PDA

View Full Version : Mac mini is blazing fast


BWhaler
Jan 21, 2005, 08:40 PM
Had to share this story since it was pretty incredible.

There has been a lot of heat on Apple due to some of the specs of the mini, including folks here.

But as the Mac veterans understand, because Apple owns the whole experience, it can optimize every component and Apple piece of software for speed.

So the story...

Today my buddy got his mini (1.25ghz with 512mb of memory.) He hooked it up to his 50" plasma screen.

This "crippled" Mac:

Drove a 50" screen
Drove an iSight chat
Installed iLife
Played music with the visualizer on
Surfed the web

All without any--any--latency.

My buddy who owns a ton of Mac hardware was blown away.

The iSight's processing alone is pretty intense. And yet it was one of several tasks the Mac was doing at the same time.

Now don't get me wrong, this is not a Mac to do intense video editing or professional photoshop work.

But for a 500 dollar Mac, it was simply off-the -charts.

Once again, Apple has knocked the cover off the ball.

And I dare say, all the pundits, including some Mac folks, who get featuritis or don't understand that a computer is more than just its spec sheet, are dead wrong about the power of this machine. (And please, I know you can't run a game server on it. No kidding.)

sjpetry
Jan 21, 2005, 08:58 PM
I had doubts in the Mini but not anymore. :)

Thanks for sharing. :)

AndrewTosh
Jan 21, 2005, 09:05 PM
Great to hear! If it doesn't snow too much tomorrow, I'll be down at Christiana Mall, DE buying mine. I really didn't expect it to be too slow, aside from disk performance. I mean it's pretty close in specs to the G4 PowerBooks and the previous-generation G4 iMac. Neither of those machines are slow at all in my experience.

My upgrades/accessories:

-1GB DDR stick, use the 256MB leftover for parents' PC
-21" Apple Studio Display/USB hub (the Trinitron one that came with the G4s)
-IBM Model M keyboard and USB->PS/2 adapter (best keyboard, ever, accept no substitutes)
-Logitech USB scroll mouse

Maybe when 7200RPM 2.5" drive prices drop I will buy one. I could also just get a FW400 enclosure and a 3.5" drive. We'll see. :)

-Andrew

Bibulous
Jan 21, 2005, 09:05 PM
How loud is it? Does it have a fan and does it run often?

T.Rex
Jan 21, 2005, 09:18 PM
I can't friggin' wait for mine to get here! But my ship date is on or before Feb 18!!! Oh well, I just got the shipping confirmation for the 20" Cinema display I ordered with it!!! I don't know which I am more excited about getting, the computer or the display...

BWhaler
Jan 21, 2005, 09:28 PM
How loud is it? Does it have a fan and does it run often?

Dead quiet as far as I can tell. It's also surprisingly cool.

As we continue to play around with this mini, it just gets more and more amazing. It's beautiful, fast, and all Apple.

Color me impressed. No, color me amazed.

T.Rex
Jan 21, 2005, 09:45 PM
Color me impressed. No, color me amazed.

Color me Badd.

jimbo999
Jan 22, 2005, 07:48 AM
Color me Badd.

That's just wrong :D

Dont Hurt Me
Jan 22, 2005, 08:22 AM
Dead quiet as far as I can tell. It's also surprisingly cool.

As we continue to play around with this mini, it just gets more and more amazing. It's beautiful, fast, and all Apple.

Color me impressed. No, color me amazed.Fast when you compare it to what? Come on guys i know its new and all but lets not spin stuff into something bigger then it is. Its a G4 with a very outdated videocard and a slow drive with a memory slot. Fast compared to what my imac 333? I agree its clean and apple but fast? Fast when your clicking on the net? Fast when you turn it on? Fast when you go from itunes to email? Just wanted to make a point. Doom3 will be the deal maker when deciding fast and i dont think anyone will describe mini & doom3 in the same breath as fast. Dual G5 2.5= Fast.

Hodapp
Jan 22, 2005, 08:42 AM
I agree its clean and apple but fast? Fast when your clicking on the net? Fast when you turn it on? Fast when you go from itunes to email?

LOL, I was going to post the same thing.

This entire thread is rampant Apple fanboyism at its finest.


This "crippled" Mac:

Drove a 50" screen
Drove an iSight chat
Installed iLife
Played music with the visualizer on
Surfed the web

All without any--any--latency.


Driving a 50" screen... OooOoo... 1280x720 is lower resolution than the smallest Apple Cinema Display.

It ran iSight chat? ...Err... My grandfather's graphite iMac can do that without skipping a beat.

Installed iLife? You can do that with a G3 if you'd like.

Playing music with the visualizer on and surfing the web... ... ...?

THIS makes a "blazing fast" computer?

Bahahahahahaha.

Not to say I don't appreciate the Mac Mini for what it is, and anxiously await receiving the ones I ordered, but good god... 1.25-1.42Ghz G4 combined with an ancient graphics card and a 4200RPM hard drive is not something I'd describe as anywhere near "blazing fast."

Bear
Jan 22, 2005, 08:46 AM
Fast when you compare it to what? Come on guys i know its new and all but lets not spin stuff into something bigger then it is. Its a G4 with a very outdated videocard and a slow drive with a memory slot. Fast compared to what my imac 333? I agree its clean and apple but fast? Fast when your clicking on the net? Fast when you turn it on? Fast when you go from itunes to email? Just wanted to make a point. Doom3 will be the deal maker when deciding fast and i dont think anyone will describe mini & doom3 in the same breath as fast. Dual G5 2.5= Fast.Did anyone catch the rotational speed of the drives in the Mini? 4500, 5400 or 7200 RPM? (I doubt it's the last one, but ether of the others is a real possibility.)

And as for the video memory, I will agree that it is a crine for Apple to be shipping any products with only 32MB of VRAM since Apple is doing a lot to offload various processing to the video board. This is why I opted for the 128MB VRAM on my Powerbook - It was definitely not needed for the LCD and the external display I sometimes hook up.

Let's see Quartz Extreme? Core Imaiagng? Come on Apple wake up and get real specs for VRAM.

I'm also doubting the wisdom of having both default configurations having only 256MB of RAM.

I might get a Mini Rev 2, but that depends on if I still have need for a small box when it comes out and what the specs and cost are.

edesignuk
Jan 22, 2005, 08:52 AM
This entire thread is rampant Apple fanboyism at its finest.
Yeah, my thoughts too I'm afraid.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not out to bash the Mac Mini, but announcing it as "blazing fast" for carrying out basic tasks is very fan-boy indeed.

http://upload.yo-momma.net/uploads/macros/fanboys.jpg

:D :p

tamara6
Jan 22, 2005, 08:53 AM
OTOH, what this tells you is that the folks who are not Apple types, for whom this is their first Mac, will probably be happy. These folks are generally not power users or intense gamers. They are web surfers who will be impressed by the mini's speed. That is the only crowd whose oppinion matters. If they are pleased, it just won't matter how many G5 owners call it slow.

edesignuk
Jan 22, 2005, 08:57 AM
OTOH, what this tells you is that the folks who are not Apple types, for whom this is their first Mac, will probably be happy. These folks are generally not power users or intense gamers. They are web surfers who will be impressed by the mini's speed. That is the only crowd whose oppinion matters. If they are pleased, it just won't matter how many G5 owners call it slow.
Oh yeah, I'm really glad to hear that for the normal day to day stuff it seems to be doing fine, as I said, not knocking it. "Blazing fast" is just a *slight* over-statement.

Dont Hurt Me
Jan 22, 2005, 08:58 AM
LOL, I was going to post the same thing.

This entire thread is rampant Apple fanboyism at its finest.



Driving a 50" screen... OooOoo... 1280x720 is lower resolution than the smallest Apple Cinema Display.

It ran iSight chat? ...Err... My grandfather's graphite iMac can do that without skipping a beat.

Installed iLife? You can do that with a G3 if you'd like.

Playing music with the visualizer on and surfing the web... ... ...?

THIS makes a "blazing fast" computer?

Bahahahahahaha.

Not to say I don't appreciate the Mac Mini for what it is, and anxiously await receiving the ones I ordered, but good god... 1.25-1.42Ghz G4 combined with an ancient graphics card and a 4200RPM hard drive is not something I'd describe as anywhere near "blazing fast."We do seem to have a bunch of new folks here dont we? perhaps the mini is doing just what apple wanted. Bring in those new folks. Hate to say this edesignuk but i just saw the mini xbenches and they are right on top of the imacs G5. interesting indeed how that old G4 at 1.25/1.42 never goes away. Its like the energizer bunny it just keeps going and going. who would have thought we would still be talking about G4s years later at the same clocks. I really feel like i did the right thing years ago buying that 733. :)

Yvan256
Jan 22, 2005, 09:00 AM
-IBM Model M keyboard and USB->PS/2 adapter (best keyboard, ever, accept no substitutes)
-Logitech USB scroll mouse

My keyboard's an IBM KB-8926... and it can eat your Model M for breakfast!

