[anthonyvthc]

This question applies mostly to previous Mac owners. I have had an iBook for just over a year now and I have been planning on buying a desktop (iMac or mini). All was dependent on my tax return. As it stands, I think I'll be buying the mini. I played with both for an hour at the Vegas Apple store, and I honestly could not detect a difference, speed-wise, between the two. This is comparing the 1.6 iMac (1 gig ram) with the 1.42 mini (512). The only problem I found was that they had, for some reason, loaded Motion onto the mini. When I tried to run it (just for the hell of it) I of course got the "incompatable video card" message.

So my question is this: do any of you regret your mini purchase? Does it live up to your expectations? Are there any times at which it feels slow?

Thanks.

[Hanul]

I'm very happy with my mini. It's the perfect desktop system: quiet, small, elegant, and "fast enough" as I use to say. I have a 12" PowerBook running at 867MHz and even this can take on most tasks like GarageBand.

Ok, rendering a 1 hour movie with some fancy DVD menus takes a while on the mini (3 hours), but that's ok for me.

[elvis2000]

Originally posted by Hanul:
I'm very happy with my mini. It's the perfect desktop system: quiet, small, elegant, and "fast enough" as I use to say. I have a 12" PowerBook running at 867MHz and even this can take on most tasks like GarageBand.

Ok, rendering a 1 hour movie with some fancy DVD menus takes a while on the mini (3 hours), but that's ok for me.

I found even basic web browsing a maddening experience. It is indeed a slow machine.

[Too Artificial]

Originally posted by elvis2000:
I found even basic web browsing a maddening experience. It is indeed a slow machine.

Elvis, can you go into more detail? I've only used a mini briefly at the Apple Store and didn't notice anything, but curious to hear your experience.

[iREZ]

I'll respond for him. [clears throat] "I bought one and had thirteen applications open, and when working in FCP it was taking sooooooooooo long, what a piece of crap. I can't believe Apple wanted me to spend more money on RAM to, 256MB should be enough in my book.

The mini isn't painfully slow unless you keep the RAM at 256MB. I have a 1GHz PB and there is no way I'd call my 'book slow at all, so I can't see how these machines could be slow when their clock speed is so much faster. If you want to get it even faster just wait when somebody releases pics on how to up your HD, then you could bump that sucker with a 7200RPM drive and live the life. As long as your not doing anything too serious (Full length movie in FCP, 200MB files in PS) then you should be fine. Also realize that the graphics card could support the 23" display but you'd save yourself some trouble by just getting the 20" seeing how the card has trouble driving such a larger screen.

[UberWeenie]

Originally posted by anthonyvthc:

So my question is this: do any of you regret your mini purchase? Does it live up to your expectations? Are there any times at which it feels slow?

Thanks.

I suppose if you are used to a dual G5 Powermac or similar the Mini might seem slow. I'll admit that I was prepared to accept merely adequate performance from mine.

I was very pleasantly surprised. For the day to day tasks that I perform, bread and butter apps like web browsing, word processing, email, spreadsheets, downloading 'large multimedia files' from Usenet, etc. the Mini is an excellent performer. I've thrown a few big jobs at it, like DVD ripping, Photoshopping large images, etc., and while no records were set I was very happy with how the little guy chugged away and got the job done. Now if I had to do these tasks all day, day and day out, I'd want something with some serious horsepower.

But right now the Mini is more Mac than I expected and actually a bit more than I need. I'm delighted with it. It has never really seemed slow, but I'm prepared to be patient with _occasional_ demanding tasks.

(1.25 Ghz/512MB)

[andreas_g4]

I have my Mac mini (1.25/80/1 Gig) for two weeks now. I did some mid-heavy Photoshop (around 40-50 MB images, lots of layers) and with 1 gig RAM the mini performs well. The facts are known: The bottleneck is the HD. With much RAM this effect can be reduced to ehat's necessary.

