Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

GTKpower · Mar 24, 2006, 12:46 AM

So I'm switching to a mac. It's about time I came back. I've been a rather unhappy Windows user since 2002, with a bit of dabbling in Linux. Neither is a real solution in terms of functionality and design. The new Macs, however, are.

I plan on getting a loaded Mini Core Duo (1.66ghz), with a full 2gigs of RAM, while keeping in mind the possibility of swapping out the cpu (you can do that, actually) for a new one that will fit, down the road. Fully loaded, the Mini Core Duo is an amazing machine, and can challenge the iMac in certain areas, except for one small issue:

Intel GMA950 integrated graphics. Although this archtirecture is quite impressive for what it is, and will easily play high res HD content (especailly with the boost in RAM), I'm worried about this supposed 64mb limitation that Apple has placed on it. Apparently some sources say that the chipset can make use of more than that, but reports are conflicting. I don't know what to believe. I'm worried that my new Mini (even fully loaded) will not be able to run all of Leopard's eyecandy features, although these worries might prove to be groundless. Still, I don't know.

So why not spend a little more and get an iMac? I HATE integrated displays. I don't even care if it's a 20-inch. And If for some reason I *do* get a 20-inch iMac, I feel I'll be spending more than I want to. If there was some weird way to attach a secondary display to the iMac and bypass it's own integrated one, then I'd probably just spring for a 17-inch. But this doesn't seem feasible to me, and sounds rather silly, unless I'm not giving my knowledge enough credit.

Plus, the form factor of the Mini is a bonus that appeals to me. I can take it with me wherever there are PCs, and simply connect the required peripherals. I'll have the necessary adapters anyway.

So the GMA950 limitations, vs. my hatred for integrated displays.

What do you think?

magicbbird · Mar 24, 2006, 02:30 AM

i just got myself a 17" iMac CD, and i am very happy with it. i have compared prices for both iMac 17" and new Mac mini CD, max them out to 2G ram, and the price difference is about USD350.

If using a mini, even u do have all the monitor, keyboard, u still have lots of cable going thru places. iMac all-in-one design is clean. just one power cord, usb cable fm keyboard and mouse u are set.

i highly recommend iMac instead of the, my personal opinion, a bit overpriced mini. u get much faster HD, much better video, very nice screen.

Stolfi1 · Mar 24, 2006, 02:33 AM

You can attach displays to the imac but If your willing to buy a imac and use another display why not get a powermac. The powermac has all the power of the imac and allows you to add your own display.

harrisjamieh · Mar 24, 2006, 02:40 AM

ye but its also a lot more expensive, and MUCH bigger to find a place for it to sit. And, its PPC, and I for one would not buy a PPC mac now, especially if I was a 1st time Mac buyer, as I would not have any software invested in PPC.

GTKpower · Mar 24, 2006, 07:24 AM

How would I attach a second display to the iMac *and* use that as my main display instead? Is there a VGA/DVI connector in the back of the iMac?

eddiecatflap · Mar 24, 2006, 10:36 AM

there's a dvi out

P · Mar 24, 2006, 11:55 AM

Well, it's "Mini-DVI", but Apple sells converters to DVI or VGA or S-Video or just about anything under the sun.

iREZ · Mar 24, 2006, 01:34 PM

i had a 20" dell and still opted to go withe the imac due to the crappy gpu in the mini. now i have my 17" imac spanning onto my 20" and it is perfect. i dont know how if you live in the states or not, but amazon.com is running a rebate program on the intel imacs which made my total purchase price of a stock imac, $1175. the mac mini costs $800 + $200 for a 17" lcd + $60 for a mouse and keyboard + $100 isight. it comes out to the same price, not to mention the imac having a faster and larger hard drive, and faster processor.

applesnapple · Mar 28, 2006, 08:14 PM

Originally Posted by iREZ

i had a 20" dell and still opted to go withe the imac due to the crappy gpu in the mini. now i have my 17" imac spanning onto my 20" and it is perfect. i dont know how if you live in the states or not, but amazon.com is running a rebate program on the intel imacs which made my total purchase price of a stock imac, $1175. the mac mini costs $800 + $200 for a 17" lcd + $60 for a mouse and keyboard + $100 isight. it comes out to the same price, not to mention the imac having a faster and larger hard drive, and faster processor.

Is your dell vga? I have a 17" vga, and am looking at the 17 imac CD if i can span with good quality onto my 17" Vga monitor. Otherwise im going for the 20" imac CD. HOw would an lcd monitor with vga connection perform like this?

Maflynn · Mar 28, 2006, 09:13 PM

I guess you need to ask yourself, what will you be using this for? Lots of 3d games or applications that will stress the GPU? Your right to be concerned about the GPU but its not that horrid

Have you read the review in Macworld? It does show that the mini to be slower but not drastically.

I myself am contemplating the mini, and since it won't be my main machine, I can live with the GPU. I think the advantages of the mini outweigh the disadvantage of the GPU imho.

Mike

mduell · Mar 28, 2006, 09:17 PM

Originally Posted by applesnapple

Is your dell vga? I have a 17" vga, and am looking at the 17 imac CD if i can span with good quality onto my 17" Vga monitor. Otherwise im going for the 20" imac CD. HOw would an lcd monitor with vga connection perform like this?

