Intel Mac Mini SLOOOOOOOW...

[Eric5h5]

1. You don't need more RAM. This is not the problem.

It sounds exactly like a RAM problem to me. It has all the symptoms.

I run far older and slower Macs than a Core Solo mini with less RAM than you've got, and I don't see performance problems like you are describing.

Because you're running native software. Rosetta uses a massive amount of RAM to store all the translated code. 2GB would not be uncalled for when running stuff with Rosetta. (It doesn't help that the crappy integrated video steals much-needed system RAM either.)

I can't readily recommend any course of action beyond repairing permissions

That will accomplish nothing. I vote for a moratorium on anyone recommending "repairing permissions" as an answer to anything except actual permissions problems, which are quite rare these days.

--Eric

 

[MacSA]

It sounds exactly like a RAM problem to me. It has all the symptoms.



Because you're running native software. Rosetta uses a massive amount of RAM to store all the translated code. 2GB would not be uncalled for when running stuff with Rosetta. (It doesn't help that the crappy integrated video steals much-needed system RAM either.)



That will accomplish nothing. I vote for a moratorium on anyone recommending "repairing permissions" as an answer to anything except actual permissions problems, which are quite rare these days.

--Eric

Hmm seems like people should just forget about the Mini and get an iMac. Adding all that RAM almost doubles it's price. And at least it's easy to add RAM to the iMac.. you practically have to destroy the Mini to upgrade it.

........or get a cheap refurbished G4 PPC Mini, that would have been cheaper than upgrading to 2GB lol.

 

[jsw]

Hmm seems like people should just forget about the Mini and get an iMac. Adding all that RAM almost doubles it's price.

While I absolutely agree that the iMac is easy to upgrade with more RAM (and the mini is torture), the iMac also needs 1GB to function well unless you limit yourself to UBs. Those who buy it for surfing, email, iLife, etc. will be fine w/512MB, but Rosetta, etc. push everyone else to 1GB or more. i say this having used an iMac w/512MB (for a day, until the RAM came in).

 

[sonofmof]

Thanks for the Replies

Thanks for the prompt replies guys,

I think I will get the core solo becuase the upgrade of ram in addition to the core duo is simply not affordable at the moment :-(

from what i have been reading it might be possible to upgrade the cpu in around a year of so with a cheap core duo or even a merom.

at this moment in time i have a 17" CRT from my old pc which i can use with the mini until finances can further stretch to a new LCD screen.

<I hate not having money but...love the house thats swallowing all my cash>

 

[iBunny]

I have to be blunt, but dont take it as disrespect.

512 MB of ram was good in 2001 and 2002. I dont know why anyone would concider running it today.

Also, a Core solo processor... not bad for sure, dont dont expect exact smoothness and speed. The More processors you have the better. Why not get a Core Duo?

Anyway, Also rosetta sucks. I dont care what anyone says. Sure, you can seemlessly run PPC apps... but its still slow. I have a Core Duo 2Ghz, 2GB of ram etc and its still slow.

So dont expect much.... You get what you pay for. You baught value, you will get value performance. Plain and simple.

 

[miniConvert]

The Core Solo isn't going to hack much under Rosetta. I have a Core Duo with 2GB RAM and it's about right... I can't imagine what using Word on a Solo with 512MB would be like!

Still, if it's being a bitch, moan at tech support and get it replaced. If it's still awful, buy more RAM.

 

[sonofmof]

No Disrespect Taken

I understand that the mini core solo is certainly not a power user spec machine but for my needs, web surfing, mail, minor office, itunes, iphoto and some small family websites in iweb i think it will be more than enough.

Please remember that my eMac has not seemed underpowered to me, its just that the display is begining to give up so i need to replace it.
It is a stock 1.25ghz combo but upgraded to 1gb ram.

Am i unreasonable to expect a small performance increase with the mini core solo and 1gb ram If i will get an increase does anyone know in real terms how much ?.

Thanks once again.