And my Logitech USB scroll mouse can beat your... oh wait, never mind. :D

edesignuk
Jan 22, 2005, 09:00 AM
Hate to say this edesignuk but i just saw the mini xbenches and they are right on top of the imacs G5. interesting indeed how that old G4 at 1.25/1.42 never goes away.
I wouldn't imagine there's *that* much speed difference between CPU's, but, I'd have thought the BUS speed, HDD speed, and video would have made a difference. I suppose I just depends what you're doing. We all know xbench is s*** anyway :D

Dont Hurt Me
Jan 22, 2005, 09:06 AM
I wouldn't imagine there's *that* much speed difference between CPU's, but, I'd have thought the BUS speed, HDD speed, and video would have made a difference. I suppose I just depends what you're doing. We all know xbench is s*** anyway :D
It would be nice to have a universal test to show the strength of all cpu's but i guess the best thing to do is take your favorite app and go look for its benches. Lets see i guess that would have to be something like Doom3 :D Oh wait that doesnt count as a real app ;) It does make you feel like you were ahead of the rest of the world using macs when you start hearing its praises everyday. its like where have you been?

Bear
Jan 22, 2005, 09:10 AM
I wouldn't imagine there's *that* much speed difference between CPU's, but, I'd have thought the BUS speed, HDD speed, and video would have made a difference. I suppose I just depends what you're doing. We all know xbench is s*** anyway :DA G4 and a G5 at the same CPU speed will have about the same perodmance unless the application does things that requires the faste front side bus on the G5/ In fact depending on how the code was written and compiled the G4 can wind up being faster for some things than a G5. The video "card" in the Mini isn't that bad really, it just depends on what you are doing with it.

The main reason for people to upgrade to a G5 is the much faster CPUs available (2.5GHz currently) and the ability to support a lot more RAM. Going from say a 1.42GHz MacMini to an iMace G5 1.6 GHz doesn't make a lot of sense for most people since it's only a minor CPU speed improvement.

Hodapp
Jan 22, 2005, 09:10 AM
The achilles heel of the Mac Mini is going to be the GPU and slow HDD. More so when Tiger is released with Core Image and most of the effects either need to be rendered by the CPU, or disabled. With only 256MB of RAM standard, the Mini is going to be using a lot of disk swap space. This would be OK, except the HDD is a 4200RPM laptop drive, MEGA slow.

So while the 1.42Ghz G4 may bench almost on par with the G5's, in every day use in switching tasks, and using core image in the future, I'm not too confident of the Mini's abilities in regards to speed.

Dont Hurt Me
Jan 22, 2005, 09:16 AM
This is exactly why apple is using its slow Gpu's for product distinction because there isnt much distinction in the cpu's performance unless doing like Bear said, driving the Bus. So this is a better way to seperate model lines and also by using those 2 cpu's. This could all change, newer cpu's coming with cell & 980s dual cores etc etc. it should be a interesting year.

_pb_boi
Jan 22, 2005, 09:20 AM
I can't friggin' wait for mine to get here! But my ship date is on or before Feb 18!!! Oh well, I just got the shipping confirmation for the 20" Cinema display I ordered with it!!! I don't know which I am more excited about getting, the computer or the display...

The 20in display is incredible. I ordered mine a few months ago, and came back from gym to find the box sitting on the centre of my kitchen floor. Was SO excited opening it! I had one dead pixel though :( But it looks great hooked up to my Powerbook 12in (and my PC for that matter, HL2 looks so much better in 20in widescreen).

Enjoy it mate!

andy.

sushi
Jan 22, 2005, 09:41 AM
As we continue to play around with this mini, it just gets more and more amazing. It's beautiful, fast, and all Apple.
Saw/Played with one this evening.

Pretty nice.

Good performance and in a such a small package.

While not a scientific test in the least, I played around just doing normal type tasks in the Finder, with Safari, and some other apps. My impression is that it seemed faster than my G4/933. (Note, my PB15 with a 1.25 G4 seems much slower.)

Of course with rendering apps, I am sure that may not hold true.

Overall, came away very impressed. Plan on getting one when Tiger is released.

BTW, looks great with a 20 inch Cinema Display.

On a side note, while the iMac G5 is really nice, I wonder how thin it would be if they used a G4 like in the Mac mini?

Sushi

Bear
Jan 22, 2005, 09:44 AM
...
On a side note, while the iMac G5 is really nice, I wonder how thin it would be if they used a G4 like in the Mac mini?
...I doubt the iMac would be any thinner really. If you look at component placement, you would see what I mean.

sushi
Jan 22, 2005, 09:53 AM
I doubt the iMac would be any thinner really. If you look at component placement, you would see what I mean.
I have, and that is why I suggested it.

Not saying they would have to use the same components either. They could use a 2.5 inch HD vice the 3.5. The memory could be socketed differently. Cooling fans, power supply, etc., could all be different.

Anyhow, just thinking out loud and a bit outside the box. Heck, just a couple of weeks ago, Apple didn't have a Mac mini, nor a flash based iPod for that matter.

What got me to thinking this, was looking at the iMac G5 20 inch vice the Mac mini with 20 inch screen. At the store I was at, they had a display where they were side by side. Interestiing comparison. In many ways, the Mac mini with 20 inch screen looked better. Plus it would be easier/cheaper to upgrade the CPU in the future.

Sushi

KershMan
Jan 22, 2005, 09:56 AM
We have four Macs in the house already. I plan on buying a Mac Mini simply to hook up to my TV in the living room to play home movies and photos when our family visits, hook to EyeTv for DVR (especially to record old movies to DVD), and to act as a file server with attached firewire drives. I will probably even use it as the primary computer to import our photos and movies so I can leave all the cables in place and then pull what the wife or I want over iPhoto.

For the price, it is not a bad Media Center Mac! Look at the Media Center PCs. They come basically with crap software that you pay a bunch extra for. This thing will satisfy that need of many people.

Bear
Jan 22, 2005, 09:58 AM
I have, and that is why I suggested it.

Not saying they would have to use the same components either. They could use a 2.5 inch HD vice the 3.5. The memory could be socketed differently. Cooling fans, power supply, etc., could all be different.

...Ahh, but the 2.5" disk would affect performance and that's not something you really want to do. The other suggestions could make for a more expensive machine to build and probably service.

Also, I doubt there would be enough space savings to really noticeably alter the thickness of the iMac G5.

Sometimes you want them to spend the effort and cost on miniaturization (MacMini, iPods) and sometimes you don't. And sometimes it just wouldn't gain anything.

sushi
Jan 22, 2005, 10:59 AM
Sometimes you want them to spend the effort and cost on miniaturization (MacMini, iPods) and sometimes you don't. And sometimes it just wouldn't gain anything.
Good point.

Just getting the G5 in the current iMac form was quite an accomplishment to say the least. Apple done good with both the iMac G5 and the new Mac mini. Sure like what is coming out of Apple these days! :D

Sushi

BWhaler
Jan 22, 2005, 12:35 PM
To the smug cynics out there who can't seem to read too well:

1. It was doing all of those tasks AT ONCE that impressed us. Not surfing the web as a single activity.

2. I explicitly said it wasn't a gaming machine or pro workstation but for 500 bucks, it was blazing fast. Try doing all over tasks on a $500 PC, and you will see why we thought it was so.

Besides being sadly obtuse, you seem to miss the point in the thread that the comment about the speed is relative to the price of the machine. Of course, a PowerMac is 50x faster.

3. Speaking of which, your smug comments about new hardware bringing out newbies is pathetic, since if you look down to my footer, you'll see I have been around awhile and am no newbie.

Plus, do you see that loaded PM2.5 I own? I know what real speed is, obviously. But, again, and try to get this this time, for 500 bucks the mini is blazingly fast. And again, as I said the last time, it's not for gamers--we all get your trolling on the video card--and not for design pros, that's what the $2,000+ machine is for.

====
Now, why this post? Not because I feel the need to defend myself believe it or not.

But as MDN pointed out yesterday, we are going to have A LOT of new people to the Mac community which need our support and enthusiasm.

I could of been a switcher. And if you have been paying as much attention to the Mac marketshare as you did the details in my original post, you probably missed the Mac marketshare has fallen below what is acceptable viability numbers. It's no shock the mini is coming out now after years of Steve saying Apple had no interest. I am sure Apple still has no interest, but frankly, they have no choice.

So anyway, try to think a little big picture here. We are going to get newbies who are simply enthusiastic. Do you really need to correct them? To show you are superior? And even worse, embarrass them? Are you really so petty that you feel the need to crush their enthusiasm?

You are only hurting yourself. Next time, bite your tongue, move on, and if you start to get this whole getting switchers is kinda important thing, type something positive and supportive. It doesn't hurt; give it a try.

This time, you got it wrong and didn't get a newbie. You got an Apple pro.

But next time we may not be so lucky. So on behalf of all of us, skip the high school juvenile behavior and welcome in the newbies. It's just more marketshare and more Macs sold, which means more innovation from Apple, more vendors supporting the platform, etc.

Next time, think big picture. It's better for all of us.

johnnyjibbs
Jan 22, 2005, 12:37 PM
I would expect the Mac Mini to be fast and wouldn't knock it. Sure, it's no Dual 2.5GHz G5 but it's no slouch either.

The Mac I use (my first Mac) is the apprently "piece of crud" PowerBook 12" (rev B). It only has the "crappy" nVidai 5200 GO with 32MB VRAM and a 1 GHz G4, 4200 RPM HD and 1024x768 screen, etc, etc, but if I'd have believed all the negative comments on the specs at the time, I would have never bought it. However, it's a decent computer and, in my opinion, is faster than our Dell 2.4GHz P4 Dimension (ok so that's a bog standard bottom of the line PC but it does everything we need it to do).