A nice machine, even for work when you don't do super heavy stuff in the pro apps. Heck, people rendered DVDs in the iMac DV 400 days�

[philc]

I realize Apple's primary goal was to keep the cost down but selling this machine with 256MB ram is criminal. As is selling any brand new computer with this much. 512MB should be considered bare minimum on any brand new machine budget or otherwise.

[elvis2000]

Originally posted by iREZ:
I'll respond for him. [clears throat] "I bought one and had thirteen applications open, and when working in FCP it was taking sooooooooooo long, what a piece of crap. I can't believe Apple wanted me to spend more money on RAM to, 256MB should be enough in my book.

The mini isn't painfully slow unless you keep the RAM at 256MB.

Let me clarify:

Wasn't running anything in the background. Even my non-techie wife complained of the slowness. In denial, I blamed our DSL service (which is admittedly spotty). However, late last Friday night I hooked up the PC which was due for dismantling and a parts-sale on eBay (the only way to even come close to getting your money back on a store-bought PC). The PC was *much* faster in basic browsing.

The extra second or more it takes for the Mini to load a page becomes incredibly frustrating over the course of an evening's browsing.

Its not even something you notice immediately. It takes about a week of normal use to get "used to" the slowness. Then jumping back to the PC feels like a leap forward by an order of magnitude.

I don't feel like I'm stretching the truth -- this was an actual perceptable difference on part of my wife and (reluctantly) myself.

This was a 1.42GHz with 512MB. I purchased the 512 because the 256MB (1.25GHz) seemed slow in the Apple Store (tried at the NYC West Village location). I can't imagine how frustrating the stock $499 model would be with frequent use.

Keep in mind my PC was a comparably priced (at the time $950) Athlon64 3200+ system, 512MB RAM with GeForce FX 5200 GPU (same as iMac). So I was used to a very fast PC.

I still think there is room in the market for the Mini. But the OS X browsers are slow -- and not helped by mini's slow hard disk, bus speed, and aging processor.

This is my unbiased opinion after a one week use trial of a Mac mini. Your mileage may vary.

[elvis2000]

Originally posted by UberWeenie:
the Mini is an excellent performer.

Let's be realistic. The mini is at *best* an average performer -- and even below average at some everyday tasks.

[mbryda]

Originally posted by elvis2000:

I don't feel like I'm stretching the truth -- this was an actual perceptable difference on part of my wife and (reluctantly) myself.

This is my unbiased opinion after a one week use trial of a Mac mini. Your mileage may vary.

Going back and forth from my G4/800 (512MB) to a P4/2.0 (1GB) IBM a31p and I can hardly tell the difference using our DSL here at home. The IBM is a tad faster, but the Mac is no slouch either.

I played with the Mini (512MB) at the Apple store, hooked up to a 23" display and it too surfed fine. And did Word fine, and PS Elements, etc. It was all just fine....

[elvis2000]

Originally posted by mbryda:
Going back and forth from my G4/800 (512MB) to a P4/2.0 (1GB) IBM a31p and I can hardly tell the difference using our DSL here at home. The IBM is a tad faster, but the Mac is no slouch either.

I played with the Mini (512MB) at the Apple store, hooked up to a 23" display and it too surfed fine. And did Word fine, and PS Elements, etc. It was all just fine....

I suppose it all depends on the level of your expectations and experience level. I would not be the first to note the Mac browsing experience is slower. And like I said, it takes more than "playing with" and the Apple Store. You have to bring it home and use it regularly for a week.

*In my case* I was floored how much slower the Mini was after switching back to my PC... but this is compared to a 64 bit Athlon system. So, the comparison isn't exactly fair (though, the Mini cost $824 versus the Athlon's $950).

Your 2.0 P4 may not perform as swifty as my Athlon64 3200+ (and it shouldn't), and therefore you may not be noting as significant a difference as I am. But still, I'm only talking about web browsing here, nothing that taxing on any modern CPU.

The Apple Store helped me weed out a 256MB config (I bought a 512MB, 1.42GHz), but I'm not so sure that 512MB is enough. Some say OS X likes 1GB, but I didn't get that far with it.

