High Spec Mac Mini v Macbook

Question

I want a Mac with 1GB Ram/DVD RW and about 120GB HD
The Mini comes out a little cheaper but doesn't have the webcam or a screen.
The Macbook also has the faster chip Core 2 and 2.0 v the 1.83 on the mini.
I can't really see why anyone would want the mini
Am I missing something?

Answer 1

At $1299, the reason a MacBook wouldn't be on my shopping list is that the screen is perfect for mobility, but too small for serious use or for ready use in presentations etc. Added to that, I would not generally want to spend money on an Apple slot-loading DVD burner if it was for serious use, since I've never found these to be particularly likable devices or all that reliable on a variety of media. Thus, not only would I need USB keyboard and mouse because I dislike having to use inbuilt laptop devices for these functions unless I have no option, but I'd also have to add an additional 17 or 19 inch LCD display and an external hard drive for backups, along with an external burner for more trustworthy performance.
Of course, I'd want the same extras for the mini, but with the base model plus 1Gb RAM that would bring the total to $674, allowing me another $600 to add the screen, a couple of external drives (one for added storage and the other for backups) and an external high-performance dual layer DVD burner, and still have a fair bit of change for a system that was capable of pretty much exactly the same thing the MacBook would do, with much the same performance, for somewhat less money, and all I'd sacrifice is portability.
The compromise would seem to be the iMac, but the base model, while having a good 17" display, would still need a memory upgrade, has the same integrated graphics as the mini and would of course need an extra hard drive for backups and DVD burner anyway. The next model up also has 17" screen, but at $1199 is $100 less than a MacBook, somewhat faster due to the faster drive, and has an ATI graphics system. It would still need the extra drive for backups, and an external burner to obviate the potential shortcoming of the slot-loading drive of course.
Thus for me, the choice would be between entry-level mini (for best flexibility in allowing me to pick what I want my system to comprise while staying within the budget) or 2nd in the range 17" iMac (for best performance).
On balance, I'd likely go for the mini. Performance is not something that is typically as critical a factor as many believe, and as evidenced by the fact that there are countless G4 Macs (and G3s too come to that) still in active service doing complex work (I have several). We tend to think we need the latest/greatest/fastest/best, but in reality we rarely do for the tasks we have in mind. Of course, on the PC side, performance does count for a great deal since Windows grows and slows with every patch, fix and update and software tends to become bloated over time, but MacOS isn't quite so bad in that respect, so for example, even most (almost all) of today's most power-hungry Mac software will run on yesterday's Macs quite happily... as will MacOS itself.
Oh, and did I mention the countless G5 systems in regular use also..... These incredibly powerful Macs would be expected to do heavy-lifting work since they were so good in their day of course. But even the basic entry-level mini has processing power on a general par with those systems, so the mini can't be so easily dismissed in terms of practical usability and value.
But then I admit I am biased slightly. In my office there are several systems including dual core Intel and AMD systems running Windows 2000, XP and Vista - but my system of choice is typically my 7-year-old G4 powermac (with a CPU upgrade added a couple of years ago), and which still does stirling service for both routine tasks and video and image editing work, plus web development and publishing duties too.