[nafai23]

I am a pc user with a 3.6 P4 and a geforce 6800gt running on a 23'' cinema and I was considering making the switch to try out a mini. I was playing with one in the store yesterday and was surprised how I could crash it just by getting alot of windows open and using expose on a 20'' monitor.
I could not be happier that tiger is going to use all these expensive GPU's for more than just games but it makes me realize that maybe a mini is not a good choice for 1920x1200....
windows is all 2d so a huge monitor performs as well as a smaller one.
Vram and shader support is not important on the desktop for us.
Coming from the system I have now and going to the one I listed will I be unhappy with the performance of tiger based on what we know about it now?

[GORDYmac]

As much as I doubt you 'crashed' a Mac using Expose, I don't think a Mac mini is a power user's machine. I assummed a power user status based on your description of your current setup "3.6 P4 and a geforce 6800gt running on a 23'' cinema".

I have a Quicksilver G4, and I'd only consider a mini to satisfy my curiosity of the little machine. It really doesn't suit my needs.

[nafai23]

actually it locked up in the store....and had to be rebooted...
I was just reading some other threads about the 23'' and the mini...
seems like not the best combination...
hmm...

[jasonsRX7]

If you're the kind of user that buys 23" displays and Geforce 6800 video cards, then chances are you're going to be disappointed in the performance of the mini. It probably costs less than just your video card, you know.

[icibaqu]

the apple site says you can power a 23" witn the mini.

does peoples real world experience differ?

[nafai23]

I was just at compusa and fooled around with the mini hooked up to a 23''
Yes it is too slow for anything more than the soccer mom type user...
but....on the smaller display it seemed to run fine
this is the 256meg one so who knows how that is affecting it vs. Vram....

[mbryda]

Originally posted by nafai23:
I was just at compusa and fooled around with the mini hooked up to a 23''
Yes it is too slow for anything more than the soccer mom type user...
but....on the smaller display it seemed to run fine
this is the 256meg one so who knows how that is affecting it vs. Vram....

It's the RAM, not VRAM. 256MB is barely enough to boot a modern OS (including XP), let alone run tons of apps.

With proper RAM (512MB Minimum), it should be fine with lots of windows open. I have a G4/800 iMac and it performs just fine with TONS of applications and windows open. Granted I have 512MB, but I'd imagine that if I max'ed it out to 1GB it would be even better.

GPU VRAM is not really important at all, even with OSX. Heck, my iMac has a Geforce something (could care less - don't game) with 32MB VRAM and it runs fine....

[nafai23]

GPU VRAM is not really important at all

anyone else agree with that?

[jasonsRX7]

Originally posted by nafai23:
GPU VRAM is not really important at all

anyone else agree with that?

In higher resolutions, such as provided by the 23" Cinema, a lack of vram will hinder performace, particularly when using Expose. This is likely why mbryda doesn't see performance issues with his iMac, as it is fixed at a lower resolution.

[Hi I'm Ben]

Based on your current PC configeration a Mini is not what you'd want. JUst beacuse it's cheap and made you interested in mac does not mean it's the right machine for you. You would not be happy with the Mini compared to your current PC speedwise. I'd suggest not buying it unless you just really want to learn to love OS X and then plan on purchasing a G5 desktop later on. People keep blindly ignoring the fact that the Mini is a economachine not a power house computer.

[gee308]

I am planning on having the same setup.
I have the 1.42 ghx mini now with 1 gb of RAM. I still haven't decided on the 20" or the 23" yet though. I am sort of a power users, but I will be mostly using the terminal and maybe xcode/eclipse.

[mbryda]

Originally posted by jasonsRX7:
In higher resolutions, such as provided by the 23" Cinema, a lack of vram will hinder performace, particularly when using Expose. This is likely why mbryda doesn't see performance issues with his iMac, as it is fixed at a lower resolution.

