Talk:Mini PC

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Inexpensive?[edit]

I have seen some reviews giving better options that nettops. Buying an actual desktop or netbook would be much more useful and cost effective; thus more inexpensive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.211.166.49 (talk) 05:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mac Mini?[edit]

Does the Mac Mini belong here too? -- 212.63.43.180 (talk) 15:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe so. Added it.--59.93.206.232 (talk) 10:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Mac Mini cost too much to be a nettop! 82.54.222.238 27 November 2008
The mini seems to be somewhere in between a nettop and a more traditional SFF PC. It has the lack of expansion room of a nettop. But it has an optical drive, the core 2 duo processor and the price tag of a more conventional SFF desktop. Size wise it is somewhere between the categories. It also predates the wide use of the terms netbook and nettop. Plugwash (talk) 22:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely don't think it should be there, mainly because of the kind of processor it uses. I would lean more towards ultra small form factor than anything.
No, a mini has no place here - an impressive small form-factor device, yes, nettop, no. It's at least double the price and features full blown processors. -- samj inout 18:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree w. SamJohnston, a Mac mini is not a net-top. However I would say the AMD PIC (Personal Internet Communicator) is. Was.DanielM (talk) 04:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Mac mini is just a ordinary desktop in a small case. Nettops are not only just small but also consume much less power than desktops. Latest Mac mini consumes 110w when cpu is running at full speed, according to Apple's claim[1]. Whereas, Eee Box consumes maximally 65w and on average 20w[2] G7shihao (talk) 02:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The primary attribute of a "nettop" is that it is designed/optimised for Internet access. They also happen to be smaller, cheaper and more efficient, but that is a side effect of designing a single-purpose rather than general purpose device. A Mac Mini is an SFF general purpose PC complete with mainstream processor, optical drive, magnetic media, etc. but there's nothing to say a nettop can't integrate a screen (like an iMac - indeed some of these devices already have VESA mounts so it's only a matter of time) and then it's neither cheap nor small, but still a nettop nonetheless. -- samj inout 01:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that despite the "net" marketing both netbooks and nettops are perfectly usable general purpose computers. Plugwash (talk) 01:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, "nettop" is a new term that evolved from the community, and thus has no strong formal definition. Nitpicking about what is and is not a nettop is pointless. The best we could do is a statement of "for the purpose of this article, a nettop is defined as...". Otherwise, I'd say if Reliable sources are referring to a product as a nettop, we can call it a nettop, if they aren't, then mentioning it is technically a form of Original research. -Verdatum (talk) 18:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
it most certainly belongs here. the atom is just too weak so the argument that a mobile core 2 duo cpu disqualifies is unimpressive. they will all use stronger cpus soon as the initial buzz fades and reality sets in. you can use an atom but it's needlessly weak given that much stronger cpus idle at less than 1 watt. I have a dual core atom Acer Revo 3610 with 4GB ram and nvidia ION graphics. it struggles to scroll on websites, including this one. you can't use the browser zoom function or it becomes a slideshow, 2-3fps. that the real problem is that web computer scientists are incompetent and make everything run many times slower than it could is another matter. as it stands however the Atom based nettops are defacto too weak to work well even for webbrowsing so excluding the mac mini because it actually has a cpu is just wrong. not that reason always wins here on wiki. 85.83.19.103 (talk) 04:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC) Dan Frederiksen[reply]
The one editor made a good point that the Mac mini is not low cost and net-tops are supposed to be low cost. I'd add to that that the Mac mini uses many times more power than the FitPC-2 and other of the lowest wattage models on this page so I don't think the Mac mini should be here because nettops are supposed to be low power. The Mac mini is small, but there's more to being a net-top than being small. I'm not sure what Dan Frederiksen's point is above, he appears to be saying that more powerful CPUs and higher wattage are the future of net-tops, but that is an opinion. The references say low power and low price are net-top characteristics. DanielM (talk) 13:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Market speculation tag[edit]