 

[milo]

Hmm seems like people should just forget about the Mini and get an iMac. Adding all that RAM almost doubles it's price. And at least it's easy to add RAM to the iMac.. you practically have to destroy the Mini to upgrade it.

........or get a cheap refurbished G4 PPC Mini, that would have been cheaper than upgrading to 2GB lol.

Nah. Even with 2 gigs of ram, a mini duo is still cheaper than a stock iMac (which needs a ram upgrade as well). ALL the intel macs need more ram. Period. And the G4 mini is only an option if you're ok with a machine that's dog slow (regardless of ram).

The mini is a good machine if you already have a decent monitor. It just needs ram, same as the other intel macs.

I understand that the mini core solo is certainly not a power user spec machine but for my needs, web surfing, mail, minor office, itunes, iphoto and some small family websites in iweb i think it will be more than enough.

Please remember that my eMac has not seemed underpowered to me, its just that the display is begining to give up so i need to replace it.
It is a stock 1.25ghz combo but upgraded to 1gb ram.

Am i unreasonable to expect a small performance increase with the mini core solo and 1gb ram If i will get an increase does anyone know in real terms how much ?.

If your apps are all universal, you'll see an increase but probably nothing that will blow you away.

 

[miniConvert]

Am i unreasonable to expect a small performance increase with the mini core solo and 1gb ram If i will get an increase does anyone know in real terms how much ?.

Thanks once again.

I'd imagine it'd seem snappier from the get-go, but applications running under Rosetta will be noticeably slower.

 

[IJ Reilly]

I vote for a moratorium on anyone recommending "repairing permissions" as an answer to anything except actual permissions problems, which are quite rare these days.

Personally, I vote for a moratorium on recommending (1) more RAM and (2) OS reinstalls, as solutions to virtually every Mac issue.

The point of my suggestions is that they are (1) free, (2) easy, and (3) can cause no harm. And we don't know if this is an "actual" permissions problem, do we?

If these solutions don't work, then you can escalate. I also suggested rebooting, which as far as I can tell, hasn't been tried in this case. These are basic troubleshooting techniques. Skip them at your own risk.

 

[livingfortoday]

Personally, I vote for a moratorium on recommending (1) more RAM and (2) OS reinstalls, as solutions to virtually every Mac issue.

The point of my suggestions is that they are (1) free, (2) easy, and (3) can cause no harm. And we don't know if this is an "actual" permissions problem, do we?

If these solutions don't work, then you can escalate. I also suggested rebooting, which as far as I can tell, hasn't been tried in this case. These are basic troubleshooting techniques. Skip them at your own risk.

I agree, it's just common sense to try those things before you try to drastically mess with your system (more RAM, new install, etc). I do have to say though, from experience, that the Core Solo is terrible with the stock RAM. I had an Intel iMac for a little while, and it was fine at 512MB, but that was a 2.0Ghz Duo, and this is just a 1.5Ghz Solo. My Mini became very useable with the extra 512MB in it. I think a lot of it has to do with the shared graphics memory, and Rosetta most likely doesn't help either.

 

[IJ Reilly]

512 MB of ram was good in 2001 and 2002. I dont know why anyone would concider running it today.

Because they do it without any problems, that's why. Because adding RAM is a frequent source of kernel panics is another. Because it's costly is a third reason.

I'm not opposed to adding RAM. If you can afford it, knock yourself out. (Just make sure you buy the good stuff, not cheapo generic.) I'm opposed to RAM upgrades being suggested as a universal solution to all performance issues, even before anything else is even considered.

 

[IJ Reilly]

I agree, it's just common sense to try those things before you try to drastically mess with your system (more RAM, new install, etc). I do have to say though, from experience, that the Core Solo is terrible with the stock RAM. I had an Intel iMac for a little while, and it was fine at 512MB, but that was a 2.0Ghz Duo, and this is just a 1.5Ghz Solo. My Mini became very useable with the extra 512MB in it. I think a lot of it has to do with the shared graphics memory, and Rosetta most likely doesn't help either.

Common sense is all I'm preaching here. Always do the free and easy stuff first.