I use my 12" PB for the usual web/writing/iTunes tasks but I do sometimes edit video with Final Cut Express and use Photoshop and iDVD and I'm not exactly tearing my hair out. The Minis are faster than my computer at a third of the price (ok you need keyboard, mouse and screen though).

The Mac Mini is great and perfectly adequate for 95% of consumer uses. They will still be really good for editing video, just not as good as a G5 dual. My only concern is the RAM - they should have included 512MB standard (and bump up all the other Macs while they're at it), or have the slot user-accessible.

But it's still a great computer for the price and nothing to be knocked at.

Timelessblur
Jan 22, 2005, 12:58 PM
of you entire list the only thing that has a chance of slowing down the computer was the installtion of ilife. everything else so low on how had they are on the computer that is does not really matter and take next to no power for the computer to run.

I have to agree with the picture posted earilier

dvdh
Jan 22, 2005, 01:02 PM
Has anyone run a cinebench test on the mini just to find out how the processor and the video card stand up? (Yes I know cinebench sucks (it doesn't make use of Altivec very well) as a bench mark too, but it is a better reference on just the processor side of things than xbench imo)

crap freakboy
Jan 22, 2005, 02:06 PM
To the smug cynics out there who can't seem to read too well:

1. It was doing all of those tasks AT ONCE that impressed us. Not surfing the web as a single action.

2. I explicitly said it wasn't a gaming machine or pro workstation but for 500 bucks, it was blazing fast. Try doing all over tasks on a $500 PC, and you will see why we thought it was blazingly fast.

Besides being sadly obtuse, you seems to miss the point in the thread that the comment about the speed is relative to the price of the machine. Of course, I PowerMac is 50x faster at most things.

3. Speaking of which, your smug comments about new hardware bringing out newbies is pathetic, since if you look down to my footer, you'll see I have been around awhile and am no newbie.

See that loaded PM2.5 I own? I know what real speed is, obviously. But, again, and try to get this this time, for 500 bucks the mini is blazingly fast. And again, as I said the last time, it's not for gamers--we all get your trolling on the video card, and not for design pros, that's what the $2,000+ machine is for.

====
Now, why this post? Not because I feel the need to defend myself believe it or not.

But as MDN pointed out yesterday, we are going to have A LOT of new people to the Mac community which need our support and enthusiam.

I could of been a switcher. And if you have been paying as much attention to the Mac marketshare as you did the details in my original post, you probably missed the Mac marketshare has falled below what is acceptable viability numbers. It's no shock the mini is coming out now after years of Steve saying Apple had no interest. I am sure Apple still has no interest, but frankly, they have no choice.

So anyway, try to think a little big picture here. We are going to get newbies who are simply enthusiastic. Do you really need to correct them? To show you are superior? Do you really feel the need to crush their enthusiasm.

You are only hurting yourself. Next time, bite your tongue, move on , and if you start to get it, type something positive.

This time, you got it wrong at didn't get a newbie. You got an Apple pro.

But next time we may not be so lucky. So on behalf of all of us, skip the high school juvenile behavior and welcome in the newbies. It's just more marketshare, which means more innovation from Apple, more vendors supporting the platform etc.

Next time, think big picture.

Nice reply, and I'm glad you said it because it really needed to be said.
It seems recently that some of the more regular posters, a real minority I might add, have forgotten to take their happy pills.
Constructive advice/help seems to be slowly giving way to smartar$e put-downs or dismissive comments...I really thought better of MR.

ricebag
Jan 22, 2005, 03:04 PM
I have a new PB 1.33 (with 1.25 RAM). To me, this is blazing fast. I never feel like I'm waiting for anything. To some people, "the fastest you can get" is extremely fast: for people like me, once you get up to a certain point, you're perfect.

Chaszmyr
Jan 22, 2005, 03:08 PM
We all know xbench is s*** anyway :D

Amen.

rogerw
Jan 22, 2005, 03:31 PM
Nice reply, and I'm glad you said it because it really needed to be said.
It seems recently that some of the more regular posters, a real minority I might add, have forgotten to take their happy pills.
Constructive advice/help seems to be slowly giving way to smartar$e put-downs or dismissive comments...I really thought better of MR.


amen!

T.Rex
Jan 22, 2005, 04:32 PM
...
But next time we may not be so lucky. So on behalf of all of us, skip the high school juvenile behavior and welcome in the newbies. It's just more marketshare, which means more innovation from Apple, more vendors supporting the platform etc.

Next time, think big picture.

Well said, BWhaler.

leekohler
Jan 22, 2005, 04:42 PM
I have to also agree with BWhaler. I tried one at the Apple store today expecting it to be OK, but not great. I was pleasantly surprised! For the price, this is a really nice computer. I have a friend who's been wanting a Mac for a long time, but due to prices couldn't afford one. He's buying a Mini with his tax check. This is the one that made him switch. For that we should all love the Mini!

Chip NoVaMac
Jan 22, 2005, 04:53 PM
To the smug cynics out there who can't seem to read too well:

1. It was doing all of those tasks AT ONCE that impressed us. Not surfing the web as a single action.

2. I explicitly said it wasn't a gaming machine or pro workstation but for 500 bucks, it was blazing fast. Try doing all over tasks on a $500 PC, and you will see why we thought it was blazingly fast.

Besides being sadly obtuse, you seems to miss the point in the thread that the comment about the speed is relative to the price of the machine. Of course, I PowerMac is 50x faster at most things.

3. Speaking of which, your smug comments about new hardware bringing out newbies is pathetic, since if you look down to my footer, you'll see I have been around awhile and am no newbie.

See that loaded PM2.5 I own? I know what real speed is, obviously. But, again, and try to get this this time, for 500 bucks the mini is blazingly fast. And again, as I said the last time, it's not for gamers--we all get your trolling on the video card, and not for design pros, that's what the $2,000+ machine is for.

====
Now, why this post? Not because I feel the need to defend myself believe it or not.

But as MDN pointed out yesterday, we are going to have A LOT of new people to the Mac community which need our support and enthusiam.

I could of been a switcher. And if you have been paying as much attention to the Mac marketshare as you did the details in my original post, you probably missed the Mac marketshare has falled below what is acceptable viability numbers. It's no shock the mini is coming out now after years of Steve saying Apple had no interest. I am sure Apple still has no interest, but frankly, they have no choice.

So anyway, try to think a little big picture here. We are going to get newbies who are simply enthusiastic. Do you really need to correct them? To show you are superior? Do you really feel the need to crush their enthusiasm.

You are only hurting yourself. Next time, bite your tongue, move on , and if you start to get it, type something positive.

This time, you got it wrong at didn't get a newbie. You got an Apple pro.

But next time we may not be so lucky. So on behalf of all of us, skip the high school juvenile behavior and welcome in the newbies. It's just more marketshare, which means more innovation from Apple, more vendors supporting the platform etc.

Next time, think big picture.

Right on! If I had a dime for every complaint about VRAM, HDD, or something that the mini was missing; I would have been able to pay for an Mac mini already.

Some forget that many "professionals" are still using far slower G3 and G4 systems on a daily basis.

To be honest, there are those out there that feel only the best is needed. Sort of like when I got my Subaru. I got comments that I should have done the turbo or H6 engine. Never mind that the standard 4 is plenty fast for my needs.

Not everyone that buys a home system wants to play games. And it could be argued that dedicated games systems might be a better choice there too.

If the system starts up "fast", apps open "fast", and the apps work or appear to work "fast"; that is all a consumer that buys the Mac mini is looking for. They have heard about the experience of the Mac, now they can afford one.

There are those like me that are counting the days till Tiger is released so that we can get our Mac mini. Some like myself looked at the benchmarks and tried in the real world the G5 iMacs. But compared to the 1.33 and 1.5 G4s, there is not much of a difference to warrant the steeper price.

Chip NoVaMac
Jan 22, 2005, 04:59 PM
I would expect the Mac Mini to be fast and wouldn't knock it. Sure, it's no Dual 2.5GHz G5 but it's no slouch either.

The Mac I use (my first Mac) is the apprently "piece of crud" PowerBook 12" (rev B). It only has the "crappy" nVidai 5200 GO with 32MB VRAM and a 1 GHz G4, 4200 RPM HD and 1024x768 screen, etc, etc, but if I'd have believed all the negative comments on the specs at the time, I would have never bought it. However, it's a decent computer and, in my opinion, is faster than our Dell 2.4GHz P4 Dimension (ok so that's a bog standard bottom of the line PC but it does everything we need it to do).

I use my 12" PB for the usual web/writing/iTunes tasks but I do sometimes edit video with Final Cut Express and use Photoshop and iDVD and I'm not exactly tearing my hair out. The Minis are faster than my computer at a third of the price (ok you need keyboard, mouse and screen though).

The Mac Mini is great and perfectly adequate for 95% of consumer uses. They will still be really good for editing video, just not as good as a G5 dual. My only concern is the RAM - they should have included 512MB standard (and bump up all the other Macs while they're at it), or have the slot user-accessible.

But it's still a great computer for the price and nothing to be knocked at.

Yeah, I bought this piece of crud too. What was I thinking? :D

To be honest though. If I hadn't bought a second hand eMac (1.25ghz, 7200rpm HDD), I would not had seen the benefit of added HDD speed. Small, but noticeable on program launches. Not much else for the way I work. So the 5400rpm HDD would have been nice. But even if the 4200rpm's are all they offer when I buy my mini (with Tiger installed); I will still be happy.

