Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

gemigene · Sep 11, 2007, 01:36 PM

Hi,

I have an iMac 17 and quite happy with it (except for that darn Mighty Mouse) but I would like to buy a second Mac and the "new and improved" Mini looks like an interesting buy.

I dislike notebooks with a passion, travel a lot to third-world countries, always take my computer along and I'm always afraid that my iMac will eventually get damaged (baggage handlers are a little on the rough side, especially in Central and South America). The mini would fit nicely in my carry on bag and a used monitor can be bought for cheap anywhere I go.

According to the specs, it seems to have everything that the iMac has but without the screen, keyboard and mouse.

Any opinions?
Gene

fisherKing · Sep 11, 2007, 01:48 PM

why do you dislike laptops so much? just curious...

i have ALWAYS used powerbooks, but wanted to add a desktop to my setup; i waited for the rumored imac update, but when it came out...decided i was not okay with the glossy screen. disappointed, i checked out the minis (i have an LG monitor i really like), and got the new mini 2 weeks ago (maxed out ram, 2g processor, 160g hd).

i am REALLY happy with this, speed, design, everything.

this is the first mini i would have considered, and think it is well worth it.

kuchiki · Sep 11, 2007, 01:50 PM

Since you really dislike portable laptops I guess the mini might be the solution for your problem. However, instead of buying a new (used) monitor everytime isn't it cheaper to just buy the Macbook instead? If that does not matter I think the mini just might be perfect for your need.
As you might notice I am a big Macbook fanboy

kuchiki

gemigene · Sep 11, 2007, 02:08 PM

Originally Posted by fisherKing

why do you dislike laptops so much? just curious...

Had 2 (Toshiba and a Dell) and find them cumbersome, also dislike the keyboards.

i checked out the minis (i have an LG monitor i really like), and got the new mini 2 weeks ago (maxed out ram, 2g processor, 160g hd).

i am REALLY happy with this, speed, design, everything.

this is the first mini i would have considered, and think it is well worth it.

Thanks for the recommendation,
Gene

gemigene · Sep 11, 2007, 02:11 PM

Originally Posted by kuchiki

Since you really dislike portable laptops I guess the mini might be the solution for your problem. However, instead of buying a new (used) monitor everytime isn't it cheaper to just buy the Macbook instead? If that does not matter I think the mini just might be perfect for your need.

Thanks for the feedback and I think I'll go for the souped-up mini. Most of my travels are to Costa Rica and Panama where I can buy an old CRT monitor for $10-15. Also have friends that I could probably borrow one from.

Cheers,
Gene

mkral · Sep 11, 2007, 06:04 PM

provided you don't need top of the line performance, the mini is a fantastic computer.
For the majority of users today, all of the relatively new macs work great. If portability is your concern & the laptops don't appeal to you, the mini is a great alternative.

Hannard · Sep 11, 2007, 07:30 PM

Should be fine, as long as you're not looking to play games. I'm hoping that at some point they do a Mac Mini with a graphics card better than the intel GMA.

Big Mac · Sep 11, 2007, 07:42 PM

Never going to happen. Apple's low end desktop and laptop will now always have "int-degraded" graphics (and no other other option) due to the Intel defection.

gemigene · Sep 11, 2007, 08:25 PM

Originally Posted by Hannard

Should be fine, as long as you're not looking to play games. I'm hoping that at some point they do a Mac Mini with a graphics card better than the intel GMA.

I'm not into games (don't even have a single one on my computer) and just as long as the integrated graphics card renders photos and videos well (as good as my iMac), I'll be happy because I do a lot of photo and video editing, multimedia presentations, web design and desktop publishing.

Thanks,
Gene

gemigene · Sep 11, 2007, 08:27 PM

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Never going to happen. Apple's low end desktop and laptop will now always have "int-degraded" graphics (and no other other option) due to the Intel defection.

LOL!, Don't seem to be too happy about the Intel defection...

Cheers,
Gene

CheesePuff · Sep 11, 2007, 09:27 PM

I use a stock 2.0 GHz Mac mini as my main desktop computer (already had a 22" widescreen and keyboard/mouse setup.)

I just ordered a 2 GB RAM upgrade for $75 shipped and Hitachi 200 GB 7200 RPM 16 MB cache HDD for $211 shipped, will be here tomorrow and I'll post info on the upgrade and before/after Xbench scores.