I'm still interested in "switching", but I'm afraid it will take a $1500 G5 to satisfy my expectations (and I'm not buying an all-in-one iMac). $1500 is a hard pill to swallow when, although I like OS X better than Windows (and I especially appreciate the iLife suite), I'm also satisfied with the value/performance of my 64-bit AMD-based system.

Besides, I just don't seem to have the issues with spyware and viruses many Mac users seems to have encountered on the PC side. I suppose exercising caution helps (Windows SP2 with MS AntiSpyware and Firefox is a must).

So how much of this is just my own "unfair" comparison (1.42GHz G4 vs. Athlon64 3200+) and how much is Mac user denial that the Mini is slow even with basic tasks like web browsing? I really wanted to like the Mini, and wanted to believe it was perfectly acceptable for my needs.

JW

[jon l. dawson]

I think it's just you. Next to my Mini, hooked into the same (dual input) monitor, I have a P4 3.0 Ghz system with Radeon 9800, 1GB RAM and 7200RPM drive. It's a fast computer. And yet, using the Mac mini, I have yet to ever think it is slow, not in the least, not in comparison. I'm very happy with mine, it's a 1.42 Ghz with 1GB RAM. There's no desire for me to use the PC for anything.

For what it's worth, also, I work with audio and music, I'm not just web browsing and emailing on the Mini. And even though I would get more processing power out of the PC, using OS X more than makes up for it, I feel much more creative when the UI is not getting in my way. I have never been more satisfied with a computer purchase.

[hudson1]

Originally posted by elvis2000:
I'm still interested in "switching", but I'm afraid it will take a $1500 G5 to satisfy my expectations (and I'm not buying an all-in-one iMac). $1500 is a hard pill to swallow when, although I like OS X better than Windows (and I especially appreciate the iLife suite), I'm also satisfied with the value/performance of my 64-bit AMD-based system.

You have me confused. I thought you already bought a Mac mini.

Seriously, did you think Apple's lowest priced computer would match the speed of a 64 bit AMD system? I doubt Dell's entry level machine would come close to the AMD chip, either. You just have to sort out what it is that you really want. If it's simply to surf the web at the highest possible speed, then surely that wasn't what motivated you to buy the mini.

Also, what's wrong with the iMac? It's hard to fool around with one in an Apple store without thinking that this is one of the most desirable computers ever designed. Where else can you even get a wide aspect 17" monitor, let alone one that is sharper than most anything this side of, say, a Sony?

[elvis2000]

Originally posted by hudson1:
You have me confused. I thought you already bought a Mac mini.

I did. I sold it.

Seriously, did you think Apple's lowest priced computer would match the speed of a 64 bit AMD system?

Reading the posts around here, one would be led to believe so. In fact, see Jon Dawson's post directly above yours for just such a statement:

"I have a P4 3.0 Ghz system with Radeon 9800, 1GB RAM and 7200RPM drive. It's a fast computer. And yet, using the Mac mini, I have yet to ever think it is slow, not in the least, not in comparison."

You just have to sort out what it is that you really want. If it's simply to surf the web at the highest possible speed, then surely that wasn't what motivated you to buy the mini.

I want a mac that will allow me to surf the web at the same speed as a PC for the same price as a PC. Is that really too much to ask? Who knew that the Mini would be a dog even performing basic tasks (at least by my apparently higher standards)?

Also, what's wrong with the iMac?

Don't like the all-in-one format. I have always kept my monitors through multiple hardware upgrades, and I just purchased a Dell 2005FPW that I really like (irony: I purchased the Dell because the Mini didn't want to play nice with my Viewsonic vp201s. See Apple support forums for all the issues some are having with various brands of DVI monitors).

It's hard to fool around with one in an Apple store without thinking that this is one of the most desirable computers ever designed. Where else can you even get a wide aspect 17" monitor, let alone one that is sharper than most anything this side of, say, a Sony?