Another point about performance and RAM: No matter how much RAM you've got installed, over time you will still build up virtual memory swap files, which will gradually degrade the system's performance to the point where you see constant beach balls. The cure is rebooting. Having more RAM essentially means not having to reboot quite so often.

 

[razorme]

Common sense is all I'm preaching here. Always do the free and easy stuff first.

Another point about performance and RAM: No matter how much RAM you've got installed, over time you will still build up virtual memory swap files, which will gradually degrade the system's performance to the point where you see constant beach balls. The cure is rebooting. Having more RAM essentially means not having to reboot quite so often.

I have/had many Macs, and as long as you have enough RAM that the system only has to occasionally use virtual memory, I have never seen degradation over time. It may be happening ever so slightly, but my iMac Rev A with 1 GB has never had to be rebooted except for updates or power failures (and once because my USB was acting funny).

I have seen abysmal performance that gets worse and worse when you don't have enough RAM, but once you upgrade, the problem seems to go away, not just slow down - in my experience anyways!

 

[ddrueckhammer]

You probably do want to spend money to upgrade your RAM (at least 1 Gb) but I would recommend downloading Cocktail (or Onyx) and running the Pilot tab. It just repairs permissions, runs cron scripts, cleans the cache etc. If you know how to do all this by hand you can do it that way too but I like the convenience of setting one of these programs to go and coming back later.

My friends Mac Mini was unresponsive after a couple of weeks of use and I ran Cocktail on it and noticed an immediate speed increase. It turns out, that after purchasing the Mac my friend installed a bunch of programs and it seems that the maintanence wasn't being done. He doesn't turn off his Mac but he had it set for the computer and HDs to sleep. Does anyone know if this makes a difference? I run Cocktail every month or two so I never really noticed if the sleep setting make a difference on the Cron script running etc.

 

[sonofmof]

I think most of my apps are universal now, safari, mail, ilife 06, proteus with the only expection being office, which i only use occasionally.

I think i will be happy with the solo and 1gb, I just didn't want to have a slower machine than my eMac.

Thats all for the replies

 

[milo]

Personally, I vote for a moratorium on recommending (1) more RAM and (2) OS reinstalls, as solutions to virtually every Mac issue.

As a blanket statement, I'd agree. But in this particular case, more ram is the right solution. Many people have used this machine with different ram configurations, and the fact that it performs much better with more than 512 is well established.

Personally, I vote for a moratorium on people making recommendations for machines they've never used.

Another point about performance and RAM: No matter how much RAM you've got installed, over time you will still build up virtual memory swap files, which will gradually degrade the system's performance to the point where you see constant beach balls. The cure is rebooting. Having more RAM essentially means not having to reboot quite so often.

In the case of these machines, if you're running multiple apps, you'll build up those swap files almost immediately. You'll see the degraded performance right away, so rebooting isn't really a fix.


Get the ram, it will fix your problem.

 

[danny_w]

Although RAM is always an issue, esp. with Rosetta, Safari is also a major issue in my experience (although a lot of posters here seem to love it). I have tried many times to switch to Safari, but it just bogs the system down so bad, in just exactly the same way that you are describing, that I always end up back at FireFox. Some websites will cause an immediate Safari slowdown (Expedia and CNN) while others will take longer. Try running your apps but without Safari and see if the problem improves. I run a PowerBook 1.5GHz with 1GB of RAM and have these Safari issues, so I can imagine that 512MB would be hard to deal with.

 

[miniConvert]

Although RAM is always an issue, esp. with Rosetta, Safari is also a major issue in my experience (although a lot of posters here seem to love it). I have tried many times to switch to Safari, but it just bogs the system down so bad, in just exactly the same way that you are describing, that I always end up back at FireFox. Some websites will cause an immediate Safari slowdown (Expedia and CNN) while others will take longer. Try running your apps but without Safari and see if the problem improves. I run a PowerBook 1.5GHz with 1GB of RAM and have these Safari issues, so I can imagine that 512MB would be hard to deal with.

