Compareing the Mac I will most likely get with my PC

Ecodisk said:

The PC that I have right now is....
2.66ghz Pentium 4 with a 533mhz FSb
Geforce 6600 128mb pci-express video card
1gb of DDR2 RAM

The Mac I will be getting is the 1.42ghz mac mini and I will upgrade the ram to 1gb (can it go any higher?)


My main concern is will this mac that I get be able to compare to my pc when it comes to multi-tasking? On my PC I always have atleast a couple windows open in firefox, msn messenger going, and I have my World of Warcraft game going. It does slow down sometimes but for the most part it handles all of this just fine. I know this mac will most likely not be able to handle as many things at once but what can it handle???

Click to expand...

You'll be fine as long as you have a gig of RAM, but the video card is gonna choke on World of Warcrack.

You will likely notice a slowdown while launching applications due to the Mini's slower laptop hard drive but past that OS X multitasks beautifully. Before you buy though, why not wait until Macworld SF to see what Apple announces? If they announce and intel mac mini would that change the decision making process?

Yeah, either way, wait until Jobs makes the announcements in a couple of days. It could be a world of difference, and it's only three days.

Ecodisk said:

If they make an intel mac mini I think that would probably effect my decision.

Click to expand...

This is one of the few times of the year where I would say not to buy a new Mac for any reason. In three days you may have new options.

WoW on the current Mini - people do it but it is pretty slow.

For non-gaming tasks the Mini is great though.

That would be a pretty big downgrade... especially for gaming.

Ecodisk said:

The PC that I have right now is....
2.66ghz Pentium 4 with a 533mhz FSb
Geforce 6600 128mb pci-express video card
1gb of DDR2 RAM

The Mac I will be getting is the 1.42ghz mac mini and I will upgrade the ram to 1gb (can it go any higher?)

Click to expand...

Let's just say that the dual 2.5 Power Mac I bought four months ago is about as speedy and responsive as my P4 2.6GHz with Geforce 5700 128MB AGP card. You may be disappointed with that Mini. Keep in mind though that OS X requires more horsepower than a lean XP installation because of the pretty UI and 3D effects, so it's an apples to oranges comparison.

I can't imagine going from a 6600 to the Mini's built-in graphics for 3D gaming though. Big downgrade.

Definitely wait to see what Intel models may pop up a few days from now.

thirdkind said:

Let's just say that the dual 2.5 Power Mac I bought four months ago is about as speedy and responsive as my P4 2.6GHz with Geforce 5700 128MB AGP card. You may be disappointed with that Mini. Keep in mind though that OS X requires more horsepower than a lean XP installation because of the pretty UI and 3D effects, so it's an apples to oranges comparison.

I can't imagine going from a 6600 to the Mini's built-in graphics for 3D gaming though. Big downgrade.

Definitely wait to see what Intel models may pop up a few days from now.

Click to expand...

I think your comparison is off, the dual 2.5 should be RUNNING MILES around a 2.5P4, I would say my P4 1.8 is more or less as fast as the ibook in my sig, maybe a TINY bit faster.

Patmian212 said:

I think your comparison is off, the dual 2.5 should be RUNNING MILES around a 2.5P4

Click to expand...

Wish it were so. XP on my PC is quick and agile, and feels much faster than the hardware would have you believe.

OS X gives me beach balls a plenty and the cooling fans go into high gear whenever I open a web page with a Flash banner ad. I have no doubt that in terms of raw number crunching, say a Photoshop filter, my Power Mac would come out on top. Same for 3D performance (5700 in my PC vs. 6800 Ultra in my Mac). But in terms of sheer responsiveness, my PC wins.

A big part of that is the quick mouse movement I think. Tiger's mouse movement is for geriatrics. I use USB Overdrive to speed things up, but it still doesn't feel quite as accurate as the cursor in XP.

I'll probably upgrade to an Intel Power Mac in 2007. I think OS X will really start to fly when it has a dual core Intel behind it.

On a 1.25 mini i currently have iTunes, Photoshop CS (with 6 image open in it that im actively editing), Dreamweaver MX (4 pages being edited and 2 sites open), Safari (4 tabs), iCal, Mail, iChat, Adium, terminal, and crapload of dashboard widgets open.

I have 1GB of RAM, i currently have 392mb free, and it is running perfectly fine with no system slowdowns noticeable. I really don't get when people think that a mini can't handle multi-tasking, mine works like a champ. At times it feels faster than my Xeon processor based server. Thats the beauty of OS X and Apple technology, it isnt as clusterf*cked and full of spaghetti code as Windows is

Ed

thirdkind said:

Wish it were so. XP on my PC is quick and agile, and feels much faster than the hardware would have you believe.

OS X gives me beach balls a plenty and the cooling fans go into high gear whenever I open a web page with a Flash banner ad. I have no doubt that in terms of raw number crunching, say a Photoshop filter, my Power Mac would come out on top. Same for 3D performance (5700 in my PC vs. 6800 Ultra in my Mac). But in terms of sheer responsiveness, my PC wins.

Click to expand...

Most of that is just the different philosophies between Windows and OS X in terms of responsiveness.

Windows is what I like to call "quick but dumb." Sure, windows will snap up onto the screen very quickly, things will do something as soon as you click on them. But windows and menus won't draw completely first—they'll appear, and then fill in. And woe betide you if any application starts dominating the CPU. Screen redraws go down the tube, switching apps becomes painful, the whole system grinds to a halt.

OS X is what I like to call "slower but smooth." Yeah, sometimes you have to wait half a second from when you click on something to see something happen. But when it happens, it's done—the window or dialogue is fully drawn and complete, and stays that way while it's up. And only in the rarest of circumstances will a CPU-hogging task bring down the whole system. Even if Safari is beach-balling on some webpage, I can switch to iTunes and browse around normally or pull up the Dashboard to do something.

Overall, though it took some getting used to, I prefer the OS X way of doing things. It just feels more solid than Windows, which always seems to be flitting about and saying "Wha? Oh, what this now? Oh, something else! Oh! Oh! Over there!"

Ed H said:

On a 1.25 mini i currently have iTunes, Photoshop CS (with 6 image open in it that im actively editing), Dreamweaver MX (4 pages being edited and 2 sites open), Safari (4 tabs), iCal, Mail, iChat, Adium, terminal, and crapload of dashboard widgets open.

I have 1GB of RAM, i currently have 392mb free, and it is running perfectly fine with no system slowdowns noticeable. I really don't get when people think that a mini can't handle multi-tasking, mine works like a champ. At times it feels faster than my Xeon processor based server. Thats the beauty of OS X and Apple technology, it isnt as clusterf*cked and full of spaghetti code as Windows is

Ed

Click to expand...

Very impressive. I honestly didn't think the Mac mini could handle that many apps at once. I really hope Apple unveils a new Intel Mac mini on Tuesday... I would kill for it!

Okay, maybe not kill, but pretty darn close.