The iMac's screen is very nice. Certainly far nicer than the G4 iMac's. But it isn't any better than that on my 2005FPW or any other number of monitors released in the past year. And no need to argue the merits of a seperate monitor.

Question: would a G5 be any faster at web browsing than the Mini? Or is the fault in the browsers currently available for OS X?

I should point that I own a Powerbook (for my daily commute into NYC on the NJT). I just never did much with it outside of iTunes, GNU Backgammon and MS Office.

[Burke]

No, I just wish it'd freakin' ship already.

[iREZ]

I don't care what anybody says. I know my 'book isn't slow, and for people to say that this machine with a faster bus speed, faster clock speed and same HD speed is ridiculous. It's not a power users machine, but for web, email, illustrator, photoshop, and word processing along side all the ilife software, this machine is very capable of performing well.

[Hanul]

Web browsing is certainly not dependent on the machine's hardware. At least not for systems released in the last decade. A browser renders HTML pages (and CSS, does JavaScript etc.) and this is not a taxing task for any processor running at least 200MHz. What you need is a certain amount of RAM to load the page and render it. On a 80386SX with 33MHz and 4MB RAM it takes a while to even render www.google.com with IE5 on Win3.11, but to say, that Safari's rendering may run faster on a G5 is a little bit over the top.

There shouldn't be a noticable difference in web browsing between an iMac G3 300MHz and a Dual 2GHz PowerMac (assumed there is enough RAM for running MacOS X). You may notice a difference between systems like MacOS X with Safari and Windows XP and Firefox, but that's all software related. Maybe WebCore isn't as fast as Gecko.

[WoD]

Hanul nipped the problem in the bud there. The prospect of it being a hardware issue is clearly absurd.

The fact that it is a software issue is just another one of those software annoyances, I think I can put up with my web pages taking a whole second to display- gives me some time to do one of the million other things I tend to do simultanously. I expect it to be fixed sooner or later, though.

Whilst my Mini has not yet arrived I am looking forward to it immensely, lately little things about Windows have been starting to get on my nerves - well, they are actually caused by Windows software, but the point is as every minute passes I am saying to myself "Mac OS will make it all go away, and give me a whole plethora of new annoyances to deal with instead! Freedom!"

Mac OS has fans, Windows has disgruntled users with nowhere to turn. And the PC using world is too full of performance enthusiasts and people who insist on playing "games" on their desktops - consoles and Macs are the future my friends, better get used to them or face getting caught with your pants down when the fecal matter hits the high-speed rotating air-conditioning appliance.

[elvis2000]

Originally posted by WoD:
Hanul nipped the problem in the bud there. The prospect of it being a hardware issue is clearly absurd.

So the Mini is no slower/faster than even a top of the line G5 in terms of page rendering? I suppose this makes complete sense. So it is a Safari thing.

The fact that it is a software issue is just another one of those software annoyances, I think I can put up with my web pages taking a whole second to display- gives me some time to do one of the million other things I tend to do simultanously. I expect it to be fixed sooner or later, though.

I guess it depends on your browsing habits and degree of patience. Its not that the extra second (or so) is keeping me from doing other things. In fact, on first use of the Mini I didn't really even notice it. Like I said, it was the culmination of a weeks worth of use, getting a "feel" for the Mini's (Safari's) rhythms, then moving back to the PC and feeling like things were far more tactile and responsive. A quick search around the MacNN forums confirms my perceptions.

The real problem was in "justifying" a new purchase to my wife, who then just didn't get it. I was paying $824 for a computer that was slower than our trouble free PC. Don't get me started on her response to the anti-aliased fonts. Since we both use the machine (and she more than I), her opinion mattered as I didn't plan to keep the PC.

Whilst my Mini has not yet arrived I am looking forward to it immensely, lately little things about Windows have been starting to get on my nerves - well, they are actually caused by Windows software, but the point is as every minute passes I am saying to myself "Mac OS will make it all go away, and give me a whole plethora of new annoyances to deal with instead! Freedom!"

