Mac mini is blazing fast

[wrldwzrd89]

<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.

 

[26139]

What?!

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 Its a G4 with a very outdated videocard and a slow drive with a memory slot.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]

I expect that from a apple retail guy.

 

[Bear]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[spercharged69]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[mymemory]

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

 

[Abstract]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 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]

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]

Doo It!

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]

G5 owners commenting on a mini

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]

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]

I wouldn't say my mini is blazing, but it's definitely faster than my 867 megahertz 12" PB.