But even stock I'm impressed with the speed. I heavily use Safari 3.0.3, Mail, REALbasic 2007 R4, Xcode, Photoshop CS3 and all up to par on my needs speed wise.

davedecay · Sep 12, 2007, 12:18 PM

I'm considering a mini to replace my aging G4 digital audio with maxed RAM (1.5 GB), single 1.0 GHz G4 from Sonnet, 128 MB GeForce Ti, and multiple internal drives (400 GB, 320 GB, 160 GB). Obviously I'll need some external enclosures for the hard drives, and very likely a MiniStack for port expansion & hard drive.

Any of you booting from a MiniStack or similar external FireWire device? Is it faster like I've read?

I will miss the ability to have dual displays, so a large LCD will be a mandatory purchase... probably a 22" widescreen.

AppleCore_LLC · Sep 21, 2007, 10:22 AM

Originally Posted by davedecay

I'm considering a mini to replace my aging G4 digital audio with maxed RAM (1.5 GB), single 1.0 GHz G4 from Sonnet, 128 MB GeForce Ti, and multiple internal drives (400 GB, 320 GB, 160 GB). Obviously I'll need some external enclosures for the hard drives, and very likely a MiniStack for port expansion & hard drive.

Any of you booting from a MiniStack or similar external FireWire device? Is it faster like I've read?

I will miss the ability to have dual displays, so a large LCD will be a mandatory purchase... probably a 22" widescreen.

If you choose to boot from an external firewire or USB 2.0 drive, you will notice a significant drop in speed. USB 2.0 transfers at 480 Mbps, and the internal SATA drive transfers at 1200 Mbps.

mduell · Sep 22, 2007, 12:47 PM

Originally Posted by AppleCore_LLC

If you choose to boot from an external firewire or USB 2.0 drive, you will notice a significant drop in speed. USB 2.0 transfers at 480 Mbps, and the internal SATA drive transfers at 1200 Mbps.

There's a couple things to consider there.
The practical throughput of USB is about 25MBps, compared to SATA at 100MBps+. But the 2.5" drive inside the Mac mini means you won't be saturating that SATA bus any time soon. The 3.5" drive in a USB enclosure is fast enough that the USB bus becomes the limiting factor.

A 3.5" drive on USB may well be faster than a 2.5" drive on SATA. It depends what you do, how full they are, etc.

Simon · Sep 23, 2007, 04:10 AM

Originally Posted by AppleCore_LLC

If you choose to boot from an external firewire or USB 2.0 drive, you will notice a significant drop in speed. USB 2.0 transfers at 480 Mbps, and the internal SATA drive transfers at 1200 Mbps.

Basically everybody that's attached a decent 3.5" HDD externally to the mini has noticed a significant speed improvement. The internal mini HDD is a small 2.5" notebook drive running at 5400 RPM. It is slow compared to a 3.5" high-capacity 7200 RPM disk running on a FW bus.

P · Sep 25, 2007, 04:39 AM

It's latency - seek time - rather than bandwidth that is important to the perceived speed. Adding a USB or Firewire bridge adds latency, but 3.5" drives are faster to begin with, so might still end up with a plus. Depends on the exact drive.

mduell · Sep 25, 2007, 11:18 PM

Originally Posted by P

It's latency - seek time - rather than bandwidth that is important to the perceived speed. Adding a USB or Firewire bridge adds latency, but 3.5" drives are faster to begin with, so might still end up with a plus. Depends on the exact drive.

3.5" vs 2.5" has nothing to do with latency; latency is inversely proportional to rpm.

Simon · Sep 26, 2007, 02:38 AM

Originally Posted by mduell

3.5" vs 2.5" has nothing to do with latency; latency is inversely proportional to rpm.

You missed P's point.

The additional bridge chip that you have in an external disk enclosure (S/PATA->USB/FW) adds to the latency. That doesn't mean the external drive will be slower than an internal one (and in the case of the mini it's often not), but it is a fact that the bridge chip increases latency.

mduell · Sep 26, 2007, 06:34 PM

I'm aware that the controller adds some delay, but an external 3.5" drive @ 7200RPM (or even 10k) is going to be lower latency than an internal 2.5" drive @ 4200RPM (or 5400). The physical size of the drive has no impact on latency; spindle speed is what matters.