Just don't have the high expectations that I did.

[andreas_g4]

Originally posted by elvis2000:
Let's be realistic. The mini is at *best* an average performer -- and even below average at some everyday tasks.

Agreed, the mini is no *excellent* performer. But on what every day tasks does it perform below average with at least 512 MB RAM?

[ecrelin]

Apple is STUPID ( I won't bother making that bigger because you can't make it big enough!) to sell machines with less than 512 they have always pulled this crap of giving you just a little less than you need FOR WHAT?!?! Make the box $550 with 512 stock and highly recommend 1 Gb and don't fleece people an extra $125. for the 1Gb chip.
Aaaaargh!
Oh and the faster hard drive helps too.
Elvis you may have a 64 bit Athalon but you are running Windows in 32 bit. The 64 isn't getting you any speed what so ever. (OS X doesn't use the 64 bits in the G5 either) in fact 64 bits is never going to be the speed enhancer just a capacity enhancer.
Truth is Apple's clock speeds are still slow, even though Intel (AMD) speeds are not oranges to oranges with PowerPC speeds due to architecture differences, IBM and Motorola need to get the entry level chips up to 2 - 2.5 Ghz NOW. (I know easier said than done but the pages are flying off that calendar)
And yes Apple's system is Big and just getting optimized properly. 10.3 runs much faster than 10.2 (very evident on old hardware) hopefully 10.4 will be even better.
There was a known DNS resolution issue that was fixed in 10.3.8 but vestiges may still exist and so that means slower surfing could ceertainly be partially a system problem, also are we using Firefox in these comparisons? Safari is slower that's a fact.
Last comment, from a software design perspective windows is a whore for performance, security be damned, being fastidious and tidy has its price, but I'm happy to pay it.

[Siskomac]

Originally posted by Burke:
No, I just wish it'd freakin' ship already.

^^ Yup.

[the corporation]

Just ordered mine about a week ago, with 3/8 as the ship date...I don't WANT to regret it (at least, not yet, it's my first Mac)!

[elvis2000]

Originally posted by the corporation:
Just ordered mine about a week ago, with 3/8 as the ship date...I don't WANT to regret it (at least, not yet, it's my first Mac)!

Well, you very well may depending on what you are coming from. I wouldn't switch to a Mini if you are "downgrading" for a powerful PC. But if you have been itching to replace that 1GHz P3 with something more interesting, it is worth a try.

[elvis2000]

Originally posted by ecrelin:
Elvis you may have a 64 bit Athalon but you are running Windows in 32 bit. The 64 isn't getting you any speed what so ever. (OS X doesn't use the 64 bits in the G5 either) in fact 64 bits is never going to be the speed enhancer just a capacity enhancer.

I'm not suggesting it is the 64-bits that makes it fast. My technical knowledge doesn't extend quite that far. But it is fast.

And oh yeah, I'm running Windows 64 bit on the PC. Not sure it makes any difference.

Truth is Apple's clock speeds are still slow, even though Intel (AMD) speeds are not oranges to oranges with PowerPC speeds due to architecture differences, IBM and Motorola need to get the entry level chips up to 2 - 2.5 Ghz NOW. (I know easier said than done but the pages are flying off that calendar)

Not sure you realize that the Athlon64 3200+ is "only" a 2GHz CPU. But it "specs" closer to a Pentium 4 3.2GHz in most benchmarks. So the same story exists on the other side of the fence when comparing AMD vs. Intel.
[/B][/QUOTE]

There was a known DNS resolution issue that was fixed in 10.3.8 but vestiges may still exist and so that means slower surfing could ceertainly be partially a system problem also are we using Firefox in these comparisons? Safari is slower that's a fact.

Well others are flat out denying there is any speed difference at all? I did indeed notice a difference between Safari and Firefox (and to a lesser extent Camino). But all felt slower than Firefox on the PC.

[the corporation]

Originally posted by elvis2000:
Well, you very well may depending on what you are coming from. I wouldn't switch to a Mini if you are "downgrading" for a powerful PC. But if you have been itching to replace that 1GHz P3 with something more interesting, it is worth a try.

