Did you choose a 2.0GHz or 2.26GHz Mac Mini?

Discussion in 'Mac mini' started by MacMini2009, Jun 28, 2009.

?

Did you get the 2.0GHz or 2.26GHz Mac Mini?

  1. 2.0GHz

    37 vote(s)
    63.8%
  2. 2.26GHz

    21 vote(s)
    36.2%
  1. MacMini2009 macrumors 68000

    MacMini2009

    Joined:
    May 22, 2009
    Location:
    California
    #1
    Hello everyone! I currently have the 2.0GHz Mac Mini. I am just wondering if you either got the 2.0GHz or 2.26GHz Mac Mini and why.
     
  2. 300D macrumors 65816

    300D

    Joined:
    May 2, 2009
    Location:
    Tulsa
    #2
    Seeing as its only $150 and there is no possible way to upgrade the CPU once you've bought it, picking the 2.26ghz model should be a no-brainer.
     
  3. zmttoxics macrumors 65816

    zmttoxics

    Joined:
    May 20, 2008
    #3
    For some people, a 1.8GHz last gen will still work just fine for another few years. With todays economy, save money where you can.
     
  4. 300D macrumors 65816

    300D

    Joined:
    May 2, 2009
    Location:
    Tulsa
    #4
    Its all about economy. Spend a small amount extra at initial purchase and the computer will feel "fast enough" for longer. That means a longer useful life, higher resale value and an even better computer for the same budget when it comes time to buy a new one.
     
  5. TheReef macrumors 68000

    TheReef

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2007
    Location:
    NSW, Australia.
    #5
    I got the 2.0Ghz.

    I really doubt I would have noticed any speed difference and I keep my Macs for a very long time without selling.
    Down the track I'm not going to stress about 260Mhz, the computer will still be "obsolete" (compared to what's released then).

    It may be for other's but not worth it for me. Upgraded the RAM to 4 gigs instead, something I will notice a difference with.
     
  6. 300D macrumors 65816

    300D

    Joined:
    May 2, 2009
    Location:
    Tulsa
    #6
    Thats 2x260mhz.

    I have a dual 2.3GHz G5 and there IS a significant difference in performance compared to a 2.0GHz model. Thats why I got it, and still use it. If I had the 2GHz model I'd be seriously considering an upgrade about now.
     
  7. TheReef macrumors 68000

    TheReef

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2007
    Location:
    NSW, Australia.
    #7
    Fair enough, I should have added to my post I used to be like that, buying PowerMacs and get the best I could buy and try to have it last as long as I could, upgrade it etc.

    I'm trying a different approach now, getting up to date hardware for a low price (Mac mini) and upgrading it every few years at a lower price each time.
     
  8. 300D macrumors 65816

    300D

    Joined:
    May 2, 2009
    Location:
    Tulsa
    #8
    So then you're perpetually stuck with frequent low-end machines instead of getting something nice for a long time...
     
  9. TheReef macrumors 68000

    TheReef

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2007
    Location:
    NSW, Australia.
    #9
    It runs Aperture nicely, that's the most I need :D
    It's very nice now that it has dual displays and FW 800.
     
  10. uberamd macrumors 68030

    uberamd

    Joined:
    May 26, 2009
    Location:
    Minnesota
    #10
    Well, for what I use the system for a 2x260MHz speed bump is worthless to me. The system sits idle 18 hours a day and when I do use it I am not going to stress about not spending another $150 for that meaningless clock gain. Thats a 25% cost increase for a few measly MHz's. Not to me, not at all.
     
  11. J&JPolangin macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2008
    Location:
    Thule GL @ the TOW
    #11
    ...I think the extra $$ is better spend on RAM and applecare...
     
  12. 300D macrumors 65816

    300D

    Joined:
    May 2, 2009
    Location:
    Tulsa
  13. panzer06 macrumors 68030

    panzer06

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2006
    Location:
    Kilrath
    #13
    No way I was spending $150 more on a secondary machine. If I could afford a MacPro I would move to that but definitely not Apple-configured mini upgrades.

