Mac Mini Updated (All Core Duo)

[Multimedia]

I Think the iMac C2D Overshadows This Minor Bump Still Stuck In The CD Realm

Number of posts in this thread seem to indicate that this update has been underwhelming

When it goes C2D that will be a bigger deal. But it's still hard to get exceted about a Mac with this little power costing even $599 w/o a Superdrive. Seems like the 17" iMac @ $899 academic is a mini killer to me. At least that way you have the potential of two screens.

If the mini had two DVI ports that would make it much more attractive. It's the only Mac that can't run two screens.

 

[Multimedia]

1.66 or 1.83? Would You Mind Comparing Test It With Your Dual 2 G5 Please?

Well, the update certainly wasn't jaw-dropping, it was just a normal product cycle update. So in comparison to the new CPU's in the iMac, oh, and the whole 24" screen business, the mini update kind of pales in comparison.

That said, I did buy one today from CompUSA! I was very surprised that they had them in already, they even got some of the new low end iMacs yesterday, no 24 inchers yet.

So now my office will be pleasantly furnished with a new Mac mini, wireless keyboard and Mighty Mouse. Everyone else in the building runs Windows (although a few have ACD's), but it shouldn't be too difficult to convert them once they see my little powerhouse of a mini. My boss was already blown away when I showed it to him, he called in three other people to look at it.

Fish in a barrel, my friends.

Mine: Dual 2.0 G5 PowerMac - survived lightning strike
Wife: 1Ghz G4 iBook
30gig iPod Video w/ IS
Airport Express - didn't survive lightning

Did you buy the 1.66 or 1.83 model? Would You Mind Comparative Testing It Against Your Dual 2 G5 Please? I need to know if it is in fact faster even at these slower speeds. I have a spare Dual 2 G5 here now I got at Fry's for $864.26 a few weeks ago. I need to know how it stacks up to a mini in performance.

When I was at Fry's yesterday, I tried a few things on a 1.83 MacBook and found it to be much slower than I expected - I think slower than the dual 2 G5. What do you think? Can you put them side by side and run some comparisons?

 

[generik]

Did you buy the 1.66 or 1.83 model? Would You Mind Comparative Testing It Against Your Dual 2 G5 Please? I need to know if it is in fact faster even at these slower speeds. I have a spare Dual 2 G5 here now I got at Fry's for $864.26 a few weeks ago. I need to know how it stacks up to a mini in performance.

When I was at Fry's yesterday, I tried a few things on a 1.83 MacBook and found it to be much slower than I expected - I think slower than the dual 2 G5. What do you think? Can you put them side by side and run some comparisons?

I wouldn't do the comparison like that, the Dual G5 does offer you drive bays and expansion capabilities that you do not get with the Mini. I will take the G5 over the Mini at that price you got it for.

 

[Multimedia]

Please Do A Few Comparisons?

I wouldn't do the comparison like that, the Dual G5 does offer you drive bays and expansion capabilities that you do not get with the Mini. I will take the G5 over the Mini at that price you got it for.

Thanks. But I am mainly with the Quad and need to know the actual performance difference between the D 2 G5 and one of the CD or C2D models. Thanks. Please?

I can't perform these tests in the stores because all the G5's are gone.

 

[echeck]

Can you put them side by side and run some comparisons?

Since I'm home for the evening and didn't see your post until now, I can't give you any specific side-by-side tests, but I can give you a rough estimate of the speeds.

Overall, the Dual G5 is faster, not by a landslide by any means, but it is faster. Of course the G5 has 1.5 gigs of RAM vs. the mini's 512K, and the G5 has a 1Ghz BUS speed vs. the 667Mhz of the mini. If I were to slap in 2 gigs of RAM in to the mini then I'm sure I would see a little more performance, but I think the G5 would still be faster.

But the mini is still very zippy, no beachballs or waiting on Apps, very fast and clean for average use. Now if I were to do some Photoshop or, say, FCP comparisons, I'm sure the G5 would clean up in those areas.

I'm really happy with the purchase though, it's perfect for what I need it to do.

Oh, I installed Windows XP via BootCamp and after having to burn an illegal copy of my legal disc (the retail disc was bad) I got it running with no problems. I must say, this mini is the fastest Windows machine I've ever had.