The matter is referenced, cant see a reason for the tag.--Kozuch (talk) 17:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the section seems referenced, I have removed the speculation tag.--59.93.206.232 (talk) 11:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quality[edit]

The quality of this article is currently fairly poor - it would be good if it could be made more encyclopedic (less lists and tables, more prose). It would also be good if it were similar to the Netbook article as they are companions and there is a good deal of crossover. -- samj inout 01:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, except some idiot is going to notice a lot of crossover, and then suggest that they merge the articles, and soon you end up with an article with a name like "Network Access Computer" with Netbook and Nettop redirecting to mere sections in that article. I think people on Wikipedia are batshit insane about enforcing the rules way too much, and some of them lead to crazy unencyclopedic organization of information. Segin (talk) 19:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous use of the term SoC[edit]

The term SoC is used in the article, but leads to an disambiguation page that leaves the reader with too many choices for the possible expansions of the acronym. While I guess that "SoC" with the lower-case "o" is referring to Google's Summer of Code, since it is a computing-related article, I don't want to change it because of a mere educated guess and circumstance. Segin (talk) 19:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Operating systems[edit]

The section(s) discussing operating systems is silly. Nettops are just small low-power PCs. The x86 based systems at least have no particularly unique hardware requirements. Further, the claim that motives for using Linux are related to cost is pure conjecture, and quite often wrong. The minimum hardware requirements for Windows XP are significantly higher than the minimum hardware requirements for Linux. A lot of it comes off as a promotion for Microsoft. If there is any discussion of OSes, it should be extremely brief. -Verdatum (talk) 18:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think the Microsoft strategy portion or the detailed description of what it finds to be "UMLCs" was appropriate for the article. The information was referenced though and may be useful somewhere, I'll paste it here, right after my comment. DanielM (talk) 12:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The original Eee device from Asus ran Linux. In response, Microsoft extended the availability of Windows XP for ultra-low cost personal computers (ULCPC's) from June 2008 until June 2010,[1] possibly to keep netbooks from gaining market share at the expense of desktops and "value" laptops[2] and to avoid increased use of Linux installations on netbooks.[3] Microsoft is also testing[4] and has demonstrated[5] a 'Starter' edition of Windows 7 for this class of devices.[6]
Microsoft qualifies ultra-low cost personal computers (ULCPCs) as systems matching the following hardware classification requirements:[7]
  • Memory: shipped with 1 GB RAM or less
  • Screen: 10.2" or smaller
  • Storage: 80 GB (although this limit seems to be increased up to 160 GB for HDD by now) or 16 GB SSD
  • No tablet PC functionality
  • DirectX version 9 graphics processing unit (GPU) or below
  • Advanced Configuration and Power Interface (ACPI) S4 sleep state is optional

References

  1. ^ Microsoft Announces Extended Availability of Windows XP Home for ULCPCs, April 3, 2008 Press release
  2. ^ Microsoft to limit capabilities of cheap laptops, IT World May 12, 2008
  3. ^ Microsoft U-turn to stop Linux dominating ultra low cost PC
  4. ^ Microsoft seeking Win 7 testers for netbooks?
  5. ^ Ars@PDC: Steven Sinofsky on Windows 7 and netbooks
  6. ^ Confirmed: Windows 7 'netbook edition'
  7. ^ Windows XP Logo Program

It says that Ubuntu is a suitable operating system for nettops and, while that may have been the case at the time that Ubuntu was included in this, it's become too heavy for computers with hardware so lightweight. I was going to remove it, especially since the claim has no citations, or put a lighter-weight distro in its place, but I wanted anyone's input on this. What are your thoughts, stranger? E02162 (Leave a message!) 06:37, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thin Client[edit]

