A couple quick comments... First, about the mac mini being underpowered, what do you want to do on a car computer that any CPU 1GHz+ couldn't handle? And 32mb video ram should also be plenty for anything you need to run in a car. The only apps that really gain from having more than what the mini has are either recent computer games or things you wouldn't want to do in a car anyway (code development, graphics/animation, scientific computing). The mac mini hardware as is will be enough to play mp3s and videos, surf the net, etc. Kacosta, what more would you want to do with an in-car computer?
As far as taking the case off, I wouldn't recommend it. Many of the more recent case designs do better with the case on as it allows better control of airflow. If the mac mini is completely passively cooled (no fans) it might work, but I'm not sure.

 

If you do it... you rock and please post pics. Get a screen in there and imagine all the things you could do. Is it possible to have car internet??

 

Some of you guys need to check out mp3car.com. The macmini sounds like a great idea but this is not a new concept. The only thing I can think of that may be a problem is the power supply. I'm guessing it's a 12 volt power supply but the reason most people put in relatively low powered mini itx systems in their cars is the low power usage. The best solution is an opus power supply which can survive engine cranking as most power inverters cannot do this. I'm sure they will have some good solutions though.

 

People put big speakers in just about anything on wheels. Why pick on Scion owners?

 

Sorry but your just not familar with macs. CPU wise they work moer efficently then a Windows PC. IE they don't need to be 3 ghz to get the job done. That G4 that is in the Mac mini is just as fast as a 2-2.5 ghz Windows machine.

Let say you have a warehouse full of stuff to move (IE the work a computer does) And you can either move it in a Tractor Trailer or 2 Pickup truck.s The Mac would be the tractor trailer, moving slower but getting more done in one trip then a Pickup. A Windows computer would be a Pickup sure it gets from point A to Point B faster but it doesn't carry nearly as much in one trip.

They both would get the job done in about the same speed but the Tractor trailer would require less trips.

 

And both a truck or a trailer would be suitable for small, mundane jobs like moving a sofa. That is kind of what I'm trying to get at, you don't need lots of power for what you would use a car computer for. I have computers on my home network that serve their simple purposes just fine that are well under 1GHz and have HDs smaller than my ipod. You don't need a powerful tool for every job. For a car computer I'd much rather have something easy to install and power than something 3x as fast with a bunch of power/features I don't need.

 

GEEZE ca$h why all the hate?? its just a forum

 

Ok, so I've been building carPC's for a LONG time now, this is no innovation. It's been done TIME and TIME again w/PC.

80gigs is substantial for a car... Trust me... and since when does Video RAM have a substantial impact on graphics performance? It doesn't unless you're running some ridiculous resolution, like 1900x1080 @ 32b which you will probably never do.

Indash VGA touchscreens are EASY to do, and dont cost THAT much. Just takes a little fabrication (mainly brackets and trim). A Lilliput will run you about $280 for a 7" wide aspect VGA touchpanel.

http://www.mp3car.com

Honestly, I believe that Mac is DOPE for the price.

NOW, EVERYTHING needs to become Mac friendly, then we can talk.

 

Everything you do on your PC i can do on my Mac and then some. Nearly everything you can use on your PC i can use on my Mac. The world is Mac friendly... Just no one notices unless they are using a mac.

There is NOTHING this small that has the capabilites of the Mac Mini on the PC side. The Shuttle cases are NOwhere close.

Give it 3-6 months before there is a badly build PC rip off coming down the pipe

 

I smell a pointless platform flamewar heating up...
One point to make is that the shuttle boxes have digital out while the imac mini does not seem to (from my reading of the specs and looking at pictures). As for ease of mounting and capabilities, I'd much rather have the mac mini.
As far as my personal opinion on the mac vs pc issue, I'd choose mac os x over windows xp for a desktop machine any time if given the choice, but right now I'm writing this from a linux laptop.

 

so theres the mini mac...whats the larger ones called? big macs?

lol lame joke but i couldnt help it.
i wanna see some pics

 

I have lots of crap on mine...and its only 30 gigs

 

I'm not trying to start a platform war here... god knows it would bore the ____ out of everyone here, including myself. I just get burned up when i have to hear people spout off information that is either outdated or just ignorant. Most people only know Macs by the name and the hearsay. There are quite a few people out there that have never used a mac and the bad mouth it to high heaven( i used to be one). The same people don't really understand alot about computers other then BIGGER NUMBER means better and everybody uses Windows therefore it is the BEST. (neither of which is ALWAYS true).

 

80gigs...is that the mac (puase for laughter) daddy of them all?

 

well all this car puter type postings are cool....bluetooth keyboard and a way to intergrate a satellite radio audio into the system is certainly the way cars are going.....mmmm? anyway good luck on the installs...

mini mac vs pc...pointless pov. go out and try exercising staying healthy, and getting off our asses.....

just my opinion.