Expose, maybe. But for regular use, VRAM will not make a difference. It's mainly used for buffering in 3D apps (which Expose is), but that shouldn't make a difference in normal day to day apps.

I had a Windows box with only 32MB, driving a 1600x1200 screen and (IIRC) it only had 32MB VRAM. Worked fine except it only had 256MB RAM and it was a dog. But that's not related to VRAM.

I've even pushed my aincient Duron 700 box with a TNT2 with 32MB to 1280x1024 (17" monitor) and the preformance was fine. A tad slow, but that was probably due to the GPU speed rather than VRAM.

Unless you game (or need super high resolutons), VRAM is not going to be your performance bottleneck. Unless it's shared with your system RAM, which does not happen on any Macs.

[nafai23]

I see your point but I thought the difference between windows and osx(especally tiger) is that osx DOES use the vram due to the shader support(tiger) and the 3d desktop use such as expose..
In fact that is one thing that is swaying me to osx....finally using our 3d cards for something more than games...
ironically windows machines were shipping with 32 meg cards years ago...
Expose and coreimage are GREAT ideas....but just do not ship machines with 32meg graphics cards if you are going to be so cutting edge with the os.....or 256 meg of ram for that matter.
I always see this...
mac underpowers there os with there hardware...
windows pc's are mostly overpowered for XP general use.....

[jasonsRX7]

Originally posted by nafai23:
I thought the difference between windows and osx(especally tiger) is that osx DOES use the vram due to the shader support(tiger) and the 3d desktop use such as expose..

Here's a good article that explains some of those differences, and the affect they have on video memory.

Quartz info

mbryda is right in the sense that your apps will still be perfectly usable with 32mb, but effects such as expose and the new dashboard widgets in Tiger won't be as fluid if you're low on vram. For some people (especially the framerate addicts) that is a deal breaker. For others, myself included, a little bit of choppiness here and there isn't so bad.

[gee308]

so then, it is right to say that using a 23" lcd with the mac mini is fine?
Thanks

[jasonsRX7]

Originally posted by gee308:
so then, it is right to say that using a 23" lcd with the mac mini is fine?
Thanks

Yeah, it'll work just fine. It takes a bit of a performance hit in its native resolution, even if you upgrade your system ram, but if you're ok with that then no biggie.

[Armando]

Originally posted by gee308:
so then, it is right to say that using a 23" lcd with the mac mini is fine?
Thanks

I am running my Mac Mini with a 23" LCD and it works just fine. Go for it! Expose is choppy but reasonable with several windows open. I'm running it with 512MB RAM.

[Zubir]

Originally posted by nafai23:
I see your point but I thought the difference between windows and osx(especally tiger) is that osx DOES use the vram due to the shader support(tiger) and the 3d desktop use such as expose..
In fact that is one thing that is swaying me to osx....finally using our 3d cards for something more than games...
ironically windows machines were shipping with 32 meg cards years ago...
Expose and coreimage are GREAT ideas....but just do not ship machines with 32meg graphics cards if you are going to be so cutting edge with the os.....or 256 meg of ram for that matter.
I always see this...
mac underpowers there os with there hardware...
windows pc's are mostly overpowered for XP general use.....

Please tell me that the only reason you're interested in Tiger isn't that it's GPU accelerated. What are you going to do, use it as a benchmark? Show your friends the purty widgets on the desktop?

Also, the comment about windows PC's being overpowered for general use: when it comes to processors, yes. Video, no. The average $500 PC has the Intel video chip, SHARED video memory, and 256 MB of ram. It doesn't matter if there's an open AGP slot, because Grandma will never put anything in it, so don't bring up the expandability argument.

[nafai23]

my point in saying that is that I like the innovation of apple with osx.....you cannot even give a compliment around here without getting railed.....pc forums are much more welcoming

Also what you said about the intergrated intel graphics is my point exactly...the graphics card has no effect on the general functions and speed of XP.....so the processor is what matters.....if the graphics processor did in the pc world then the video industry would be much bigger I would imagine than just being focused on games....