Buy the miniDVI to VGA adapter from Apple and it will work fine.

glhart · Mar 30, 2006, 11:24 AM

I have an Intel mini (2 g, dual core) and am very happy with it. There is no doubt that the iMac is a better deal -- you get a screen, larger faster hard disk, better video card, keyboard, mouse, etc., but you're stuck with the screen and a large, (to my mind) ugly and ungainly machine. With an Apple monitor, wireless keyboard, and wireless mouse, the mini is much more esthetically appealing. I only wish it had FW 800, but then that's not available on any Intel macs. Also, if you upgrade in a year or two, you can always use the mini as an audiovisual center. One other note: I'm running slower DDR2 RAM, and it works perfectly.

blindemboss · Mar 30, 2006, 12:06 PM

Originally Posted by glhart

I have an Intel mini (2 g, dual core) and am very happy with it. There is no doubt that the iMac is a better deal -- you get a screen, larger faster hard disk, better video card, keyboard, mouse, etc., but you're stuck with the screen and a large, (to my mind) ugly and ungainly machine. With an Apple monitor, wireless keyboard, and wireless mouse, the mini is much more esthetically appealing.

The iMac indeed is the better deal. But as you alluded to, the Mac Mini look better if coupled with the Apple display (of course it's all subjective). But there in lies the rub. Can you justify paying so much for a display that should be priced at $500 rather than $800?

I suppose one could keep the display when one upgrades to say an Intel PowerMac in the future. Perhaps Apple will quietly improve the 20" display like they just did with the 30"..and drop it by at least $100.

iREZ · 03:33 PM

glhart you do realize that an imac takes up less real estate on your desk than any apple monitor and mini? calling the imac ungainly is pretty ridiculous and id even go as far as to say that the mac mini is more ungainly than the imac, and this isnt me defending a recent purchase either. this argument is purely subjective but the imac does have the same footprint as an apple cinema display and almost identical width dimensions. you are stuck with the imac screen, this is true...but when time comes for you to run a larger display your imac is equipped with dvi out and a very capable gpu which means you could drive two monitors at the same time and run a spanned desktop, where as the mini cant run any more than one display.

this isnt my setup, and it definitely isnt ungainly

quiklee · Mar 30, 2006, 03:12 PM

purely for wire savings sake, go iMac !!! <= I'm biased though towards iMac, but I do have a mac mini too . . . iMac's just look so good . . .they have the "wow" factor from guests too

glhart · Mar 31, 2006, 11:18 AM

No doubt, the iMac looks nice in your picture, but when I work on an iMac, I don't like the "chin." I guess it's subjective -- think how much better your iMac would look without that white expanse below the screen.

CheesePuff · Mar 31, 2006, 12:30 PM

I went to CompUSA when I was making my decison and played with a 1.66 GHz Mac mini and 2.0 GHz iMac with the same 512 MB RAM. The iMac was much quicker and even web browsing was quicker. Not to say the Mac mini was slow though, it was much faster then the 1.67 GHz PowerBook's next to it.

CheesePuff · Mar 31, 2006, 12:32 PM

Originally Posted by glhart

No doubt, the iMac looks nice in your picture, but when I work on an iMac, I don't like the "chin." I guess it's subjective -- think how much better your iMac would look without that white expanse below the screen.

Yes, and then it would be just a monitor. So then look at that box to the right (or left, or bottom) of it with wires all around.

TheTraveller · Mar 31, 2006, 01:18 PM

I went with the Mac Mini because I didn't want the integration of monitor + CPU. I can give the monitor to my fiancée later on when I want to upgrade it, etc. Just gives a bit more flexibility of the components. Not much, but a but!

Maflynn · Mar 31, 2006, 02:12 PM

What configuration did you go with. I'm about to jump in the mini pool myself. I'll be entering the order in at apple.com in about an hour or two.

Mike

CheesePuff · Mar 31, 2006, 02:23 PM

^
Get the RAM at NewEgg. So just get the $799 config and that's it. To upgrade to 2 GB it's only $196 with 3-day shipping instead of $300. Also they have 7200 RPM 2.5" drives or larger 5400 ones as well there for a better price (because you could then sell the included one on eBay).

Maflynn · Mar 31, 2006, 03:03 PM

Originally Posted by CheesePuff 2.0

^
Get the RAM at NewEgg. So just get the $799 config and that's it. To upgrade to 2 GB it's only $196 with 3-day shipping instead of $300. Also they have 7200 RPM 2.5" drives or larger 5400 ones as well there for a better price (because you could then sell the included one on eBay).

I'm a memory snobb, I've always had good luck with crucial and right now the price difference between crucial and apple.com is so small, I'll stick with apple memory. (The price is the same).

I agree with the hard drive though, I'm getting the stock drive with the idea I'll upgrade that baby with a 7200 rpm model.

Hitachi seems to be the model to pick, but I'm not sure. I see more of the hitachi models to buy then maxtor and seagate (for 2.5 sata drives at 7200 rpm).

Mike

LagunaSol · Mar 31, 2006, 05:23 PM

I bought my wife a Mini several months ago and now I wish I had sprung for an iMac. The Mini is a nice looking little unit, but you still end up with more wires (I hate wires). And the pokey hard drive becomes apparent with use. The integrated iSight in the iMacs is great too.

I'm about to order myself a 20" iMac - down the road I may unload her Mini and get her a 17" iMac as well.

Commodus · Mar 31, 2006, 07:15 PM

I say go for the iMac - the 20" one, since you obviously want headroom.

If you get a 20" iMac, you may be stuck with the display, but it's a very nice one and should at least do the job for so long as you have the system. The Mac mini, on the other hand, will have slow graphics (albeit good enough for 1080p video!) right from the beginning.

Also, remember that hard drive speed and storage capacity will help your experience of the system. Things will load faster, and if you decide you want to install a new app or encode media at high quality, you can do it. Even the 17" iMac's 160 GB is a lot more room to breathe. 250 GB may almost feel like a veritable Grand Canyon of free space compared to a Mac mini's standard 80 GB drive.