Chip NoVaMac
Jan 22, 2005, 05:01 PM
Amen.

But there does not seem to be any better benchmarking tools around. Otherwise so m any would not be turning to it.

BakedBeans
Jan 22, 2005, 05:13 PM
I could of been a switcher. And if you have been paying as much attention to the Mac marketshare as you did the details in my original post, you probably missed the Mac marketshare has falled below what is acceptable viability numbers. It's no shock the mini is coming out now after years of Steve saying Apple had no interest. I am sure Apple still has no interest, but frankly, they have no choice.

dont think because apples marketshare is falling that apple isnt getting bigger, because its not true. infact apple are selling more and more units but there marketshare is still falling

the mini might pull them bag onto a level pegging (in a unit vs marketshare sence) but i doubt it

the sad fact is that most people think windows is all there is, also they are cheep initial cost - thats all
anyway blah - off trak

the mini, thanks for the review - for the money it is a belter and if it had a 5200 in it i would be using it know, im not slagging apple for putting the 9200 in there but the 5200 is the absolute bottom line for me and my uses - however if they did put the 5200 in there i would have hurt imac sales but boosted mini + 20 inch sales

meh

anyway

thanks for the reiew

edesignuk
Jan 22, 2005, 05:16 PM
But there does not seem to be any better benchmarking tools around. Otherwise so m any would not be turning to it.
So because there isn't any good benchmarking software that makes the only one on offer (never mind if it IS actually any use or not) good?

:confused:

Gregory
Jan 22, 2005, 05:46 PM
I wouldn't imagine there's *that* much speed difference between CPU's, but, I'd have thought the BUS speed, HDD speed, and video would have made a difference. I suppose I just depends what you're doing. We all know xbench is s*** anyway :D

Please , someone give my a good bench mark, give me at least Cinebench 2003 benchmark, Please bench the mac mini with cinebench 2003. . .

jayscheuerle
Jan 22, 2005, 06:42 PM
Some forget that many "professionals" are still using far slower G3 and G4 systems on a daily basis.


No doubt. The entire graphics department at the agency I work at max's out at 450mHz G4s. I'm the only one running OSX. We've had a spending freeze for years. I'd LOVE one of these machines except for the fact I've got a dual monitor set-up to properly goof off with...

herrmill
Jan 22, 2005, 07:40 PM
Well said Bwhaler! I, too, am shaking my head at the critics who do nothing but complain about the Mini's specs. This entry point device is just what Apple needed to for added market share, & I look forward to seeing many switch over to what is the most intelligent & easiest to use computing platform available TODAY!

mian
Jan 22, 2005, 07:44 PM
Please , someone give my a good bench mark, give me at least Cinebench 2003 benchmark, Please bench the mac mini with cinebench 2003. . .

Here's a comparison.

http://www.macintouch.com/perfpack/comparison.html

Chip NoVaMac
Jan 22, 2005, 08:06 PM
Here's a comparison.

http://www.macintouch.com/perfpack/comparison.html

Thanks for the great link.

It does show that the performance issues that some have stated about the Mac mini would probably been less if they had used the 5400rpm drives. But still not bad performance overall.

It does show that those that want the absolute best performance, the Mac mini is not the way to go. But hey, who would not want a $500 that even came within 20% of the G5 PM's in the hardest of tasks.

I am also seeing the Mac mini concept as a disposable computer. Keep it two years or so and get the next best thing for those of us that might want something better as time marches on.

Other point, what to do with all these older computers? Set them up for the MR Fold@Home effort!

EJBasile
Jan 22, 2005, 09:09 PM
In regards to people who think the mini is not powerful enough, etc:


Think of the price point of this computer- $500-$600
Its obviosuly marketed to consumer users and not professional graphic designers and video editors. Surfing the web, listening to music, using iChat, etc are what most consumers use. They do not need to have the latest and greatest for what they are doing. Most likely they are not using FCP, Photoshop, etc.

For $500 this is an awesome deal. An iMac 1.6 is more than twice as much and powermac 1.8 is 3 times as much. Although there are some differences between the two systems obviosuly, you cannot admit this is too slow.

Hodapp
Jan 22, 2005, 09:12 PM
Although there are some differences between the two systems obviosuly, you cannot admit this is too slow.

I don't think anyone said it was too slow, as much as it is in no way, shape, or form anywhere near what a sane person would call 'blazingly fast.'

nospleen
Jan 22, 2005, 09:17 PM
To the smug cynics out there who can't seem to read too well:

1. It was doing all of those tasks AT ONCE that impressed us. Not surfing the web as a single activity.

2. I explicitly said it wasn't a gaming machine or pro workstation but for 500 bucks, it was blazing fast. Try doing all over tasks on a $500 PC, and you will see why we thought it was so.

Besides being sadly obtuse, you seem to miss the point in the thread that the comment about the speed is relative to the price of the machine. Of course, a PowerMac is 50x faster.

3. Speaking of which, your smug comments about new hardware bringing out newbies is pathetic, since if you look down to my footer, you'll see I have been around awhile and am no newbie.

Plus, do you see that loaded PM2.5 I own? I know what real speed is, obviously. But, again, and try to get this this time, for 500 bucks the mini is blazingly fast. And again, as I said the last time, it's not for gamers--we all get your trolling on the video card--and not for design pros, that's what the $2,000+ machine is for.

====
Now, why this post? Not because I feel the need to defend myself believe it or not.

But as MDN pointed out yesterday, we are going to have A LOT of new people to the Mac community which need our support and enthusiasm.

I could of been a switcher. And if you have been paying as much attention to the Mac marketshare as you did the details in my original post, you probably missed the Mac marketshare has fallen below what is acceptable viability numbers. It's no shock the mini is coming out now after years of Steve saying Apple had no interest. I am sure Apple still has no interest, but frankly, they have no choice.

So anyway, try to think a little big picture here. We are going to get newbies who are simply enthusiastic. Do you really need to correct them? To show you are superior? And even worse, embarrass them? Are you really so petty that you feel the need to crush their enthusiasm?

You are only hurting yourself. Next time, bite your tongue, move on, and if you start to get this whole getting switchers is kinda important thing, type something positive and supportive. It doesn't hurt; give it a try.

This time, you got it wrong and didn't get a newbie. You got an Apple pro.

But next time we may not be so lucky. So on behalf of all of us, skip the high school juvenile behavior and welcome in the newbies. It's just more marketshare and more Macs sold, which means more innovation from Apple, more vendors supporting the platform, etc.

Next time, think big picture. It's better for all of us.


I wish I could make this quote my sig. :D Very well said and a very nice internet b&*^% slap. :p

Chip NoVaMac
Jan 22, 2005, 09:26 PM
I don't think anyone said it was too slow, as much as it is in no way, shape, or form anywhere near what a sane person would call 'blazingly fast.'

At the same time many here on MR were saying that the Mac mini was worthy only of their grandparents because it was going to be too slow. "Blazing" represents the fact that Apple did not cripple this machine like some PC companies do with their low-end boxes.

AndrewTosh
Jan 22, 2005, 10:10 PM
I don't think anyone said it was too slow, as much as it is in no way, shape, or form anywhere near what a sane person would call 'blazingly fast.'

Until you start hitting the limits of the low base RAM configuration, it is actually very fast, especially for the price. This isn't just puffery or me trying to justify my purchase. I use a Dual G5 1.8/1GB machine at school, and have played around with a friend's G4 PowerBook. For regular desktop tasks it does not feel slow. The graphics and effects all render nice and smooth.

The only time I started experiencing slowdown was when I would load up more than a couple apps. The iLife programs like GarageBand and iMovie HD are also pretty much unusable with 256MB. I think with more RAM this system has the potential to be surprisingly quick. "Blazingly fast" might not be the right term, but people have been claiming it would be slow for the past week, and it isn't.

-Andrew

Chip NoVaMac
Jan 22, 2005, 10:30 PM
Until you start hitting the limits of the low base RAM configuration, it is actually very fast, especially for the price. This isn't just puffery or me trying to justify my purchase. I use a Dual G5 1.8/1GB machine at school, and have played around with a friend's G4 PowerBook. For regular desktop tasks it does not feel slow. The graphics and effects all render nice and smooth.

The only time I started experiencing slowdown was when I would load up more than a couple apps. The iLife programs like GarageBand and iMovie HD are also pretty much unusable with 256MB. I think with more RAM this system has the potential to be surprisingly quick. "Blazingly fast" might not be the right term, but people have been claiming it would be slow for the past week, and it isn't.

-Andrew

Most experienced Mac users will say that 256mb should be upped to 512mb for the best performance. A great tool to find out just how much RAM you need is Do I Need More Memory? (http://www.hillmanminx.net/dinmm/). It is a great tool for any user to decide on their own usage how much RAM is needed.

overheated
Jan 22, 2005, 10:58 PM
i am considering a mini but the 4200 rpm drive gives me a bit of concern. no, i have no intensions of replacing the internal drive with something else since the heat it might create would cause me concern. my question is; can i use the target drive - firewire boot drive option on the mini as i can on my other apple systems? in theory i can take a 7200 drive in an external firewire 400 enclosure and simply use it leaving the internal drive for more mundane storage tasks. i would think that this would greatly improve all disc accessing tasks and with a RAM bump this mini may really feel actually zippy.

here is another one. i am going to connect my 20" cinema display to the mini. if i am able to use the target boot method can i plug the firewire drive into the hub on the display and still have it boot to the firewire drive for the os or would the target drive need to be connected directly to the mini then not allowing me to use the firewire hub on the display as the single port on the mini would already be used?

please give me your thoughts.....