    Cheers,
     
  14. bigdaddyp macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2008
    #14
    Quick question...

    How well does Hulu play on a 2ghz version? I have a 1.86 version that plays higher rez files fine but chokes and stutters on Hulu.
     
  15. uberamd macrumors 68030

    uberamd

    Joined:
    May 26, 2009
    Location:
    Minnesota
    #15
    The Core2Duo and video in the 2.0GHz will play anything, including HD content downloaded from the torrent tubes.
     
  16. MacMini2009 thread starter macrumors 68000

    MacMini2009

    Joined:
    May 22, 2009
    Location:
    California
    #16
    2.0GHz is standard these days in computers and I think it is fine for the average user. Getting the 2.26 processor is probably unnoticed by most people who would buy a Mac Mini. How would 2.0GHz compare to computers 1-3 years from now? Would it still be able to watch HD videos, etc?
     
  17. uberamd macrumors 68030

    uberamd

    Joined:
    May 26, 2009
    Location:
    Minnesota
    #17
    Unless the spec changes some how, yeah. I can watch blu-ray 'rips' from torrents just fine. It doesn't struggle with anything I have tossed at it, thanks to the video card.
     
  18. MacMini2009 thread starter macrumors 68000

    MacMini2009

    Joined:
    May 22, 2009
    Location:
    California
    #18
    How long do you think a 2.0GHz Mac Mini will last until you just have to buy a new computer?
     
  19. uberamd macrumors 68030

    uberamd

    Joined:
    May 26, 2009
    Location:
    Minnesota
    #19
    Thats a very subjective question. What do you want to do with it? I buy early and often, so for me its not a matter of how long the Mini will last, but instead how long I will last with the mini. For web browsing, email, videos, programming, and anything not related to new games it will last years. I have a old G3 that does web browsing and what not just fine, but it will choke on video. I would say it will handle most tasks a basic computer would do for 3-4 years. Probably quite a bit longer.
     
  20. QCassidy352 macrumors G3

    QCassidy352

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2003
    Location:
    Bay Area
    #20
    I got the 2.0. I use it as a media center, and while the extra mhz would knock a couple of minutes off of rips or encodes, it's not like I'm waiting around for the mini to finish those tasks, so I don't even really notice how long it takes.
     
  21. MacMini2009 thread starter macrumors 68000

    MacMini2009

    Joined:
    May 22, 2009
    Location:
    California
    #21
    What I'm concerned about is like watching Youtube videos. Many G3's and G4's just can't handle videos these days. Say about 3 years from now, would the Mini handle videos in those days?
     
  22. uberamd macrumors 68030

    uberamd

    Joined:
    May 26, 2009
    Location:
    Minnesota
    #22
    Unless spec's change, yeah it will handle them fine. But what you need to ask is in 3 years, will watching youtube videos really be a priority for you :)
     
  23. MacMini2009 thread starter macrumors 68000

    MacMini2009

    Joined:
    May 22, 2009
    Location:
    California
    #23
    What do you mean unless spec's change? Like spec requirements to watch Youtube videos? Oh, and good question, I don't think I would be watching Youtube that much in 3 years.
     
  24. uberamd macrumors 68030

    uberamd

    Joined:
    May 26, 2009
    Location:
    Minnesota
    #24
    Here is how I see it. If it works now, it will work 3 years from now. If Office 2008 runs on it today, it will run on it 20 years from now. But will different versions work? Its impossible to say. Same goes for youtube. What if they switch their video to a new technology? Its impossible to say if the mini will support it or now, you just need to wait and see.
     
  25. MacMini2009 thread starter macrumors 68000

    MacMini2009

    Joined:
    May 22, 2009
    Location:
    California
    #25
    Oh ok. I just want my Mac Mini to last me until I go to college.
     

Share This Page