast. For everyday tasks, it seems to run effortlessly, with very little wait time. I have a MacBook Pro at work with a 2.4GHz Dual Core processor and the same memory load, and frankly I can't tell the difference. I have yet to run any benchmarks, but I did compile the Apache 2.0 web server, and (compared to compiling it on the iMac) at first I thought the compile had failed, it finished so quick.

As for the operating system, right now it is running OS X 10.5.8 (Leopard), and I have pre-ordered OS X 10.6 (Snow Leopard), due out next month. The iMac was - and still is - running 10.4 (Tiger). Leopard has been out for a while now, and its usability on the Mac mini is much the same as any other Mac: excellent. I especially like the improved parental controls over Tiger. I can place more meaningful limits on the kids' computer use to match their age and maturity. The new features in iLife 09 are very handy (I'm especially enjoying the facial recognition and place marking in iPhoto!), and the look and feel is quite pleasant.

In short, I'm well pleased with my purchase. Macs are expensive computers, there's no doubt, and the Mac mini is no exception. All told, I'm just over a thousand dollars into this box, and a "comparable" PC might have cost half that. However, in my estimation, the overall experience is worth it. We're quite happy with our new little addition.

Quick Update on the Shaving Experiment

The Good:

My first razor lasted approximately twice as long as I estimated in the original analysis. That would cut the overall cost of disposable blade shaving in half, making it far more competitive with the electric razor on cost. Plus, with even a little practice, blade shaving is fast, certainly faster than the electric - or at least it seems so. It fits very conveniently in my routine between shower and tooth-brushing.

The Bad:

Turns out, you've pretty much gotta shave every day, or at most every other day. Otherwise the stubble gets into this messy range where it's too long to comfortably shave, but not long enough for the trimmers. That makes for an unpleasant shaving day. 5:00 shadow doesn't look so good at 9:00 am.

The Ugly:

My mug when it's not hiding behind a copious amount of facial hair. Ya gotta sport what the good Lord gave you, though.

Blogs on Blogs...

How fun is this... we're planning a birthday party for the Twins. We are having a movie themed party, and we had these nifty popcorn-box shaped cards to use for invitations. Unfortunately, the available print space is too small to put all the information we need...

Solution: Create a blog and put the URL on the invitation. The blog post includes all the party details, including a Google map of the theater. The embedded map can be scrolled and zooomed, and switched between map and satellite views. It's neat!

And, folks can RSVP by commenting on the blog!

Then, the same evening, I get the bright idea to start another blog to handle news and discussion for the Cub Scout pack we're trying to start at the school. Shazam! Blogger to the rescue. All of a sudden I'm managing a half dozen different blogs.

Ain't the interwebs great? :-)

On Cousins

Due to the recent additions to the extended family, I got curious and studied up on the whole naming convention surrounding cousins...

Apparently, the first/second/third thing is defined by the minimum number of generations separating one of the two people in question from their nearest common ancestor, while the "once removed / twice removed" thing is the difference in generation between the two people in question.

Easier explained by example (actually, easiest explained by the chart in the above-linked article!)

So, TwinGirl & TwinBoy and TwinCousin (my newly arrived nephew) are one generation away from their nearest common ancestor (TwinMamaw & TwinPapaw), so that makes them, naturally, first cousins. There's no "removed" because they are all of the same generation. However, assume for a moment, some time in the future, TwinGirl has a child named Fred. Fred and TwinCousin would be "first cousins, once removed" because again the common ancestor is TwinMamaw, one generation from TwinCousin ("first cousins"), but TwinCousin and Fred are a generation apart ("once removed"). Now, if TwinCousin has a child, named Mary, Fred and Mary would be second cousins because you have to go two generations back to a common ancestor, but not removed because they're both the same generation. However, Mary and TwinGirl would be first cousins once removed for the same reason Fred and TwinCousin are.

Now, let's look at a more complicated example.