Apple Hobo
Jan 22, 2005, 11:39 PM
I wouldn't worry too much about the whiners...it's always the same few posters who complain about the same stuff. And anyone who disagrees is labeled as a rabid Apple Fanboy. I wonder if these MR veterans ever retreat to their super-duper-secret forums and complain about us stupid, mortal n00bs. ;)

If you like your machine, that's all that matters. Some people can't seem to realize that the Mini isn't meant to be a professional-level machine. Enjoy your Minis! :cool:

Abstract
Jan 22, 2005, 11:40 PM
Lets just agree that this thing is fast..... for a Mac..... and be done with it.
:D


*runs and hides*

aswitcher
Jan 22, 2005, 11:46 PM
Well its good to hear is speedy. I still wonder though at what the new and rumoured G5 eMac is going to be like... If its just revamped guts then sure it might be faster but we will have to put up with a CRT.

Chip NoVaMac
Jan 23, 2005, 12:04 AM
I wouldn't worry too much about the whiners...it's always the same few posters who complain about the same stuff. And anyone who disagrees is labeled as a rabid Apple Fanboy. I wonder if these MR veterans ever retreat to their super-duper-secret forums and complain about us stupid, mortal n00bs. ;)

If you like your machine, that's all that matters. Some people can't seem to realize that the Mini isn't meant to be a professional-level machine. Enjoy your Minis! :cool:

This is different though. Because of the price point we will see many more wanting to experience the Mac. And those that dismiss the positives of the Mac mini as being voiced as those of of fanboys, are only to cast doubts in some minds where there should be no doubts.

Or maybe over spend by going to the iB or PB series. When they really don't want pr need a notebook.

Chip NoVaMac
Jan 23, 2005, 12:10 AM
Well its good to hear is speedy. I still wonder though at what the new and rumoured G5 eMac is going to be like... If its just revamped guts then sure it might be faster but we will have to put up with a CRT.

Oh, i think we will still hear from the anti-fanboy crowd:

- "What do you mean only 64mb VRAM, you need at least 128mb to do anything real?" or a variation of "Great 64mb VRAM, but it isn't on the Core Image compatibility list"

- "How could they stick this machine with a XXXmhz frontside bus?"

- "How can they do this when the PB is the flagship, and still has the piece of crap G4, they are ripping us off!"

- "If hey could do the G5 in the eMac, then they should have done it in the Mac mini"

solvs
Jan 23, 2005, 12:40 AM
I don't think anyone said it was too slow, as much as it is in no way, shape, or form anywhere near what a sane person would call 'blazingly fast.'
Blazingly fast for what they wanted to do with it.

As a person who would probably not buy the Mini in it's current incarnation, I still recommend it to others. Why? Because for what they would use it for, it would be perfect, and seem plenty fast. Compared to my friend's crappy Dell (that cost almost twice as much just last year), it will be blazingly fast. She was going to buy an iBook, but it's pretty much the same spec-wise.

Perspective people.

Gregory
Jan 23, 2005, 08:04 AM
The Price of $499 and $599 for the mac mini is not that bad for what you get. .

The Cinebench results look good for that machine, I Thought that the eMac would been faster. . . Apple did a good job for such a small computer just think how small the computer is and think about the heat in that size of a computer.
You have to watch for heat, so the computer is fast for what it is!!! Just rember that the harddrive and cd-rom/burner are laptop drives, and they cost more to begin with. . . .

Gregory
Jan 23, 2005, 08:09 AM
Here's a comparison.

http://www.macintouch.com/perfpack/comparison.html

Thanks. . . for the Cinebench results

macOSX-tastic
Jan 23, 2005, 09:01 AM
Fast when you compare it to what? Come on guys i know its new and all but lets not spin stuff into something bigger then it is. Its a G4 with a very outdated videocard and a slow drive with a memory slot. Fast compared to what my imac 333? I agree its clean and apple but fast? Fast when your clicking on the net? Fast when you turn it on? Fast when you go from itunes to email? Just wanted to make a point. Doom3 will be the deal maker when deciding fast and i dont think anyone will describe mini & doom3 in the same breath as fast. Dual G5 2.5= Fast.

as you probably know, not many people can readily buy a Dual 2.5GHz G5 and have their wallet live to tell the tale. i think it was a bit insensitive of you to say this because many people are happy with their machines, they do what they want them to do, and, quite frankly, what percentage of mini buyers NEED that kind of power? be a little more open minded; the mini is a BUDGET machine aimed at price concious buyers. also, if people wanted to pplay doom 3, they would spend that little bit extra to get a capable machine! not many buy a computer without looking at what it can/cant do first. also, i dont think many price concious buyers walk into an apple store expecting to pay $500 and walk out with a $3000 machine. THINK ABOUT IT.
:p
tastic

Dont Hurt Me
Jan 23, 2005, 09:57 AM
as you probably know, not many people can readily buy a Dual 2.5GHz G5 and have their wallet live to tell the tale. i think it was a bit insensitive of you to say this because many people are happy with their machines, they do what they want them to do, and, quite frankly, what percentage of mini buyers NEED that kind of power? be a little more open minded; the mini is a BUDGET machine aimed at price concious buyers. also, if people wanted to pplay doom 3, they would spend that little bit extra to get a capable machine! not many buy a computer without looking at what it can/cant do first. also, i dont think many price concious buyers walk into an apple store expecting to pay $500 and walk out with a $3000 machine. THINK ABOUT IT.
:p
tastic
I know that but my point is blazing fast isnt a very good way to describe something. Not Pro vs mini I could never apply these adjuctives to any G4 at any clock. zippy,speedy,quick enough,etc.......but blazing fast :rolleyes: If so i have had a blazing fast machine for years and didnt know it. ;)

Hodapp
Jan 23, 2005, 10:06 AM
I know that but my point is blazing fast isnt a very good way to describe something. Not Pro vs mini I could never apply these adjuctives to any G4 at any clock. zippy,speedy,quick enough,etc.......but blazing fast :rolleyes: If so i have had a blazing fast machine for years and didnt know it. ;)

I don't know why anyone would buy a Corvette, a Kia Spectra is blazing fast for what it is... right guys? :rolleyes:

Abstract
Jan 23, 2005, 10:59 AM
But Don't Hurt Me, and anyone who agrees with him, is actually correct in this case.

I LOVE! the Mac Mini, and it would serve my needs perfectly. It's about as fast as my 12" PB, and since this serves my purposes, it's perfect for me.

However, this Mac Mini isn't a blazing fast computer. It's blazing fast for a $500 computer, but not blazing fast. It's blazing fast if you're surfing the net, listening to iTunes, playing around with iPhoto, but it's not blazing fast. It can't be. With that HD and video card, it's limited. While we can't always judge things by it's specs, we can definitely judge this machine because we've seen it before. I'm basically looking at what the Mac Mini is right now......my PB almost has the same specs, with the same HD speed, and similar video card performance, so it's safe for me to assume that while the Mac Mini is definitely on my list of things to buy, it's not a "blazing fast" computer. A DP 2.5GHz is a blazing fast PC, but the Mac Mini is perfect for most people.

I'm buying one for my parents, and possibly one for myself. :)

Dont Hurt Me
Jan 23, 2005, 11:06 AM
But Don't Hurt Me, and anyone who agrees with him, is actually correct in this case.

I LOVE! the Mac Mini, and it would serve my needs perfectly. It's about as fast as my 12" PB, and since this serves my purposes, it's perfect for me.

However, this Mac Mini isn't a blazing fast computer. It's blazing fast for a $500 computer, but not blazing fast. It's blazing fast if you're surfing the net, listening to iTunes, playing around with iPhoto, but it's not blazing fast. It can't be. With that HD and video card, it's limited. While we can't always judge things by it's specs, we can definitely judge this machine because we've seen it before. I'm basically looking at what the Mac Mini is right now......my PB almost has the same specs, with the same HD speed, and similar video card performance, so it's safe for me to assume that while the Mac Mini is definitely on my list of things to buy, it's not a "blazing fast" computer. A DP 2.5GHz is a blazing fast PC, but the Mac Mini is perfect for most people.

I'm buying one for my parents, and possibly one for myself. :)
I agree with you 100% i have a 1.4 quicksiver geforce3 and it is what the mini is spec wise and agree it will do anything anyone wants but hard gaming.

Lacero
Jan 23, 2005, 11:10 AM
I wouldn't consider the Mac mini blazing fast, especially if you are trying to work with HDV footage from within the included iLife '05 app, iMovie HD. This app recommends at least 512MB RAM and a 1Ghz G4 processor, which for the standard Mac mini, does not even come close to providing the power. And Steve says "Year of HD Video", will it certainly is for PowerMac users, but not for regular folks with eMacs and Minis.

Mav451
Jan 23, 2005, 11:14 AM
I've been thinking. The mini's would be perfect for those places that still have the iMac G3' from '99 and '00.

But then I got thinking more. Those computers included screens. And it is becoming all the more obvious that the Mini is THE switcher machine. How many Mac users actually have the money for the 23" or 30" ACDs? Those users would have already bought a G5 (so wrong market). The previous eMac users would also be w/o a screen, and the iMac G4 users have no reason to upgrade.

jayscheuerle
Jan 23, 2005, 11:18 AM
If you're using it in penultimate terms, there is no "blazingly fast". There will always be some operation that slows down the fastest of computers. A quad processor 20gHz G5 would not be blazingly fast doing weather simulation. Moving from a 450mHz G4, the mini would seem blazingly fast to me until I used something even faster.