I am currently running a very high-end PC, but my closet Mac obsession was finally able to manifest itself due to the price point of the mini. I've already ordered a RAM and HDD upgrade for it, lol.

[elvis2000]

Originally posted by the corporation:
I am currently running a very high-end PC, but my closet Mac obsession was finally able to manifest itself due to the price point of the mini. I've already ordered a RAM and HDD upgrade for it, lol.

Understood. Are you planning to replace the PC with the Mini, or is the mini destined for "second computer" status? I could see the $499 Mini making a nice bedroom PC, or even a living room "music server".

I think my problem is that I was expecting far too much. I wouldn't consider a $500 PC, so why would I expect more from a $500 Mac?

[iREZ]

Exactly!

[the_glassman]

You should have tried the Altivec optimized versions of Firefox. I have yet to find anything faster for browsing, Mac or PC.

http://homepage.mac.com/krmathis/

[elvis2000]

Originally posted by the_glassman:
You should have tried the Altivec optimized versions of Firefox. I have yet to find anything faster for browsing, Mac or PC.

http://homepage.mac.com/krmathis/

Is Camino Altivec enhanced?

[the_glassman]

Originally posted by elvis2000:
Is Camino Altivec enhanced?

Not that I'm aware of. It's slow compared to the Firefox versions. It's also a few steps behind in development. Although it certainly is more pleasant to look at right out of the box.

[skalie]

shame that the thing doesn't have a mic input

probably going to get one if/when it ships with Tiger however

[polendo]

When I first got my iBook I also thought (still think) that browsing was dead slow compared to my former (already sold) Compaq laptop. I put the blame on the browsers.. it is just the way it is on Macintosh.

I for one, don't mind the speed.. but yes I believe that in general browsing on the Mac is slower than its PC counterparts.

Don't quote me on this one, but I believe that Mac's browsers just basically put the whole screen together when they are finished downloading vs. PC's were they start populating the screen as they received the information.. giving it a more sense of speed.

regards

[thunderous_funker]

I think the Mini's shortcomings are very overstated.

Granted, I'm not used to a very fast PC, but the multitasking power of OS X makes the Mini feel like an absolute powerhouse since I switched. I'm not kidding.

Do something on a Windows machine that pegs the CPU near 100% and try and do anything else. Just minimize a couple of windows or try to write an email.

On my Mini, I can be encoding some video that has the CPU completely maxed and I'll still be playing iTunes, surfing, chatting, emailing and switching between applications without a hitch.

That flies in the face of every Windows computer I've ever used regardless of hardware. If your CPU is chugging away at something in Windows, the OS gets down on its knees and crawls. You just go do something else for a while.

Obviously the Mini has its performance limitations, but the idea that this thing is supposed to be dog are just laughable, IMO. And my Mini has the 4200rpm HD and only 512MB RAM.

I have noticed that Safari can be sluggish on some sites, but since I don't click on a new link every second it doesn't hamper me. I suppose Firefox on Windows might be a more responsive Pr0n delivery system loading new pages constantly but frankly I hadn't noticed.

[Link]

As has been said a dozen times, try firefox or camino, especially the g4/g5 optimized versions (depending on the machine you have) -- you WILL notice a nice difference.

People should complain that apple needs to update safari - it hasn't seen a major update in damn near a year.


By and large though, your mac mini shouldn't be THAT much slower especially at everyday tasks. I dunno what the hell you're doing, but ****, I've used 500-800mhz G4s that were nowhere near as slow as you're trying to say -- and for comparison I've used plenty of Win2k on ~athlon 2800s.. and 2k is a "charmer" when it comes to "looking fast"

[power142]

Just to add my vote, I was pleasantly surprised with the mini. It's not a high-end machine, but I wasn't disappointed with what my $499 got me. I haven't noticed that the hard drive has been hindering progress, but then when I want to work with large images, I use a G5. When I want to hook up a computer to my TV, I'll leave the G5 under the desk where it belongs.