Starting with TwinGreatGrandpa, there's TwinGrandpa, then me, then TwinBoy. Also, there's Uncle DH (who married TwinGrandpa's sister), Cousin DH (his son), Cousin JH (his son) and then cousin BH (his daughter).

Cousin DH and I are first cousins, JH and I are first cousins, once removed, and BH and I are first cousins, twice removed. Cousin DH and TwinBoy are first cousins, once removed, JH and TwinBoy are second cousins, and BH and TwinBoy are second cousins, once removed.

So basically, I am first cousins (+/- some removes) with every descendant of TwinGreatGrandpa because I am one generation away from the "start of the tree". My kids are first cousins once removed with TwinGreatGrandpa's grandchildren (because those grandchildren are one generation away), but second cousins (+/- some removes) with his great-grandchildren and their descendants (because the nearest person is two generations away from the common ancestor).

Confusing? Yes, but not so bad once you grok the pattern.

Welcome to the family, TwinCousin!!

Decisions, decisions: Shaving!

Hrm.

I've had a fairly decent Norelco cordless razor for about 4 years, and it's close to giving up the ghost. I haven't replaced the heads - ever - though I've kept them clean, and the battery is not holding a charge anymore.

I'm not very interested in replacing it right away, so I grabbed a package of disposable razors and a can of shaving cream at the supermarket last night. Result: the closest shave I've had in years. But, being an engineer, I can't help over-thinking the decision. So, here's a rough cost/benefit analysis of several forms of keeping my mug from looking like Gandalf's.

First, some notes about my shaving habits. I usually don't until I have to. I sport a goatee, and I don't function well before a shower. Since I'm not usually in contact with customers, I can get away with several days stubble most weeks. The electric razor is nice because I can touch up without using water, but the apparent cost of blade replacements keeps me from doing that regularly, and frankly it's a poor shave. I could spend a big pile of money on a "good" razor, but I don't know how much that would help. Having to remember to shave before I shower is also a bit of a negative, especially on early mornings.

Option 1 - Electric Razor:

• Up Front Cost: about $50 (could be over $200, but we won't go there)
• Replacement blades: about $35/year
• 5-year TCO: $190
• Shave time: fairly slow, to get it as good as possible
• Shave quality: acceptable for daily use
• Pros: dry shave
• Cons: must shave dry skin (i.e. before showering), more often, and bits of hair fly everywhere.
• Environmental Impact: The razor uses a small amount of power from the mains to charge the battery. The battery is recyclable through local battery recycling facilities, but according to Philips Norelco, the rest of the razor is not, except through specialty electronics recycling houses.

My electric razor was a fairly basic Norelco (older and simpler than the one I linked to above), and admittedly I've never replaced the blades. Still, even when new it took significantly longer to get an acceptable shave than the disposables I was using before. It also left little bits of hair all over my sink and chest. A better quality razor with periodically replaced blades would no doubt perform significantly better, and there are models that can be used in the shower, so it's not entirely fair knocking my razor on those scores. However, knowing my personal behavior, I am not likely to shell out the up-front cash to buy one of the wet or high-zoot razors.

Option 2 - Disposable Razor:

• Up Front Cost: about $10 ($7 for razors, $3 for shaving cream)
• Replacement razors: $7 for a pack of 4, average 1 week/razor = $91/year
• 5-year TCO: $455 plus shaving cream
• Shave time: quick!
• Shave quality: good to excellent
• Pros: smooth skin, less time shaving, can (should) shave after shower
• Cons: risk of cuts, disposables in trash, shaving cream mess.
• Environmental Impact: Disposable razors are in theory recyclable, except they suffer the usual problem of having sharp metal blades embedded in (and hard to remove from) the plastic. One could reduce this by cutting the heads off (or by using disposable-head razors at some additional cost), but this increases safety risk. Also there are brands made with recycled plastic that would reduce the impact. However, generally speaking the razors (or at least their blade heads) are landfill material. Note that the shaving cream cans are generally very recyclable steel and plastic.