Any way you look at it, in 2005, it's a great deal for a $500 machine. - j

Lacero
Jan 23, 2005, 11:40 AM
Actually, if you were to break down the components of the mini, it should come around to $200-$300 dollars. Obviously the most expensive R&D part of the mini is the motherboard design and controller chips. Everything else is commodity. Should Apple pump out enough of these, you can probably get down closer to $399, including mouse and keyboard.

Bear
Jan 23, 2005, 11:55 AM
Actually, if you were to break down the components of the mini, it should come around to $200-$300 dollars. Obviously the most expensive R&D part of the mini is the motherboard design and controller chips. Everything else is commodity. Should Apple pump out enough of these, you can probably get down closer to $399, including mouse and keyboard.Are you including the cost of the packaguing material? The enclosed paperwork and optical media? What about a profit for Apple so they can keep going in business? Part of the cost of a machine is the is what Apple estimates to be the average cost of repair during the warranty period.

So, a machine with $300 or parts could cost Apple quite a bit more. On the other side of the coin, Apple gets a rather food discount on some of the parts due to the quantity they buy.

Estimating the cost to Apple of a machine is somewhat difficult since there are so many factors.

Also, instead of dropping the price of the machine as it costs Apple less, they should up the minimum memory to 512MB. And maybe include the adapter to connect the box to a TV.

notjustjay
Jan 23, 2005, 12:05 PM
I wouldn't consider the Mac mini blazing fast, especially if you are trying to work with HDV footage from within the included iLife '05 app, iMovie HD. This app recommends at least 512MB RAM and a 1Ghz G4 processor, which for the standard Mac mini, does not even come close to providing the power. And Steve says "Year of HD Video", will it certainly is for PowerMac users, but not for regular folks with eMacs and Minis.

Fair enough. But if I have the money to buy an HD-capable video camera like that Sony FX1, (for what, $5000?) I can probably also afford the hardware I need to edit the video.

That said, I own a Sony VX2000 which is already WAY more video camera than most people will ever need.

mwpeters8182
Jan 23, 2005, 12:46 PM
I wouldn't consider the Mac mini blazing fast, especially if you are trying to work with HDV footage from within the included iLife '05 app, iMovie HD. This app recommends at least 512MB RAM and a 1Ghz G4 processor, which for the standard Mac mini, does not even come close to providing the power. And Steve says "Year of HD Video", will it certainly is for PowerMac users, but not for regular folks with eMacs and Minis.

Throw another 256MB of RAM in there (yes, I know, not standard) - and you have a system that meets the recommended requirements, and it 25% faster, CPU-wise.

It'll be fine, if not perfect, for hobbyists.

wrldwzrd89
Jan 23, 2005, 01:31 PM
<snip>
The Mac Mini is great and perfectly adequate for 95% of consumer uses. They will still be really good for editing video, just not as good as a G5 dual. My only concern is the RAM - they should have included 512MB standard (and bump up all the other Macs while they're at it), or have the slot user-accessible.
Apple's hamstrung by their own product differentiation policies and the fact that they are incapable of updating all their product lines simultaneously. The only way the Mac mini will come with 512 MB of RAM standard is this:

1. The PowerMacs and PowerBooks come with at least 512 MB of RAM standard
2. The iMacs and iBooks come with 512 MB of RAM standard
3. The eMac comes with 512 MB of RAM standard
4. The Mac mini comes with 512 MB of RAM standard

How long will this take to happen?

Let's assume that every product is updated every 6 months, and there's an offset for the different products.
PowerMac offset 0 months
PowerBook offset 5 months
iMac offset 2 months
eMac offset 1 month
iBook offset 3 months
Mac mini offset 4 months

Let's also assume that the PowerMacs are updated in February, and all of them have at least 512 MB of RAM.
1. eMacs are updated in March, but they don't get 512 MB yet because they're waiting for the iMac.
2. The iMac gets an update in April, bumping the standard RAM to 512 MB.
3. The iBooks are updated in May, but they're stuck waiting for the PowerBooks to be updated, so they still have 256 MB of RAM.
4. In June, the Mac mini is updated - it cannot get bumped to 512 MB just yet because the eMac hasn't been bumped.
5. In July, the PowerBooks are updated, and all of them now come standard with at least 512 MB of RAM.
6. August rolls around, and the PowerMacs are updated again.
7. September brings the next eMac update, which can now get 512 MB of RAM since the iMacs have been bumped.
8. October brings another iMac update.
9. November brings an iBook update, with all models having 512 MB of RAM now.
10. December brings another Mac mini update - it too can finally get 512 MB of RAM standard, since the eMacs have it now.

tdhurst
Jan 23, 2005, 01:39 PM
Fast when you compare it to what? Come on guys i know its new and all but lets not spin stuff into something bigger then it is. Its a G4 with a very outdated videocard and a slow drive with a memory slot. Fast compared to what my imac 333? I agree its clean and apple but fast? Fast when your clicking on the net? Fast when you turn it on? Fast when you go from itunes to email? Just wanted to make a point. Doom3 will be the deal maker when deciding fast and i dont think anyone will describe mini & doom3 in the same breath as fast. Dual G5 2.5= Fast.

You know...there are some of us who could give a **** about how "fast" a system runs games. Doom3 results ARE NOT the deciding factor when it comes to buying a mac, I rather use mine for work, and fast means being able to do all the normal stuff I do (Photoshop, MS Office, FCE, etc.) without having to wait.

Dont Hurt Me
Jan 23, 2005, 01:40 PM
I expect that from a apple retail guy. :D

Bear
Jan 23, 2005, 01:52 PM
Apple's hamstrung by their own product differentiation policies and the fact that they are incapable of updating all their product lines simultaneously. The only way the Mac mini will come with 512 MB of RAM standard is this:

1. The PowerMacs and PowerBooks come with at least 512 MB of RAM standard
2. The iMacs and iBooks come with 512 MB of RAM standard
3. The eMac comes with 512 MB of RAM standard
4. The Mac mini comes with 512 MB of RAM standard

How long will this take to happen?

Let's assume that every product is updated every 6 months, and there's an offset for the different products.
PowerMac offset 0 months
PowerBook offset 5 months
iMac offset 2 months
eMac offset 1 month
iBook offset 3 months
Mac mini offset 4 months
...
Actually while those seem to be the offsets, some products are not on 6 month cycles. If Apple started 512MB with the next revision of everything, then it is possible for the next revision of the Mini to come with 512MB.

PowerBook revisions are most probably next. The questions that remains are will PowerMac updates happen soon and before the iMac updates? and what order eMac and iMac updates will happen? I think if the iBook updates happened agter the MacMini updates that wouldn't be a show stopper for the Mini to get 612MB.

The real show stopper is whether Apple realizes they need to get 512MB minimum in all of their systems? And at the very least, even now it would be good to add a default configuration of the Mini that had 512MB so people could walk into a store grab it and leave.

Mav451
Jan 23, 2005, 01:55 PM
An apple "gaming" machine would effectively be a single proc, 2.5G5 -- something that is currently unavailable. If there were a simpler logic board (only 1 proc socket), that would further cut the costs. I'm not sure how much more could be cut out, maybe making the included optical drive an option >> especially if user already has one. A revised, but cheaper (and less exotic) CPU cooling system could further cut the costs.

But then again, how many gamers are in the Mac world? It is a niche of a niche, and with most of the software made for productivity (FCP + Pshop, iLife), it is hardly what would say is even a slight concern in Jobs' eyes at this point. When Jobs discusses games at the Expo/Conference, then it will be a serious consideration. Until then...this is just smoke =D

Bear
Jan 23, 2005, 01:56 PM
You know...there are some of us who could give a **** about how "fast" a system runs games. Doom3 results ARE NOT the deciding factor when it comes to buying a mac, I rather use mine for work, and fast means being able to do all the normal stuff I do (Photoshop, MS Office, FCE, etc.) without having to wait.I don't know if that makes the machine fast*, but it does make it fast enough. And being fast enough for what you are doing is a rather key point.

Remember words like "fast" mean different things to different people. Where as "fast enough foe me" while still not being very specific will set the word "fast" into a meaningful context.

Bear
Jan 23, 2005, 02:00 PM
An apple "gaming" machine would effectively be a single proc, 2.5G5 -- something that is currently unavailable. If there were a simpler logic board (only 1 proc socket), that would further cut the costs. I'm not sure how much more could be cut out, maybe making the included optical drive an option >> especially if user already has one. A revised, but cheaper (and less exotic) CPU cooling system could further cut the costs.

...Actually a dual proc system will help a bit on most games. Even if the game itself doesn't set up multiple threads and/or processes (and a lot of them do) - the second processor can be used by the OS giving that much more of the first processor to the game.

Hodapp
Jan 23, 2005, 02:19 PM
You know...there are some of us who could give a **** about how "fast" a system runs games. Doom3 results ARE NOT the deciding factor when it comes to buying a mac, I rather use mine for work, and fast means being able to do all the normal stuff I do (Photoshop, MS Office, FCE, etc.) without having to wait.