[insha]

Originally posted by UberWeenie:
the Mini is an excellent performer.

Originally posted by elvis2000:
Let's be realistic. The mini is at *best* an average performer -- and even below average at some everyday tasks.

Can't say I completely agree with you, elvis. I have TiBook 550 (1 GB) and I have a Mac mini 1.42 (512 MB) and I would say the my mini is an "excellent performer"; but saying that the mini is below average is something I find a little hard to believe.

Some of my everyday tasks that I do on my mini are: Web Browsing (I primarily use Safari and Firefox), Word Processing (Office 2004:mac, iWork '05), Email, and I use the iLife '05 suite on a regular basis. Yes, burning a DVD (1 Hour worth) with the mini takes a long time but I don't burn DVDs everyday (not because it's slow; I just don't have a real need for doing so).

In addition to this I do my Java (Eclipse) and Cocoa (XCode) development on my mini, and I have Cache, MySQL, Oracle 9i, Tomcat 5, PHP 4.3.x running at the same time and my iTunes+Safari are always running.

So yeah, you milage may vary; but mini is an above average performer for me, hence it is an excellent performer.

[elvis2000]

Originally posted by insha:
Can't say I completely agree with you, elvis. I have TiBook 550 (1 GB) and I have a Mac mini 1.42 (512 MB) and I would say the my mini is an "excellent performer"; but saying that the mini is below average is something I find a little hard to believe.

But your comparison is to a very old TiBook. As I said somewhere above, it depends on the context.

[indigoimac]

I still don't see why OSX is "slow" with 256 it bloody isn't! OSX is damn good at managing mem, I had a 12" ibook g3 w/ 128 megs running for along time, with no problem and now it runs w/ 256 as a print server still with no problems. Now personally I'm not going to buy a mac mini as I still haven't been able to get over my 4 y/o iMac that still works like the day I bought it (actually better w/ an 80gig 7200RPM Seagate and 320 MB RAM) and is the most stable computer I've ever used. Also, very few on those on this forum are the intended audience for the MacMini, it is NOT a power machine and it is quite frankly not really a mac, except that it runs OSX otherwise it has completely abandoned that "special feel of having a mac"

By the way Safari does indeed suck so let's all say in unison
"Firefox (altivec enabled if u wish)"

I have come to believe that Apple has steadily let its quality decrease (except for PowerMacg5s not iMacs, they're still included in this rant)

[b11051973]

Originally posted by Hanul:
I'm very happy with my mini. It's the perfect desktop system: quiet, small, elegant, and "fast enough" as I use to say. I have a 12" PowerBook running at 867MHz and even this can take on most tasks like GarageBand.

I've also got a 867 12" PB and a mini. I've been using my PB for over 2 years constantly. It has always seemed plenty fast. Now that I have my new mini, I can definitely see some speed increases. I don't expect either to be blazing fast, but they're fast enough for me.

[Footy]

Originally posted by skalie:
shame that the thing doesn't have a mic input

probably going to get one if/when it ships with Tiger however

Get one of these when you do.

iMic

[Hi I'm Ben]

Originally posted by indigoimac:
things

OSX is WAY faster then 512+ ram. Since you've never reached that mark you can't really comment on it though. Just because 256 works for you, that maybe because you don't know anything better?

Meanwhile things I hate about Mac OS X Browsing:
Flash, Shockwave.... what a joke... but that's not all... ANY moving things in the webbrowsing screen make my computer want to start killing it self. Animated Gifs... gah... I'm not sure why but it really pisses the mac off when any application has lots of weird moving objects.

It's not just safari either, does anyone remember Dock Detox? It was the program that would stop applications from bouncing in the dock because that would eat up CPU usage.

[WoD]

For the record, the difference between page render times on my 2.8ghz VAIO with 512mb ram and my 600mhz Toshiba with 32mb ram is negligable.