[jasonsRX7]

Originally posted by nafai23:
...the graphics card has no effect on the general functions and speed of XP.....

Longhorn will have much higher demands of the video card than previous versions of Windows (if you want all the eye candy). Won't be a problem for most current generation video cards, and Intel still has plenty of time to get its integrated chipsets up to speed before Longhorn is actually released.

[Zubir]

Originally posted by nafai23:
my point in saying that is that I like the innovation of apple with osx.....you cannot even give a compliment around here without getting railed.....pc forums are much more welcoming

Also what you said about the intergrated intel graphics is my point exactly...the graphics card has no effect on the general functions and speed of XP.....so the processor is what matters.....if the graphics processor did in the pc world then the video industry would be much bigger I would imagine than just being focused on games....

I'm trying to save you from spending money on something you're going to be disappointed with, friend. I can tell you're a gamer, and you like the newest tech, with plenty of speed. It's not going to happen with the Mac mini. Ever. It's Apple's low end notebook without the display and keyboard.

The problem is that in the PC world, people are used to being able to take a $500 POS Dell, slap some ram and a better video card in it, and have a halfway decent system. It's just not that way in the Mac world, friend. Macs are expensive. Period. The mini is a teaser to make people drop the big bucks on an iMac, or Powermac. By the time you put in enough ram, get the fastest G4, get a superdrive (DVD burner,) etc., the mini costs as much or MORE than the lowest iMac. Coincidence? Nope.

To sum up, the mini is for grandparents, younger siblings, and PC users who want to use OS X fairly cheaply. That's it. If you want to do anything other than surf, write reports, or do uber geek Unix stuff, the mini is not for you. Your best bet would be to try to find an old G5 1.6 tower on ebay, and put a good video card in it. But you're still looking at over $1000 for the tower and the card, together.

[MM-o4]

Zubir is giving you (nafai23) some good and straight up adviced.
I think you'll love OSX but you'll hate it on a Mac mini. End of story.
Sorry but thats the reality. But not to buy a mac you'll hate then not to have one at all.


MM-o4

[mbryda]

Originally posted by Zubir:
The problem is that in the PC world, people are used to being able to take a $500 POS Dell, slap some ram and a better video card in it, and have a halfway decent system.

That POS Dell will never be a decent machine.

De-Celerons are the biggest piles of junk ever to be made. Slow as molassas in -20 degree weather. The P4 isn't much better, especially the slow things in their low end machines.

Then the Dell motherboards are not the fastest things (they de-content them) so you end up with a system that has high #'s but slow performance.

It's like putting a 500-hp engine in a 30-ton car. Sure, you have 500-hp, but it's still slow.

By the time you put in enough ram, get the fastest G4, get a superdrive (DVD burner,) etc., the mini costs as much or MORE than the lowest iMac.

Huh? It's $873 if you add: 512MB (although I'd take 256 and buy RAM elsewhere), SuperDrive, BT+Airport. The only way you could get to $1299 is if you bought a monitor. Although after playing with a Mini + 23" at the Apple store, I'm almost sold....

[Zubir]

Originally posted by mbryda:
[B]That POS Dell will never be a decent machine.

De-Celerons are the biggest piles of junk ever to be made. Slow as molassas in -20 degree weather. The P4 isn't much better, especially the slow things in their low end machines.

Then the Dell motherboards are not the fastest things (they de-content them) so you end up with a system that has high #'s but slow performance.

It's like putting a 500-hp engine in a 30-ton car. Sure, you have 500-hp, but it's still slow.



Huh? It's $873 if you add: 512MB (although I'd take 256 and buy RAM elsewhere), SuperDrive, BT+Airport. The only way you could get to $1299 is if you bought a monitor. Although after playing with a Mini + 23" at the Apple store, I'm almost sold....