Can somebody explain the difference between this and a thin client? Sounds like just a new bit of marketing terminology to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.251.93.217 (talk) 14:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are legitimate distinctions between a net-top and a thin client. Net-tops are small by definition, a thin client may be in a standard or boxy case. Net-tops have local storage, thin clients don't. Now when you get into "cloud-computing" with a net-top, where applications run in an Internet cloud, I think that's more like a thin client running apps off the LAN. DanielM (talk) 11:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd disagree that size matters. Nettops/netbooks are usually associated with running all of your applications in a web browser, but there is nothing that prevents you from running other software. Thin clients only support the client software that connects to a server. For example, an Xorg thin client will only receive X events and draw the remote machine's desktop to the screen. The client only computes graphical updates, whereas a nettop would have solitaire, text editor, etc... the web browser is only one of the apps they support. -- JamesBrownJr (talk) 19:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Too many large, high-wattage computers intruding in the article[edit]

There are a number of computers listed in the table that aren't really nettops IMO. Here's a picture of one from zareason.com that seems rather large: [3]. Then you have others that are not low-wattage, like the Mac mini, which is listed at up to 110 watt, but when I checked the reference that 110 watts only referred to the processor. The mini in total w. gfx hardware and hard-drive and optical drive and various hardware is going to be more than that. I think we need to winnow the list. As a start I propose removing all the computers shown as consuming 90 watts or more. DanielM (talk) 16:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinions do not count. You must back up your content changes with verifiable facts from sources. Wikipedia has a rule against original research and opinion is definitely within the definition of original research. You have shown that a number of people consider the term nettop to be low-power but not that anyone agrees on what low-power really implies. Nettops can in fact go from extreme low power with little performance to higher performance with low power compared to traditional desktops (either because mobile parts are used or other factors). Some tradition desktops can draw considerably more than 500W of power (they even sell 1000W power supplies for desktops) and even 200Ws could be low power and within the nettop domain. The zareason image you claim is so large is just a big picture (I did not try to measure but it might be 1:1 scale or even larger). The specifications list it as 10.4" x 9" x 4.4". 55 cubic inches is hardly large and definitely within the realm of nettops. Actually if you read the mac mini specifications you will find the 110Ws is power supply and the absolute maximum the system could ever draw--meaning it never draws that much (and another editor even recently criticized the 110W value and said the mac mini idles at only 13W and even provided a reference). 173.50.225.186 (talk) 05:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your logic is, 173.50.225.186, that because an elephant is big, we must leave open the possibility that grizzly bears and horses are small, and therefore include them in the list of "small land mammals." I say, on the other hand, that even if no reliable source WP:V has specifically identified a cutoff for the wattage (or size or price for that matter) beyond which a computer is no longer a nettop, we should still exercise some discretion in keeping machines with substantial wattage, size, and price out of the article or it just becomes meaningless. I'll acknowledge that I was incorrect about the Mac mini which does seem to top out at 110 watts, it was because this page [4] appears to say CPU max is 110, but yes it's talking about the whole mini. DanielM (talk) 11:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. That is not my reasoning. And there are plenty of reliable sources for what constitutes a small mammal. I am saying original research can come from additions as much as cuts and your cuts are original research. Your own statements in this discussion and the edit comments specify that many of your conclusions are your opinions. Also did you research that all the data for the items you cut are in fact over 90Ws or some other criteria. This was not in the original table you cut entries from but this page [5] says the Zareason Ion Breeze uses at little as 22W. I am not entirely sure what that means but the point is, just cutting content for your own reasoning without sources is as bad as adding content without sources. It seems someone else reverted the edit in question saying it looked like advertising. I find that odd as the entries cut followed the same format as the others left--if they could be interpreted as advertising then why not cut the entire table? Also if DanielM's assertions about low power nettops are true--why advertise something as a nettop that consumes a lot of power--that seems counter intuitive to advertising principles. If you believe some of that content does not belong on this page, I can understand that--why not make a list of nettops or comparison of nettops page to house the content you propose to cut? Then the entire table could be moved there and not clutter up the article (I agree it is a table and sort of a list). A comparison page could even point out the differences you mention in concepts over what constitutes a nettop. 