Simon · Sep 27, 2007, 03:04 AM

You're arguing against a point nobody ever brought up. Nobody here claimed latency had anything to do with spindle speed. I think you should go read P's post again.

Oh and BTW, the 4200 rpm point is moot too since no Mac comes with such a drive anymore. Not even the mini (which this thread is actually about).

MyMac8MyPC · Sep 27, 2007, 01:24 PM

Originally Posted by gemigene

I think I'll go for the souped-up mini.

You'll love it. We just bought a new mini and plan on buying another one as soon as Leopard comes out (provided a mid sized desktop isn't introduced). I think the key is what kind of memory you add. Some brands seem to be working better than others. BTW you can get a case for the mini if you're worried about scratching it up (the top scratches VERY easily).

Originally Posted by davedecay

Any of you booting from a MiniStack or similar external FireWire device? Is it faster like I've read?

Depends on which version you get. Version one and two work OK, but obviously version 3 (which is what we've upgraded to) works much better. We're running a Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 with Perpendicular recording technology via Firewire and it runs incredibly well

We're using the mini's drive as the backup drive.

mduell · Sep 27, 2007, 02:56 PM

Originally Posted by P

It's latency - seek time - rather than bandwidth that is important to the perceived speed. Adding a USB or Firewire bridge adds latency, but 3.5" drives are faster to begin with, so might still end up with a plus. Depends on the exact drive.

Originally Posted by Simon

You're arguing against a point nobody ever brought up. Nobody here claimed latency had anything to do with spindle speed. I think you should go read P's post again.

P said that latency is important for speed, and that 3.5" drives are faster. That implies he's saying 3.5" drives have lower latency, which they do not inherently have. Drives with higher spindle speeds have lower latency, and thus improved 'perceived speed' per P's claim.

Originally Posted by Simon

Oh and BTW, the 4200 rpm point is moot too since no Mac comes with such a drive anymore. Not even the mini (which this thread is actually about).

And many people with older Macs with 4200RPM drives are looking for an upgrade.

Simon · Sep 27, 2007, 03:06 PM

Originally Posted by mduell

P said that latency is important for speed, and that 3.5" drives are faster. That implies he's saying 3.5" drives have lower latency, which they do not inherently have.

No! Are you deliberately trying to misunderstand him? He said:

Originally Posted by P

Adding a USB or Firewire bridge adds latency

which is absolutely correct. Nowhere did he say 3.5" drives have lower latency. You're making that up and it's obviously wrong. What he did says though was:

Originally Posted by P

but 3.5" drives are faster to begin with

which is also correct.

Everything in his post is right. I have no idea why you're trying to nitpick. Your implications are simply wrong, but they're yours, not his. Nowhere did he connect latency with drive size. His post makes an absolutely valid point.

mduell · Sep 27, 2007, 05:20 PM

Do I really have to break things out for you like this?

Originally Posted by P

It's latency - seek time - rather than bandwidth that is important to the perceived speed.

Originally Posted by P

3.5" drives are faster to begin with

Using his measure of perceived speed (latency), 3.5" drives are not necessarily 'faster to begin with'.

iREZ · Sep 28, 2007, 02:17 AM

now now you guys...

Simon · Sep 28, 2007, 03:20 AM

I give up. If you really want to misunderstand his post, I guess you can.

P · Sep 29, 2007, 08:02 AM

Sorry about being MIA there for a few days - had to go to Italy for work. What I meant was this:

3.5" drives are 7200 rpm (or even faster) these days - I checked just now at my local web store, and they have no 3.5" 5400 drives available. Newegg has one that is 5400-7200 rpm (wierd, I know) and nothing slower. 2.5" drives are usually 5400 or even slower, even though there are 7200 drives, and specifically the one in the Mac mini is a 5400 one. For this reason, 3.5" drives are inherently faster than the one in the Mac mini. A 5400 rpm 3.5" drive wouldn't be, but you can't buy one anymore.

It's a bit like saying that going by car is faster than walking or running. I'm sure you can find an old car that you can outrun, but I think that most people would still agree with the statement that cars are faster.

I'm sorry that my sloppily worded post caused all this discussion - I'll try to be clearer.