Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

macfan01 · Feb 10, 2005, 03:01 AM

I'm thinking to buy a mac Mini to replace a old Powermac G4, and I would like to connect it to my Apple Cinema Display 22 DVI.
Apple say that this monitor is incompatible with mac mini but I can't figure out why and there's no explaination of any reason.
Does anybody knows why this configuration do not work ??

Thanks for help !!!

AssassyN · Feb 10, 2005, 08:20 AM

Well if your display is indeed a 22" inch Apple Cinema Display, it's using an ACD connector, not DVI. In other words, if your display is one of the older "clear translucent border" ones, then it won't work with the Mac Mini UNLESS you purchase a ~$99 Apple ACD-to-DVI adapter from the Apple Store. If you have an aluminum Apple display, it'll work without a problem.

Welcome to the boards, enjoy your Mini!

Captain Egotist · Feb 10, 2005, 08:34 AM

woudln't hte vram be a problem?

mbryda · Feb 10, 2005, 09:11 AM

Originally posted by Captain Egotist:
woudln't hte vram be a problem?

My God, no.

Listen, I was just at the Apple Store last night and played with a Mini they had hooked up to a 23" Display. It was the 1.42 Ghz model and had 512MB RAM, 10.3.7, IIRC. Ran perfectly fine. I had spent about 20 mins playing with it - loading up iPhoto, PS Elements 3, Safari, Excel, Word, Powerpoint, etc. Ran fine. Expose was fine - maybe a little choppy but a tad better than my G4/800 iMac. Nothing bad at all. Photoshop was quick, Safari was quick, task switching was fine, etc. The general system feel was quite snappy (sorry) and now it has me wanting a mini + 23" display!

Actually I then went over to the new PB's and it seemed a little slower than the Mini. But I didn't spend all that long on the PB, so it's not a fair comparison,

Please, stop the nonsense about VRAM and GPU's on the Mini. Most computer users don't game on their PC's (look at console sales vs gaming rig sales), so s super duper GPU is mainly wasted on them.

Eriamjh · 11:08 AM

Just because Apple says the mini won't work with the 22" CD doesn't mean it really doesn't work. There must be a work around.

iREZ · Feb 10, 2005, 11:33 AM

Uh yeah.....AssassyN answered it already? Just get a DVI to ADC converter and your set. My cousin is doing that right now and it works just great.

gee308 · Feb 10, 2005, 06:11 PM

I need to test out a mini with a 23" lcd. I tested 20" already, but I want the 23" too

sworthy · Feb 10, 2005, 06:25 PM

Originally posted by gee308:
I need to test out a mini with a 23" lcd. I tested 20" already, but I want the 23" too

Shouldn't matter - the resolution of the 22" is actually less than that of the 20"

tooki · Feb 10, 2005, 10:01 PM

Originally posted by AssassyN:
Well if your display is indeed a 22" inch Apple Cinema Display, it's using an ACD connector, not DVI...

Actually, the original Cinema Display was DVI, not ADC. ADC came later.

The Apple compatibility page clearly says that the 22" Cinema Display with ACD is compatible, using the necessary adapter. The 22" Cinema Display with DVI is listed as known-incompatible, though it doesn't say why. (I'd love to know why, too, if only for academic interest.)

tooki

Link · Feb 11, 2005, 12:26 AM

Probably trying to keep people from using that "old" of a display with a new computer, that's all.

I can't think of any reason a DVI cinema display wouldn't work, and yes those definitely do exist, they're actually pretty cool because they're the ONLY cinema displays with a green/yellow power light.

Oh well. I don't see why it wouldn't work, so might as well give it a shot.

tooki · Feb 11, 2005, 01:10 AM

Not a bloody likely explanation, considering the compatibility table lists as compatible many models that are substantially older than the original Cinema Display.

There's probably some quirk with how it implements the power button or display controls, since DVI doesn't officially have any way of dealing with that.

tooki

brentsg · Feb 11, 2005, 11:04 AM

Originally posted by mbryda:
My God, no.

Please, stop the nonsense about VRAM and GPU's on the Mini. Most computer users don't game on their PC's (look at console sales vs gaming rig sales), so s super duper GPU is mainly wasted on them.

Since Expose does look choppy and we know that Tiger is going to increase dependency on the GPU I think the concern is perfectly valid.

B

tooki · Feb 11, 2005, 12:04 PM

No. "Dependency" is an entirely wrong word. Just like Quartz Extreme, it'll all work even with an unsupported GPU. You just don't get acceleration that you'd get with a better GPU.

tooki

brentsg · Feb 11, 2005, 01:51 PM

Originally posted by tooki:
No. "Dependency" is an entirely wrong word. Just like Quartz Extreme, it'll all work even with an unsupported GPU. You just don't get acceleration that you'd get with a better GPU.

tooki

Well, I guess we will have to disagree and leave it at that. Dependency doesn't have to be viewed in UNIX terms. It doesn't have to be absolute. I said it Tiger will increase the OS' dependency on the GPU. It will. I never said it wouldn't function. Much of Apple's appeal is based upon elegance. If Expose is already a -little- clunky then there remains the possibility that Tiger will draw more attention to the limited performance of the GPU and VRAM.

IE: A young adult often continues to be dependent on his/her parents. If they keel over life goes on.

B

mbryda · Feb 11, 2005, 09:30 PM

Originally posted by brentsg:
Since Expose does look choppy and we know that Tiger is going to increase dependency on the GPU I think the concern is perfectly valid.

Is it? Most likely what will happen is that the new functions will still run, but be not as smooth. Sort of how Expose will run on non-QE video cards. 10.3.8 runs fine on this "aincient" iBook G3/800. Given Apple's history with OSX, I'd say Tiger will be as fast as, if not faster than Panther on the same hardware.

I think you all are reading way too much into Tiger increasing GPU dependency. I have the original G4 iMac with an "aincient" nVidia cart. Yet I can run Expose and such perfectly fine. Even at the Apple store on a 1.4Ghz Mini driving the new 23", Expose worked perfectly fine with many windows open.

brentsg · Feb 13, 2005, 03:22 PM

Originally posted by mbryda:
Is it? Most likely what will happen is that the new functions will still run, but be not as smooth.

Even at the Apple store on a 1.4Ghz Mini driving the new 23", Expose worked perfectly fine with many windows open.

That is all I'm saying. Tiger may not be as smooth on the mini. And the current performance of Expose on the mini is apparently a subjective thing. I believe it runs choppy now on larger displays (VRAM issue). I have read reviews that also made that claim so I'm not all alone here.

B