173.50.225.186 (talk) 14:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The more I study this the more I believe this should likely be a list or comparison page of SFF machines (since a nettop is included in the concept of a SFF PC) and the table does not belong in the article to begin with. I propose the original table be moved to some sort of SFF PC list/comparison page since obviously what constitutes a nettop is not well defined and disputable. 173.50.225.186 (talk) 15:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made the changes I did for the reasons I discussed above and did not do any original research. The analogy of elephants making grizzly bears small land mammals to your position that 500 watt PCs make 200 watt PCs "low-power" is perfectly accurate IMO. If you can establish notability, you're welcome to start any comparison page you like, but the table of nettops is useful and belongs right here where it is. DanielM (talk) 18:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating, the latest anonymous IP to insert computers running at up to 120 watts in the nettop table, 134.134.139.73, who commented "Those entries are useful and do not look like any sort of marketing spam to me," is registered to Intel Corporation. I didn't notice when I removed those entries, because they weren't low-wattage and were distorting the meaning of "nettop," that most of them were computers based on Intel's Core 2 Duo processor. DanielM (talk) 00:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC) It's now edit-warring from 134.134.139.71, another Intel IP (I'm not doing /whois on anybody, you can see it on the talk page that every Wikipedia editor has). DanielM (talk) 00:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is mildly interesting considering Intel is the one that coined the term nettop (as well as netbook at the same time). 173.50.225.186 (talk) 16:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree w. you that Intel seems to have coined the term nettop but there was the Psion netBook back in 2000 or so, so I don't think that Intel can claim to have coined that term. DanielM (talk) 16:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to necro your comment, but I have just updated the page with info about a more genuine kind of "redefinition". I agree that edits by a corporation should not be allowed, as there are no safety measures in Wikipedia's protocols to properly enable it without it being nothing but false or manipulative advertising. (Infogalactic is attempting to test their system which would have built-in safeties on this sort of thing, but that's technically my opinion until proven otherwise, and opens another bag of worms entirely.) That said, my point is that, regardless of past actions by Intel, after applying an updated history of the concept moments ago I've realised that some of what I was going to post is better discussed here first, because it looks a lot like either a genuine re-definition of the nettop by the industry as a whole is underway, or a new class of device entirely is emerging.
You'll note that I mention devices such as the MINIX Z83-4 (not to be confused with the MINIX U1, a device with an identical exterior right down to the ports and antenna but with interior components that merely enable media streaming, NOT an actual OS like a nettop) and the Azulle Access Plus[6] (technically a PC stick, but still of similar build compared to the more compact stick PCs typically seen to date). These are genuine devices, currently available to purchase on amazon and other online retailers, and which I will link directly to the manufacturers (the devices are extremely new and the only reliable sources are marketing material and online stores, so I hazard a guess that a direct link to the passive marketing of the manufacturer's website is better than aggressive product ads like youtube videos (which I will avoid when possible). While reviews are still technically opinion, the number of high ones on several of these devices and similar device form factors (not SFFs; I say "device form factor" as the type of device design, like how most laptops are laptops, as are desktop PCs, smartphones, etc.) lends itself well to a major shift in the meaning of "nettop" or a new type of device that is similar but not identical.
The issue is that despite these new Mini PCs only coming about as a similar type of device in what appears to be a case of technological convergent evolution, nettops and "Mini PCs" are separated only by the capabilities of the devices and that the date of the first of this new device type is in a "post-nettop era" (meaning = nettops disappeared from the market at date "x" while mini PCs didn't appear until "x+n"). These new devices also tend to exclusively be called "Mini PCs" rather than "Nettops". Essentially, the current generation of "Mini PCs" uses much more powerful components on average than their 2000s nettop counterparts...