I made this analysis based on the relatively cheap Gillette Sensor 3 triple-bladed razor, which I picked up in a 4-pack. This blade gives a very good shave over most of my face, with an acceptable job on my neck. In all cases it is better and faster than the electric razor. I'm skeptical how much better a more expensive disposable would be, and quite sure that the far cheaper BIC razors would do well and save some cost.

Option 3 - Classic Safety Razor:

• Up Front Cost: $60-$250 (Razor $50-$240 plus $10/pack for blades
• Replacement blades: $6 for a pack of 10, average 1 week/razor = $32/year
• 5-year TCO: $210 plus shaving cream
• Shave time: quick!
• Shave quality: good to excellent
• Pros: smooth skin, less time shaving, can (should) shave after shower
• Cons: risk of cuts, disposal of blades, shaving cream mess, debatably poorer shave than multi-blade disposable.
• Environmental Impact: The razor itself will last essentially forever, and being made of steel is highly recyclable. The blades, while disposable are also stainless steel and can be recycled.

This, for those of you who don't remember is a reusable metal razor handle which takes double edge disposable razor blades. This is the disposable razor's crotchety old grandfather.

Bottom Line:

When combining shave quality, cost, convenience and environmental impact, the hands down winner is the old-fashioned safety razor. Its TCO is less expensive than the electric razor and far less than the disposables. Shave quality is much better than the electric and competitive with if not better than the disposables. On convenience, the safety razor matches the disposable and beats the electric on the "can shave after shower" and speed sub-scores. Finally, on environmental impact it's hard to argue with the safety razor. The entire system is 100% recyclable and contains no batteries.

Even better would be a straight razor, but I don't trust myself not to slice off an ear...

The other two have significant drawbacks. Disposables are surprisingly expensive, despite their enticingly low up-front cost, and they generate a mountain of unrecyclable plastic garbage. The electric razor has significantly poorer shave performance, cannot be used well on wet skin, and has a Ni-Cad or Li-Ion battery to recycle.

In the end, it seems, that this is a classic case of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!" The safety razor was a definite improvement over the straight razor in that it allowed millions of men who were not so dextrous to safely shave their own faces. Big bonus points for convenience, not so good for business at the barber shop. The disposable razor and electric razor were further "improvements" on the safety razor, but given the above analysis it's hard to argue that they truly make any kind of improvement on the original (unless you're a Gillette or Norelco shareholder...).

Now, to find a good old fashioned safety razor...

Saving produce, part deux...

My first experiment with keeping fruit and veggies fresh consisted of simply eating a lot of them. This works well, but it ends up with a lot of trips to the grocery, and still some rotten fruit. There's only so much fruit one man can eat, after all.

So begins Phase Two of my experiments:

These are the Rubbermaid Produce Saver containers. Clear plastic containers with snap on lids that have little vents in the rims and trays that allow air to circulate under the produce. For storage, the trays, lids and bowls snap together so that the parts don't become lost.

Rubbermaid claims these containers will preserve produce up to 33% longer than standard containers. The set I bought had three containers in small (2 cup), medium (5 cup) and large (14 cup). These are just large enough to hold a box of blackberries, a box of strawberries, or a bag of grapes, respectively. My sister has a set, and she says they do in fact work well.

I've only had mine for a couple days. The square shape does pack much more efficiently in the refrigerator than the round bowls I was using last week. We'll have to see how the fruit fares.

UP Up, and away!!

One word: Wow!

Saw Disney's new animated film "UP" in 3D last night, and it was very, very good.

First, the bad news. This was (for me) an eye-poppingly expensive trip to the movies. For two adults, two kids, two sodas, a large popcorn and a bag of M&Ms, the tab ran to about $65! Yikes! The tickets alone were $45. We won't be doing that again soon.

The not-so-bad news: The incremental cost for the 3D version vs. 2D was only about $2 per ticket, and, to me, well worth it at least once.