 

[pjo]

Except that I want to use my 24" monitor...

well... nothing stops you from connecting it to your iMac and spanning across both monitors

Edit: well.. Multimedia said it first - and better.

 

[seanr]

You talk about the price but I look at it this way. shore it might not be that great for the price and the difference between the hign end mini and the low end imac is not worth the hign end mini price but the point of the mini is to get people off the windows crap.I was going to switch back when the first intel mini came out but wanted something bettter for the price I ended up getting another windows one but now that the low end mini has due core and more ram I'm looking at selling my pc and getting a mac.I have been a fan of apple and the mac for many years and can see that it is not there hardware that sells the systems but there OS. I feel vista is doomed to fail and apple will be there to pick up the pieces when leopard comes out. I think Macworld 07 will be the best yet and will put windows and the pc on the down fall for good.Apple will be king in 2007 and we need to stop complaining and know apple will keep on putting the goods out.

 

[generik]

Since I'm home for the evening and didn't see your post until now, I can't give you any specific side-by-side tests, but I can give you a rough estimate of the speeds.

Overall, the Dual G5 is faster, not by a landslide by any means, but it is faster. Of course the G5 has 1.5 gigs of RAM vs. the mini's 512K, and the G5 has a 1Ghz BUS speed vs. the 667Mhz of the mini. If I were to slap in 2 gigs of RAM in to the mini then I'm sure I would see a little more performance, but I think the G5 would still be faster.

But the mini is still very zippy, no beachballs or waiting on Apps, very fast and clean for average use. Now if I were to do some Photoshop or, say, FCP comparisons, I'm sure the G5 would clean up in those areas.

I'm really happy with the purchase though, it's perfect for what I need it to do.

Oh, I installed Windows XP via BootCamp and after having to burn an illegal copy of my legal disc (the retail disc was bad) I got it running with no problems. I must say, this mini is the fastest Windows machine I've ever had.

Ok, that is not being very fair to the mini... at all.

I have a Mini and did my own ram upgrades on it, the before and after results are very significantly different. The Mini is horrible at 512, and at 1GB it starts picking up, at 2GB it is actually pretty damned good.

Perhaps you should strip 1GB of ram off the PM and redo the comparison, also bus speeds can't be quantified the way you did... the PPC actually needs more bandwidth due to the risc architecture.

You talk about the price but I look at it this way. shore it might not be that great for the price and the difference between the hign end mini and the low end imac is not worth the hign end mini price but the point of the mini is to get people off the windows crap.I was going to switch back when the first intel mini came out but wanted something bettter for the price I ended up getting another windows one but now that the low end mini has due core and more ram I'm looking at selling my pc and getting a mac.I have been a fan of apple and the mac for many years and can see that it is not there hardware that sells the systems but there OS. I feel vista is doomed to fail and apple will be there to pick up the pieces when leopard comes out. I think Macworld 07 will be the best yet and will put windows and the pc on the down fall for good.Apple will be king in 2007 and we need to stop complaining and know apple will keep on putting the goods out.

Not really, the cheapest iMac is $999 which is $200 more than the top end Mini, and even at that price the Mini wins out with a DVD-writer and the remote. At the expense of those you get a faster processor (probably not huge improvement) and a 17" screen. Displays are pretty cheap nowadays so if you need a DVD writer you have to shell out extra to get the next higher up iMac model.

 

[kadajawi]

@generik: You're forgetting the much bigger and FASTER HD. I've gotten curious and tried OS X on my windows box too. To be honest it simply kills the Mini. Having 1 GB RAM over 512 MB and a nice, fast HD really helps alot. The box is much snappier, eventhough it has only an Athlon 64, no dual core like the Mini has. Of course anything that requires graphics card support won't run or runs slow, but other than that it boots much quicker, reacts faster, starts programs way faster, ... So I guess the iMac will be quite a bit faster than the Mini because of its HD.
Perhaps I'll try OS X on my Windows/Linux box with 512 MB to compare.

Ps: The Mini looks much better though And is so silent. And small. I like it But it's so painfully slow... I'm running Rosetta@Home though, that eats quite a lot of RAM. Without its zippier, until I manage to fill up the RAM (which is very easy though).