You understand though, that some games are fairly effective benchmarks of overall system performance, since few other programs stress a system the same way most computer games do. While you may not be interested in games, they serve as a pretty good indication of what the computer is capable of.

Faster in games, faster in Photoshop, Office, FCE, and in the near future, Core Image. You can't write off game performance as "I'll never play games! I could give a crap!" with Core Image coming in the future, and raw OSX performance increasing directly with the 3D performance in games. It's easier to measure 64.9 frames per second in Doom than it is to measure the overall smoothness of the OS, which will go hand in hand very shortly.

(Which is something almost everyone here is overlooking. Core Image + Antiquated 3D chipset... eef.)

The more you know. <3

Mav451
Jan 23, 2005, 02:55 PM
Actually a dual proc system will help a bit on most games. Even if the game itself doesn't set up multiple threads and/or processes (and a lot of them do) - the second processor can be used by the OS giving that much more of the first processor to the game.

Well I said that on the impression that taking the code from the PC side and having to turn it into something that would be optimized for dual-procs would be tougher than coding it to be just single-proc based. Or am I wrong here?

On the PC side, almost nobody uses an Opteron/Xeon system to game on, as a single proc is sufficient (from the Athlon XP up to the FX series).

I do know that, b/c Macs lack a hardware audio solution (SB Live!/Audigy equivalent) that alot of the work is done on the CPU, and then in that case the 2nd CPU would be crucial.

jayscheuerle
Jan 23, 2005, 03:48 PM
C'mon guys...

If you want a tiny box to play games on, go with Nintendo..

256MB of RAM is fine for a starter box. If you're emailing, surfing, iTunesing, iPhotoing, maybe running Word and Excel, you don't need more than that. Sure, your experience might be better, but if this is all you're doing, you're probably not the type of person that would notice the difference between 256MB and 512MB, though you're exactly the person this machine is being marketed to.

johnnyjibbs
Jan 23, 2005, 03:59 PM
Apple's hamstrung by their own product differentiation policies and the fact that they are incapable of updating all their product lines simultaneously. The only way the Mac mini will come with 512 MB of RAM standard is this:

1. The PowerMacs and PowerBooks come with at least 512 MB of RAM standard
2. The iMacs and iBooks come with 512 MB of RAM standard
3. The eMac comes with 512 MB of RAM standard
4. The Mac mini comes with 512 MB of RAM standard

How long will this take to happen?

Let's assume that every product is updated every 6 months, and there's an offset for the different products.
PowerMac offset 0 months
PowerBook offset 5 months
iMac offset 2 months
eMac offset 1 month
iBook offset 3 months
Mac mini offset 4 months

Let's also assume that the PowerMacs are updated in February, and all of them have at least 512 MB of RAM.
1. eMacs are updated in March, but they don't get 512 MB yet because they're waiting for the iMac.
2. The iMac gets an update in April, bumping the standard RAM to 512 MB.
3. The iBooks are updated in May, but they're stuck waiting for the PowerBooks to be updated, so they still have 256 MB of RAM.
4. In June, the Mac mini is updated - it cannot get bumped to 512 MB just yet because the eMac hasn't been bumped.
5. In July, the PowerBooks are updated, and all of them now come standard with at least 512 MB of RAM.
6. August rolls around, and the PowerMacs are updated again.
7. September brings the next eMac update, which can now get 512 MB of RAM since the iMacs have been bumped.
8. October brings another iMac update.
9. November brings an iBook update, with all models having 512 MB of RAM now.
10. December brings another Mac mini update - it too can finally get 512 MB of RAM standard, since the eMacs have it now.
Actually, Apple hasn't necessarily worked like this in the past. The eMacs, for example were the first Macs to get an 8x Superdrive (around May 2004), even before the Power Macs. And during last summer, when the iMacs were in limbo prior to the iMac G5 announcement, you could have got a 1.25GHz G4 eMac for about half the price of a 1GHz 15" LCD iMac G4.

I'd say, just upgrade all the product lines to 512MB standard ASAP, and stick 1GB chips in the 15 and 17" PBs and all the Power Macs G5s (512 in the single 1.8). If this has to come with the next upgrade then so be it, but the TiBooks were suddenly all given Combo drives within a month of being updated in late 2001 so that doesn't necessarily always have to hold true.

Cheap 500 Dell computers are now being sold with 1024MB RAM so 256 is ludicrous now. Especially, considered Apple recommends 512MB RAM on an increasing number of products - even iLife needs RAM not to choke.

Apple, please stop stinging on the RAM, especially on the Mini where it's difficult to upgrade. Even a non-BTO option with 512MB RAM would be a start...

mymemory
Jan 23, 2005, 04:14 PM
Now don't get me wrong, this is not a Mac to do intense video editing or professional photoshop work.

But for a 500 dollar Mac, it was simply off-the -charts.

Once again, Apple has knocked the cover off the ball.

You are wrong... you CAN do intensive video editing in that computer and if you compared the speed with a G% probably you will notice is just a 30% slower when rendering.

I am doing Final Cut Pro in a Powerbook 12" 1Ghz and I believe what you are saying and yours is a bit faster.

I am way to convenced that Apple has some troubles getting the best out of the G5 yet. The speed people see is just video ram IMO, but I think the G5 are running at a quarter of the speed it should. It just can not be that dual G5 GHz processor are not 4 times faster than 1Ghz G4. It is actually (in the practice) just a quarter actually! I did it, I put two computers to run one beside the other one for two weeks :confused:

mymemory
Jan 23, 2005, 04:19 PM
C'mon guys...

If you want a tiny box to play games on, go with Nintendo...

I am totally agree, an Audio Engineer teacher I had had a philosophy, he said: Acoustics problems should be resolved acoustically...

If you want to play game get a console dedicated to that. The problem is that PCs are very good in gaming tho :rolleyes:

Abstract
Jan 23, 2005, 04:42 PM
C'mon guys...

If you want a tiny box to play games on, go with Nintendo..

256MB of RAM is fine for a starter box. If you're emailing, surfing, iTunesing, iPhotoing, maybe running Word and Excel, you don't need more than that. Sure, your experience might be better, but if this is all you're doing, you're probably not the type of person that would notice the difference between 256MB and 512MB, though you're exactly the person this machine is being marketed to.

While I generally agree with you, I'll have to disagree with 256MB being sufficient. It's not. You CAN use it, but it's like using a P2 500MHz box running WinXP. My friend does it, and it ain't pretty. Buying a new Mac and discovering that it "feels" as slow as a PII would be upsetting. A total of 512MB of RAM is key. I used my 12" 1GHz PB with only 512MB for a while, and it was fine.

And yes, the problem is that PC's are good at gaming too. I try to stay out of discussions concerning Mac gaming (ie: Doom 3), because it's a losing discussion for Mac users --- even the best Mac can't game well. The PC can be both productive, and be used to play games. The Mac cannot do both well. I know that many fanboys will tell me WinXP users need to constantly battle viruses and spyware (not necessarily true), or that they can buy a PS2/XBox/GC to play games, but that's exactly the point --- we need to get a console.

So being realistic: Although the Mac Mini is amazing, it's not "blazingly fast". Its good for what I do, but it's not fast. If a Honda Civic gets me from A to B in good time, it's still not a "blazing fast" car. A Porsche GT is a blazing fast car. By consumer PC standards, the Mac Mini isn't "blazing fast".

HiRez
Jan 23, 2005, 04:58 PM
And I dare say, all the pundits, including some Mac folks, who get featuritis or don't understand that a computer is more than just its spec sheet, are dead wrong about the power of this machine.I just want to second what you said, I had a real eye-opening experience today. A friend of mine asked me last week if the Mac Mini would be good for video editing, and trying to be honest about it, I recommended against it. However, I swung into the Apple Store today to check out the iPod Shuffle (which was impressive but that's another story). I started playing around with a Mini. It was ok but seemed a little sluggish, which is what I expected. However, on closer inspection I noticed that they had open at the same time: iMovie HD, iPhoto (with a few thousand photos), Mail, Safari, System Profiler, iTunes, Preview, Pages, Address Book, QuickTime Player, MS Word, and Keynote. Those are the ones I remember, anyway. Yikes.

So to make it easy, I rebooted and launched iMovie HD. They had it loaded with a project of some skateboarding footage shot in what looks like consumer HD (HDV). It might have been standard DV in 16:9 but I'm pretty sure it was HD. Anyway, it looked great (the Mini was easily driving a 20" ACD at native resolution), and I was absolutely blown away by the performance. Would I trade in my dual G5 for one? No way. But to be able to edit HD footage that well on a $500 computer the size of a stack of CDs was simply incredible. Bear in mind this machine was stock with 256 MB RAM! I really thought that would absolutely kill any performance it had. So I can only imagine 512 MB or 1 GB would improve the performance even more.

Bottom line is despite having owned close to a dozen Macs over the years, and having been skeptical of the Mini, this one really impressed me. If people go to the Apple stores and get their paws on these, they are going to sell an awful lot of them (the store was packed). After witnessing it first-hand, I would have no problem recommending the Mini to a friend or family member for just about anything. Between the Mac Mini and the iPod Shuffle, I think they have two huge hits on their hands. With both, you can hardly believe the combination of power, quality, simplicity, and design, all in a very small size and weight, and at a very reasonable price. Now if the Mini only came with an ACD... :)

MacsRgr8
Jan 23, 2005, 05:55 PM
Ofcourse the Mac mini can do video editing.