I didn't say a POS (Piece of s**t) Dell would make a decent machine. I said halfway. Kind of like the Mac mini is a halfway decent Mac. And before you start dumping on Celerons, G4's are old school Celeron equivalents, speedwise. The new Celeron-D's eat G4's alive, so don't go there. The motherboard argument isn't valid, considering the mini has a 166mhz bus.

The price of the fastest Mac mini, with superdrive, BT/Airport, 1gb ram = $1123.00. 512mb isn't enough for OS X, we all know it.

[icibaqu]

this is crazy. just yesterday 256 was barely enough for osx, so you should bump to 512

now 512 is piss.

go figure.

[mbryda]

Originally posted by Zubir:
I didn't say a POS (Piece of s**t) Dell would make a decent machine. I said halfway.

So? It's not even a halfway decent machine. Halfway decent doorstop, but not machine.

Kind of like the Mac mini is a halfway decent Mac. And before you start dumping on Celerons, G4's are old school Celeron equivalents, speedwise.

Uhh, no Butthead. G4's are actually more like P4's at 1.5-2x the P4's clockspeed. Always has been, always will be. I wish Barefeats still had the G4/P4 comparisons, but the graphs list no G4's, only G5's.

The new Celeron-D's eat G4's alive, so don't go there. The motherboard argument isn't valid, considering the mini has a 166mhz bus.

Yeah, a quad pumped 133 Mhz is oh so fast. You do realize that even the 466 Mhz bus is only good for about a 10-15% speed increase over, say a 166 Mhz bus. The #'s look great, but the performance increase does not follow the #'s. Sure it's faster but not by what the #'s would indicate.

I've been in the PC business forever and forgot more about the PC architecture than you'll probably ever know. They put the food on my table, the car in my driveway and the Mac on my desk.

The De-Celeron is not a good or fast CPU. Neither is the P4. They get eaten alive by AMD and the G4/5 is close on their heels.

The price of the fastest Mac mini, with superdrive, BT/Airport, 1gb ram = $1123.00. 512mb isn't enough for OS X, we all know it.

Man, thanks for setting me straight. You see, I've been using OSX since 10.1.2 on my g4 iMac/800 with 512MB RAM (now @ 10.3.8). And, golly, it runs perfectly fine. I typically use: Mail, Safari, FireFox, Word, Excel, Enterouge, with a little PS Elements (editing 6MP images from my 10D) and iPhoto thrown in. Note that this all is running concurrently and I have no slowdows at all. It all works fine. A little bit slower than this IBM A30p (P4 2.0Ghz, 1GB RAM) that I am typing this on, but considering that the iMac is at best a 1.6Ghz P4) it's fine.

And we won't even discuss my wife's iBook/ g3/800 with 256MB that runs decently - it needs RAM, but mainly because we do fast user switching with it. Next stop for her is a 512MB chip. But it's not unusable or anything like that - it just works.

512MB is fine for OSX. It's fine with XP. Both are dogs with 256MB.

[sworthy]

Yes the Mac mini is only 1.25 or 1.42 Ghz, but I use a 1Ghz powerbook and find it perfectly snappy for my needs -- email, web, iphoto, a little photoshop, etc. Now, it does slow down a little when I get big garageband projects going, but that is the only time. 1.42 will be good for everything except games and some heavy photo, video or audio editing.

Seriously, when is 1.25 Ghz and 512mb RAM so piss slow that it's unusable? Though certainly more Ghz and more RAM is nice, it's not really noticeable unless you're really working the machine.

[ApeInTheShell]

The price goes up only if you are willing to pay for more. The mac mini was built with pc users in mind that want a cheap box to hook up to their existing set up.

You sound like someone who will settle for the mac mini because of the price. If you want to take advantage of all that is Tiger professionally than purchase a Power Mac. Another route to take is toward a AIO.