The Airtop[7] - a Linux Mint device - has used large side-mounted heat sinks to enable it to run games requiring 3D polygon-based graphics such as Stellaris[8] despite being approximately the same size as the Acer Aspire Revo as far as I can tell (obviously would need a confirmation of the exact sizes of these two devices), while the MINIX Z83-4[9] - listed in the descriptive advertisement as capable of running interactive media in the Windows 10 OS, with a lot of reviews saying it does do that task well - looks easily capable of fitting in an average adult's hand. Whatever the truth of their actual performance, size and quality, the listed prices are consistently at or below the average laptop.
The idea being that while the average size of a high-specification example does not appear to have changed, the capabilities of a modern high-spec Mini PC appear closer to that of a modern PC using Standard-ATX motherboards and components than to a mid-2000s nettop, and devices far smaller than a high-spec device are still claimed to be capable of far better performance than the equivalent differences between a mid-2000s desktop and an average nettop or netbook. These changes in the relative ability of smaller devices suggests that Mini PCs may be part of a newly emerging size of diverse computing hardware, which also includes stick PCs as well as emerging handheld game consoles which double as smartphones, gaming PCs of a previously unforseeable size, or act as all three. Devices such as PCs-on-a-stick, Mini PCs and hybrid gaming devices[10] (sorry for a YouTube ad compilation link, it's merely due to the variety of devices they demonstrate). Deciding whether these developments are notable would assist in determining if these "Mini PCs" and devices such as stick PCs and other surprisingly small fully functional PCs require a section to themselves in this article or even a page for such small computers and the various sub-types.
Even these hybrid game devices appear notable in and of themselves, such as the crowdfunded portable gaming PC project SMACH Z[11] which uses a steam controller interface (unfortunately still using a kickstarter page as of this writing, I apologise for the ad video and hope it won't autoplay for you; it didn't for me but you never know), and the unified hybrid device (Windows 10 gaming PC/Android smartphone/generic portable game console) PGS[12]. Other potentially unseen classes of device may result if this trend continues, and would need to be moved to a separate page in the near future. What are your thoughts on these matters? It's obvious something has changed, but I don't tend to do wikipedia articles as I find it hard to meet the rigorous standards, so there is bound to be a lot of subjective opinion and possibly what you might consider "Original Research". Only time will tell how much and how permanent or temporary these changes are, but in the meantime, some deliberation over what are and are not fair assessments is desirable for the sake of preparation for the potentially unexpected. 2001:569:F8C4:B800:85C4:DC7C:6D8F:FCBF (talk) 02:07, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Same user as talk, forgot to add that despite the normal gap between the nettops and the mini PCs, the Mac Mini has consistently been sold from the early 2000s - before most nettops - and is still available as of this writing, thus being the only device to fit both sub-categories. 2001:569:F8C4:B800:79E5:ECBF:F40:3581 (talk) 20:52, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Did a bit more searching. If a "mini PC" is defined as a nettop-like device or other extremely portable device which runs an Operating System introduced after 2014 (or similar), then the following search on amazon covers a lot of devices... [13] ...and though some would be considered stick PCs or handheld gaming PCs, and others are likely leftover inventory of 2000s nettops. As an online store, Amazon should be taken with scepticism, but it does demonstrate what the industry is trying to pitch. All devices in that search use a non-thin client OS (every listed OS except Chrome OS is that of a full computer, including Linux, Mac OS X and all versions of Windows from XP to 10) 2001:569:F8C4:B800:79E5:ECBF:F40:3581 (talk) 21:10, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the purposes of this article, I guess we can define a "nettop" as a personal computer with a small form factor, no built-in monitor, and an average power consumption less than x watts. For example, a game console is not a nettop because it is not a personal computer. But what reliable source sets x? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 20:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have to get by without specific measurements for wattage (how low?), price (how low?), and size (how small?). DanielM (talk) 17:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More Nettop info[edit]

There needs to be a Korean version of the article as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.126.149 (talk) 11:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

chronology[edit]

which was the first nettop? --173.66.252.26 (talk) 17:24, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Nettop. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Nettop. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 26 May 2023[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) >>> Extorc.talk 21:08, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nettop → Mini PC – The word "Mini PC" is more popular than "Nettop". HarmonZach (talk) 23:35, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mini_PC&oldid=1202786090"