 

I think this has been beaten enough, this is plenty for a car install usage. Heck, it's plenty for a nice Mac desktop to see what a computer that "just works" is like.

 

There seems to still be tons of misconceptions of processor speeds. All major chip manufactuers now don't list Ghz (clock speeds) as their only benchmark for speed, that is just an obsolete way of looking at them. There are actually 4 catergories that will determine a CPU's actual speed, clock speed is only one of them. That's why a 1.3GHz Centrino will outrun a 2.5GHz Mobile P4 (they're both Intel). AMD dropped the GHz rating years ago (Athlon XP 1700+ runs at 1.4GHz but is just as fast as a P4 1.7Ghz).

Rest assured that 1.42GHz CPU in the Mini Mac is plenty powerful and could easily keep up with a 3GHz P4. But don't just take my word for it look at professional benchmarks. http://www.apple.com/powermac/performance/ If you notice the Dual 2.5Ghz G5 bests the Dual 3.2GHz Xeon by a good bit in every test.

 

buddy of mine has a carputer in his grandam. The pc alone was only about $300... another $200-400 for the screen. His has an 80gb hard drive and he complains about space... but he's kinda like me, if there's a song I might listen once a year... I want it on the hard drive. He has several movies ripped to the hard drive as well.

 

umm wow, lotta myths flying about in this thread.

First of all, never trust benchmark numbers, especially the ones posted by the manufacturer... cmon ppl, that's like trust comparitive dyno results or hp gain claims. You all should know better.

Secondly, without moving to 64-bit processing (and even so). Raw computing power is fast approaching its limit (unless that atomic transistor technology ever gets anywhere). Innovations in the chip market lately have largely been extensions and hardcoding specific instruction sets.

When strictly comparing hardware, its impossible to say which platform is faster or more efficient without looking at the software side of things. These days any manufacturer can play around with whichever software is optimized for their OS and platform in order to get better numbers.

For example about the benchmark posted above there have already been issues:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/06...cheating_over/

You guys have to understand that this "cheating" is common practice in the computer industry and has been since the inception of benchmarks. Video card makers will optimize drivers to run certain games really well. Even software manufacturers may cheat a little to help certain factions out (e.g. a few years back it was found that adobe would leave certain obscure PS filters unoptimized in its PC code, thereby slowing down benchmarks on the PC to show that macs still ran adobe PS faster.. a key point to preserving the mac market then, when they weren't doing so well.. those same filters were shown to take far less time in previous version of adobe PS for the PC [some 2x to 3x faster]. Removing them [only a handful] from the benchmark showed that PC ran PS faster. Of course adobe claimed it added "enhancements" to those filters).

So realize that cross platform comparison is almost always subject to industry manuevering, and most of the time not too valid to look at. The people who make and test benchmarks are not above industry pressure. And processor "efficiency" is always at the mercy of code. These days, since apple really running on unix now, you can pretty much run just pick whatever you fancy that has the software you need. Realize that certain platforms will be better for specific things, not solely based on hardware, but on software support (macs suck for games, why? b/c not a lot of games are optimized to run on them ... yet).

BTW, a better way of gauging what a cpu can do is to look at its transistor count. Transistors will give you a rough idea of how much the chip can do if it is used at full capacity.

ok so speaking to the topic... realistically, if all you plan to do is play mp3s, any platform will do. Honestly much as I like the idea of a carputer... realistically you aren't gonna be using it too much while driving. Internet coverage will be spotty at best, unless you hook up a huge antennae and have continuous hotspot coverage (at best you'll use it to look up the occasional movie time... maybe weather conditions or something rather than surfing). Movies.. well that's for the passengers more than for the driver... I find it distracting to drive with a movie going on... sure its cool to park and watch one in your car .. for about the first 10 times, but after a while you are just draining your batt or draining your gas. Ditto with games... plus we did test runs with just laptops in the car, and the constant motion, plus bumps will usually make people nauseous.

Connecting it so it controls certain aspects of your car... now that's far more challenging..

If you are just going for cool... hook up a mic, dump on some speech recognition, and make it say stuff to you when it boots up. Someone needs to design Kitt or Hal, lol.

So in considering a mini mac I'd be far more concerned with its physical requirements than how fast it can run stuff you'll realistically never use (just make sure it can run video without skipping/stuttering). Power (as in electricity), heat, airflow, sturdiness is what I'd be more concerned with. If you are using it as a media center you may want to consider what type of computer you have at home and what your file xfer options are (USB stick, wireless, crossover, etc) and how you plan to implement it.

You guys should talk about what it is you envision doing with a carputer... it'll be easier by far to determine then if the minimac is what you are looking for.

P.S. btw there are smaller pcs than the shoebox, and probably equivalent in size to the mini, just nothing standard, it'd be extremely DIY. e.g. If you want something flat (underseat) you can take a look at 1U servers.

 

okay anbody done it yet and have pics?