The good news: This movie is classic Pixar greatness. I don't know what these guys put in their coffee, but they make some really great movies! I went into UP with low expectations, since I hadn't read much about it and the premise of the movie wasn't terribly clear to me. I expected it to be your basic animated kid flick. Boy was I surprised. The story is engaging, with a nice balance of fun, whimsy, and poignant moments.

The opening story tells how the old man Carl meets his beau, Ellie as a child and follows their romance (silently) from marriage to Ellie's death bed (handled quite well even for the young set). Immediately, you are engaged and feel for this guy. I found myself looking over at my wife and wondering how I will feel if I should be the one to outlive her after such a lifetime. That's good screenwriting when you identify with a character that quickly and deeply with so few words spoken.

The rest of the movie is a well-handled mix of pure fun and just enough seriousness. We follow Carl as he and Roger (a Cub ScoutWilderness Explorer with an absentee dad) as he uses a bunch of helium balloons and a clever bedsheet->sail arrangement to float his house to the remote Paradise Falls in South America. Here, he encounters a strange bird, a bunch of talking dogs ("Squirrel!") and a disgraced explorer who was Carl's childhood hero.

I won't spoil the plot for you, but this is definitely a must-see. It ranks up there with Pixar's best, and is quite engaging for the grownups, too.

Now, as for the 3D. This is some seriously cool technology. Put your geek hat on for a moment. A normal animated film is projected at 24 frames per second onto the screen. Both eyes see the same image, and it changes 24 times a second, creating the illusion of smooth motion.

For Disney Digital 3D (a brand of RealD Cinema technology), they make a few changes. First, they hand you a cheap pair of plastic sunglasses. The lenses are circularly polarized, but in opposite directions - so the left lens is polarized clockwise and the right lens is polarized counterclockwise. Polarized lenses only allow light that is polarized the same way as the lens to pass through.

Next, they increase the frame rate to 72 frames per second. A polarizing filter is placed in front of the lens that switches the polarization of the image for each frame. So, instead of projecting a single image on the screen every 1/24 of a second, six images are projected in sequence, like this:

1. Left Eye (clockwise)
2. Right Eye (counter-clockwise)
3. Left Eye (clockwise)
4. Right Eye (counter-clockwise)
5. Left Eye (clockwise)
6. Right Eye (counter-clockwise)

Whichever image is being projected, the "wrong" eye sees black, or nearly so. This all happens so fast that your brain can't really follow. What it "sees" is a pair of slightly different images in each eye, creating the illusion of 3 dimensional sight.

The end result, compared to earlier attempts at 3D, is nothing short of fantastic. The image doesn't just jump out at you. It appears three-dimensional, stretching both into and out of the screen, just as if you were viewing a real three-dimensional scene from a short distance away. All of this works quite well, and because it uses circular polarization instead of linear, you don't have to hold your head still for it to work correctly. Brilliant!

There are a number of movies already out, and many more on the way using this technology, and it really works - even with live action! You feel like you could reach out and grab some of the screen objects.

I will mention one subtle but very, very important thing that "UP" has over previous 3D attempts. The movie itself makes proper use of 3D. No gimmicks. No shots where something "jumps out" at you clearly for no valid reason other than to show off the 3D effect. Nothing cheesy at all. The three dimensionality quickly fades into the background and becomes just another part of the movie. Scenes where it makes sense to see 3D, such as when the fighter planes are circling the house are shown in 3D. Scenes where it doesn't make sense (such as close-ups) are not, and it all blends together into a masterful whole.

In short, this is an excellent work by some near-genius filmmakers and technologists. Despite the expense, I highly recommend checking this movie out in 3D if it won't break your budget. I'm not sure I'd spend the cash to see it twice in 3D, though when it goes to the "dollar theater" I'd be happy to see it again in 2D... and if the 3D version shows up at the dollar (not likely due to the extra costs for a modified digital projector and special screen), I'd pay a little extra to see that!