If a 1 GHz PowerBook with a 4200 rpm drive can do it, then sure as hell the Mac mini can do it.

What's the problem?

It is the best Mac-per-buck there is!

No, it will not be able to play Doom 3. UT 2004, Halo and a couple of other high-end games would be pretty bad playing on it.

Remember it is a $ 500,-Mac in a super cute tiny box. A switcher coming from a Wintel box just looking for a cheap alternative to virusses can finally get a new Mac. While he's at it het can play with iLife '05 too.

Blazingly fast is true, considering its price.
You get 2.5 MHz per $ 1,-

For a Single G5 1.8 GHz...
You get 1.2 Mhz per $ 1,-

For a Dual G5 2.5 GHz... (= 5.0 GHz)
You get 1.67 Mhz per $ 1,-

mymemory
Jan 23, 2005, 05:59 PM
Again... we are walking on circles here...

You can drive HD video from a 12" Powerbook any way, of course you can do it with the Mac Mini, the only thing the mini lacks are ports.

I have my 12" connected to a 20" Apple display, if the PB can why the Mini couldn't? I mean, the Mini is 12" without the LCD and at $500. So it can not be slower than that, only faster probably for structural architecture.

Again... Look at my "Mini"...

Bear
Jan 23, 2005, 06:06 PM
Ofcourse the Mac mini can do video editing.

...

Blazingly fast is true, considering its price.
You get 2.5 MHz per $ 1,-

For a Single G5 1.8 GHz...
You get 1.2 Mhz per $ 1,-

For a Dual G5 2.5 GHz... (= 5.0 GHz)
You get 1.67 Mhz per $ 1,-Of course that is only the CPU speed. What about the bus speed? And the disk speed (data transfer and access times)? And memory speed? What about how the video board plays into perceived and real speed?

I suspect when you look at those as well, the relative value of the MacMini goes down.

Mind you, the Mini does have its place and uses. It's just not the new greatest invention since sliced bread.

MacsRgr8
Jan 23, 2005, 06:20 PM
Ofcourse you look at the rest too.

But CPU is most important.

FSB, grfx card, HD access time / speed etc. all together will influence the speed, but in normal every day use, these combined are not as important as the CPU.

Before the G5 was introduced everyone agreed that the (Dual) G4's performance was crippled by the FSB. Once the FSB would be at par with the PC world, then the Mac would suddenly become a speed-monster again. Not quite.
Without hijacking this thread, and turning it into a "are Macs fast?" thread, I mean to say that for the mere $ 500,- this Mac is the best deal there is.
I'm not saying this Mac is the one that suites your needs the best. Just the fastest per dollar.

Gregory
Jan 23, 2005, 07:51 PM
I know that but my point is blazing fast isnt a very good way to describe something. Not Pro vs mini I could never apply these adjuctives to any G4 at any clock. zippy,speedy,quick enough,etc.......but blazing fast :rolleyes: If so i have had a blazing fast machine for years and didnt know it. ;)

Speed is not everything, just think in 6 months time your 2.5 ghz G5 will bow down to the next Faster G5, just like the PC world GHZ means nothing faster GHZ about every 3 months or so , 3.2GHZ, 3.4GHZ, 3.6GHZ, when will it stop, it won't stop at all and never stop. I have own macs since OS 7.6 and One thing is for sure its not the GHZ in total, its the whole system, along with software. People buy computers because of the sotware it runs, not the speed. Work flow is just not about speed, as long as the system does what you need it to. Some systems do better than others in certain things, and vice verse. I have a G4 450 MHZ running Pro Tools and thats all I need for that computer to do, I also have a G4 Dual 1.2 Running Motion and Final Cut Pro DV Footage and it works Great, and I have a 2.0GHZ G5 for my Uncompressed SD Video, all in all the machines work Great, no matter what the speed. . . Get the Point. . . anyway doom 3 doesn't run great even on a 3.2 GHZ PC with a 6800 GT Card with Fast 2.0 GB Gaming Ram, it runs just OK to me and I am a Hardcore Gamer. . .

Gregory
Jan 23, 2005, 08:14 PM
While I generally agree with you, I'll have to disagree with 256MB being sufficient. It's not. You CAN use it, but it's like using a P2 500MHz box running WinXP. My friend does it, and it ain't pretty. Buying a new Mac and discovering that it "feels" as slow as a PII would be upsetting. A total of 512MB of RAM is key. I used my 12" 1GHz PB with only 512MB for a while, and it was fine.

And yes, the problem is that PC's are good at gaming too. I try to stay out of discussions concerning Mac gaming (ie: Doom 3), because it's a losing discussion for Mac users --- even the best Mac can't game well. The PC can be both productive, and be used to play games. The Mac cannot do both well. I know that many fanboys will tell me WinXP users need to constantly battle viruses and spyware (not necessarily true), or that they can buy a PS2/XBox/GC to play games, but that's exactly the point --- we need to get a console.

So being realistic: Although the Mac Mini is amazing, it's not "blazingly fast". Its good for what I do, but it's not fast. If a Honda Civic gets me from A to B in good time, it's still not a "blazing fast" car. A Porsche GT is a blazing fast car. By consumer PC standards, the Mac Mini isn't "blazing fast".

Just remeber that gaming on the Mac is not fair because of 3 factors, 1). Game companies code games for systems that sell alot, and the MAC does not sell alot compared to PC w/ win XP. 2). Mac games are poorly coded ports from PC games, because companies don't spend as much money on systems that don't sell well, FACT. 3). The lack of Graphic Cards from companies for the MAC is very low. One good thing is at least Mac has the $400 -$500 graphic card range, but not many Mac users buy, because of lack of games for the Mac. So now you can see the problem. . . Its not Apples fault, it the users, that buy the computer. Games are not that important to the buyers, but one thing is sure and that is Pro Work is very Strong on Macs
from Video to Audio and Graphics, etc. . . much so than the PC market. . .
Most Good Pros use Macs in some fashion or form. . . because they just work. That why I use Macs for that reseaon and my PC just for Gaming. . .

DickArmAndHarT
Jan 25, 2005, 04:31 PM
I have a new PB 1.33 (with 1.25 RAM). To me, this is blazing fast. I never feel like I'm waiting for anything. To some people, "the fastest you can get" is extremely fast: for people like me, once you get up to a certain point, you're perfect.


I am switcher...from less than a year ago..IM 14 now and when i first started with the mac i had tons of "silly questions"..but i really had no clue..and many people on these forums helped answere an array of my questions..its a great place to look for help.. al the time spent on my computer, the mac computer has completely changed my life..I bought it setting my goal to be a doctor. Now one year later, this summer im going to be attending a 4 week film class.

Lets show these super nebs..the same support i was shown..calling them super newbs being, im still a newb myself..

Dick

pilavdzic
Feb 8, 2005, 12:01 PM
OTOH, what this tells you is that the folks who are not Apple types, for whom this is their first Mac, will probably be happy. These folks are generally not power users or intense gamers. They are web surfers who will be impressed by the mini's speed. That is the only crowd whose oppinion matters. If they are pleased, it just won't matter how many G5 owners call it slow.


I just have to say G5 owners should shut up about the mini, because all but the most ridicoulously priced top of the line Dual G5s are actually not nearly as much faster than the mini as they are more expensive. And lets put things in perspective, they don't come with a screen either and also have crap for memory in their base configuration. So paying 5X the price for 1.2X the performance doesn't sound like a good deal to me.

P.S. To all those debating the cost of the mini to apple and such I have just one thing to say: If they were not going to make lots of money off of it, they wouldn't have made it. I wouldn't worry about their profits. My bet is that the mini costs them little more than those packaging costs someone spoke of, that they build them out of spare inventory they would otherwise need to throw away because it is so outdated. Apple has had 4200 rpm laptop drives in stock for how many years now? Old combo and superdrives when dual-layers in the same size have been out for months.. common. Considering you still can't even get one if you order now for few weeks, that makes the hardware even more outdated than it is. By the end of the month 100GB 7200rpm drives from seage will be out that will blow away all the other laptop drives on the market, and don't think the other drive manufacturers will let segate be the only one for long.

anthonymoody
Feb 8, 2005, 01:20 PM
Apple has publicly stated that the margins on the minis are lower than on the rest of the line up.

I'm a new switcher and I love mine.

:)

TM

Hoffer
Feb 8, 2005, 03:03 PM
I wouldn't say my mini is blazing, but it's definitely faster than my 867 megahertz 12" PB.

rt_brained
Feb 8, 2005, 04:02 PM
LOL, I was going to post the same thing.

This entire thread is rampant Apple fanboyism at its finest.

Driving a 50" screen... OooOoo... 1280x720 is lower resolution than the smallest Apple Cinema Display.

It ran iSight chat? ...Err... My grandfather's graphite iMac can do that without skipping a beat.

Installed iLife? You can do that with a G3 if you'd like.

Playing music with the visualizer on and surfing the web... ... ...?

THIS makes a "blazing fast" computer?

Bahahahahahaha.

Not to say I don't appreciate the Mac Mini for what it is, and anxiously await receiving the ones I ordered, but good god... 1.25-1.42Ghz G4 combined with an ancient graphics card and a 4200RPM hard drive is not something I'd describe as anywhere near "blazing fast."
Okay smart boy, maybe that doesn't make the Mac Mini blazing fast. But perhaps he forgot to mention that it simultaneously performed all the above with this little accessory running at the same time.