The iMac G5 outperforms its siblings ( the mac mini and eMac) and is certainly a better choice than the lower end models. I have an iMac G3 and wanted a Power Mac G3 when it debuted. Over time I came to find out the iMac was worth the buy. Only a measily 8mb vram and 578mb RAM still lets me draw, write, watch dvds, and any limits are based on my imagination and the processor. It isn't that hard of a decision when ya think about it.

Have a nice day!

[intake]

Nafai, you do realize that the cost of the P4 3.6gHz processor and the Geforce 6800 already exceed the price of the entire Mac Mini unit?

[Zubir]

Originally posted by mbryda:
[B]So? It's not even a halfway decent machine. Halfway decent doorstop, but not machine.

[b]

Uhh, no Butthead. G4's are actually more like P4's at 1.5-2x the P4's clockspeed. Always has been, always will be. I wish Barefeats still had the G4/P4 comparisons, but the graphs list no G4's, only G5's.

[b]

Yeah, a quad pumped 133 Mhz is oh so fast. You do realize that even the 466 Mhz bus is only good for about a 10-15% speed increase over, say a 166 Mhz bus. The #'s look great, but the performance increase does not follow the #'s. Sure it's faster but not by what the #'s would indicate.

I've been in the PC business forever and forgot more about the PC architecture than you'll probably ever know. They put the food on my table, the car in my driveway and the Mac on my desk.

The De-Celeron is not a good or fast CPU. Neither is the P4. They get eaten alive by AMD and the G4/5 is close on their heels.



Man, thanks for setting me straight. You see, I've been using OSX since 10.1.2 on my g4 iMac/800 with 512MB RAM (now @ 10.3.8). And, golly, it runs perfectly fine. I typically use: Mail, Safari, FireFox, Word, Excel, Enterouge, with a little PS Elements (editing 6MP images from my 10D) and iPhoto thrown in. Note that this all is running concurrently and I have no slowdows at all. It all works fine. A little bit slower than this IBM A30p (P4 2.0Ghz, 1GB RAM) that I am typing this on, but considering that the iMac is at best a 1.6Ghz P4) it's fine.

And we won't even discuss my wife's iBook/ g3/800 with 256MB that runs decently - it needs RAM, but mainly because we do fast user switching with it. Next stop for her is a 512MB chip. But it's not unusable or anything like that - it just works.

512MB is fine for OSX. It's fine with XP. Both are dogs with 256MB.

Listen very closely. Being the arrogant, narcissistic and condescending person you are, you've assumed that I know nothing about Macs except what I've read on forums like this. I'm writing this email on a Digital Audio that's been upgraded with a 1.4 G4, a modded Radeon 9700 Pro, 1 GB Ram, and a 120 GB 7200rpm SATA drive. This machine is faster in every way than a mini, and guess what? It's slow. Not unusable by any means, but slow.

When you get over being insulted by someone criticizing a THING you think is a gift from God, because your self-esteem revolves owning the best (expensive,) things, and you get over the denying that all Macs are not gold, then you'll realize that the whole reason I've posted here is to save a hardcore PC graphics geek the dissapointment and money a dog slow Mac, compared to the PC he's running. Do I have your persmission to do that, highness? Is that OK? I promise you the sun will come up tomorrow. So get over yourself, and stop making this about you.

[Zubir]

Originally posted by Zubir:
Listen very closely. Being the arrogant, narcissistic and condescending person you are, you've assumed that I know nothing about Macs except what I've read on forums like this. I'm writing this email on a Digital Audio that's been upgraded with a 1.4 G4, a modded Radeon 9700 Pro, 1 GB Ram, and a 120 GB 7200rpm SATA drive. This machine is faster in every way than a mini, other than a 133mhz bus, and sdram, which has been shown by the hold "Barefeats" gods to make almost no difference in performance on the G4 platform. Guess what? It's slow. Not unusable by any means, but slow.