Mhm, I hear you with regard to Safari, but I'd much more recommend Camino as the superior browser for basic web browsing needs: http://www.caminobrowser.org/

 

[IJ Reilly]

I have/had many Macs, and as long as you have enough RAM that the system only has to occasionally use virtual memory, I have never seen degradation over time. It may be happening ever so slightly, but my iMac Rev A with 1 GB has never had to be rebooted except for updates or power failures (and once because my USB was acting funny).

I have seen abysmal performance that gets worse and worse when you don't have enough RAM, but once you upgrade, the problem seems to go away, not just slow down - in my experience anyways!

You might be surprised at how much virtual memory is being used. The only way to really know is to check the virtual memory swap files, which essentially double in size (!) each time a new one is required by the OS, and don't get deleted until you reboot. I run a G4 1.7 Cube with 1 gig or RAM, and don't find rebooting to be necessary very often unless I open large files in Photoshop under Classic. But then I really do need to reboot.

 

[IJ Reilly]

As a blanket statement, I'd agree. But in this particular case, more ram is the right solution. Many people have used this machine with different ram configurations, and the fact that it performs much better with more than 512 is well established.

Personally, I vote for a moratorium on people making recommendations for machines they've never used.

General troubleshooting procedures don't change from model to model. Start with the free and the easy, then move onto the more costly and complex if necessary. As someone else said, this is basic common sense.

 

[milo]

General troubleshooting procedures don't change from model to model. Start with the free and the easy, then move onto the more costly and complex if necessary. As someone else said, this is basic common sense.

But things like ram needs DO change from model to model. I'm sure the G4 is just fine with 512. But the intel macs, specifically the mini, do see better performance with more ram than 512. It's an established fact, and many people have confirmed it.

I certainly don't disagree with starting with things like fsck and other basics. But it's simply ignorant on your part to make statements like "You don't need more RAM. This is not the problem." You're just flat-out wrong in this case, and you're doing a disservice by spreading misinformation about a machine you haven't even used.

 

[whooleytoo]

I run OS X 10.3 on that G3 iBook
That's why I am so shocked that the Intel mini's are so slow.
But the point made earlier is also true: integrated graphics. Has always sucked in PC's, so why would it be good in Macs?

I run 10.4 on a B&W G3 too, and it's not bad for general use! It really, REALLY can't play games, and a lot of videos it can't play as it can't decode fast enough (and we're not talking about HD here!), but it's ok. And unlike my 2x2GHz G5 at work (with 512MB RAM), it doesn't stutter and stall for 5 seconds every time I try and switch apps.

 

[IJ Reilly]

But things like ram needs DO change from model to model. I'm sure the G4 is just fine with 512. But the intel macs, specifically the mini, do see better performance with more ram than 512. It's an established fact, and many people have confirmed it.

I certainly don't disagree with starting with things like fsck and other basics. But it's simply ignorant on your part to make statements like "You don't need more RAM. This is not the problem." You're just flat-out wrong in this case, and you're doing a disservice by spreading misinformation about a machine you haven't even used.

Ignorant? Thank you so much.

Perhaps you ought to take another look at the initial post. Sure, all Macs will "see better performance" with more RAM. But this is not what we're talking about here. This user complains that it takes 15 seconds just to close a Safari window. This is not normal behavior for any Mac in any stock configuration, as I think everyone would agree. Try to find out what the problem is before throwing money at it, is my suggestion.

This should be noncontroversial advice, and not responded to with flames.

 

[whooleytoo]

Perhaps you ought to take another look at the initial post. Sure, all Macs will "see better performance" with more RAM. But this is not what we're talking about here. This user complains that it takes 15 seconds just to close a Safari window. This is not normal behavior for any Mac in any stock configuration, as I think everyone would agree. Try to find out what the problem is before throwing money at it, is my suggestion.

I see that all the time with Safari, on two G5s (dual 2GHz), both of which have 512MB RAM.

I stick by my earlier advice, don't keep too many Safari tabs open, quit and relaunch it often, install more RAM.