When you get over being insulted by someone criticizing a THING you think is a gift from God, because your self-esteem revolves owning the best (expensive,) things, and you get over the denying that all Macs are not gold, then you'll realize that the whole reason I've posted here is to save a hardcore PC graphics geek the dissapointment and money a dog slow Mac, compared to the PC he's running. Do I have your persmission to do that, highness? Is that OK? I promise you the sun will come up tomorrow. So get over yourself, and stop making this about you.

[mbryda]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Zubir:

When you get over being insulted by someone criticizing a THING you think is a gift from God, because your self-esteem revolves owning the best (expensive,) things, and you get over the denying that all Macs are not gold, then you'll realize that the whole reason I've posted here is to save a hardcore PC graphics geek the dissapointment and money a dog slow Mac, compared to the PC he's running.

Not hardly. Nice try though. I buy the best things that fit my needs. Learned a long time ago that you pay for quality. I've seen enough corner cutting in the PC world to last me a lifetime. And usually that carries over to other things too.

I'd also not categorize the Mini as dog slow either. Don't get hung up on the specs or clockspeed or bus. Big numbers do not necessarily equal big performance. Just ask Intel who had to eat a lot of crow with the P4, which was built for clockspeed bragging rights, but got spanked hard by the P3 and Athlons (and even Durons of the time).

Are Macs perfect? He*l no. Close enough? Yup. Better than most PC's? Yup.

The OP never really said what he uses his PC for. I know plenty of peopl who bought this uber-kewl PC that do nothing special with it. If he's just doing PS work and/or light video editing the mini would be fine.

If not, he'd probably be better off with something faster. But we really don't know what he is doing.

And if you're a hard-core gamer, you really wouldn't be using a P4.... Athlon ot Athlon-64.... And you'd really not be looking at a Mac.

Best advice for the OP is to look at what you use your computer for and head to an Apple store - fire up that stuff and see if it fits your needs. I've played @ the store for quite a long time - they typically don't care as long as you're not obviously trashing the system.

[nafai23]

""When you get over being insulted by someone criticizing a THING you think is a gift from God, because your self-esteem revolves owning the best (expensive,) things, and you get over the denying that all Macs are not gold, then you'll realize that the whole reason I've posted here is to save a hardcore PC graphics geek the dissapointment and money a dog slow Mac, compared to the PC he's running. Do I have your persmission to do that, highness? Is that OK? I promise you the sun will come up tomorrow. So get over yourself, and stop making this about you.""

Hey I am not a geek......
but seriously yes I have a 3.6 with 6800gt and that is just it ...I am not a geek at least not anymore....I do not play the games anymore and just use my pc more basically now....I think a mac will fit my needs better and what I like...
I am not getting a mini though

[Zubir]

Originally posted by nafai23:
""When you get over being insulted by someone criticizing a THING you think is a gift from God, because your self-esteem revolves owning the best (expensive,) things, and you get over the denying that all Macs are not gold, then you'll realize that the whole reason I've posted here is to save a hardcore PC graphics geek the dissapointment and money a dog slow Mac, compared to the PC he's running. Do I have your persmission to do that, highness? Is that OK? I promise you the sun will come up tomorrow. So get over yourself, and stop making this about you.""

Hey I am not a geek......
but seriously yes I have a 3.6 with 6800gt and that is just it ...I am not a geek at least not anymore....I do not play the games anymore and just use my pc more basically now....I think a mac will fit my needs better and what I like...
I am not getting a mini though

Don't get me wrong, friend, I'm not anti Mac. I actually prefer my slow G4 Mac to my A64 system I built for games. Like you, I've lost interest in gaming, and now I want a real Mac. I was just trying to save you from buying a slow Mac, which would just frustrate you. Go to a store that sells Macs, and try out one of the G5 models.. I still recommend buying a single 1.6 or 1.8 G5 Powermac from ebay. You'll save a lot of cash.