The same applies to every other system in my house, the major limiting factor in the time it takes a page to display is bandwidth.. in fact the only computers I have used and had problems with slow page loads were connected to dialup at <56kbps or under an inch thick and running Palm OS.

Rendering a website is not the most CPU-intensive of processes.. I put it down to a poor browser engine. I guess I will know what the "deal" is when I get my Mini (dispatched 19th). I do some incredably heavy browsing at times so if it really is a problem it will, most likely, begin to bug me too.

I am keeping my wintel laptop up and running and will be using Synergy to use one mouse/keyboard across both desktops - so if one system fails me for hardcore browsing... I can just use the other. Two heads are better than one, particularly if they are each connected to their own system.

[elvis2000]

Originally posted by WoD:
For the record, the difference between page render times on my 2.8ghz VAIO with 512mb ram and my 600mhz Toshiba with 32mb ram is negligable.

The same applies to every other system in my house, the major limiting factor in the time it takes a page to display is bandwidth.. in fact the only computers I have used and had problems with slow page loads were connected to dialup at <56kbps or under an inch thick and running Palm OS.

Rendering a website is not the most CPU-intensive of processes.. I put it down to a poor browser engine. I guess I will know what the "deal" is when I get my Mini (dispatched 19th). I do some incredably heavy browsing at times so if it really is a problem it will, most likely, begin to bug me too.

I am keeping my wintel laptop up and running and will be using Synergy to use one mouse/keyboard across both desktops - so if one system fails me for hardcore browsing... I can just use the other. Two heads are better than one, particularly if they are each connected to their own system.

So then why is web browsing slower on a Mac?

[indigoimac]

Originally posted by Hi I'm Ben:
OSX is WAY faster then 512+ ram. Since you've never reached that mark you can't really comment on it though. Just because 256 works for you, that maybe because you don't know anything better?

Meanwhile things I hate about Mac OS X Browsing:
Flash, Shockwave.... what a joke... but that's not all... ANY moving things in the webbrowsing screen make my computer want to start killing it self. Animated Gifs... gah... I'm not sure why but it really pisses the mac off when any application has lots of weird moving objects.

It's not just safari either, does anyone remember Dock Detox? It was the program that would stop applications from bouncing in the dock because that would eat up CPU usage.

Yes I have used a system with more than 512 and personally for my purposes I have never noticed a difference, but u make a good point, unless u are extremely patient, high-end applications will run horribly with less than 512!

[mitchell_pgh]

Elvis 2K,

I guess many of don't understand you because we can't honestly even consider switching to a PC regardless of speed. Speed alone is NOT a good enough reason IMHO. Does my high end PC render web pages faster, sure, would I ever consider giving up my Mac for a PC, never.

If you are someone like Elvis 2K (someone that buys a 64 bit systems and loads Windows XP Professional x64 on it, dismantles their computer and sells each components on eBay, etc.) I would argue that the Mac mini may not be for you.

Elvis 2K, you also mentioned that your PC was "trouble free". If you are one of the few people out there saying that you have a "trouble free" Windows experience, I would steer clear of you. You obviously have the Midas touch.

And what was that crack about the anti-alias fonts?

[elvis2000]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
Elvis 2K,

I guess many of don't understand you because we can't honestly even consider switching to a PC regardless of speed. Speed alone is NOT a good enough reason IMHO. Does my high end PC render web pages faster, sure, would I ever consider giving up my Mac for a PC, never.

If you are someone like Elvis 2K (someone that buys a 64 bit systems and loads Windows XP Professional x64 on it, dismantles their computer and sells each components on eBay, etc.) I would argue that the Mac mini may not be for you.

Elvis 2K, you also mentioned that your PC was "trouble free". If you are one of the few people out there saying that you have a "trouble free" Windows experience, I would steer clear of you. You obviously have the Midas touch.

And what was that crack about the anti-alias fonts?

The PC is "trouble free", relative to the PC world. It still has its quirks (hence, my interest in OS X). The issue is: OS X is a powerful, stable, easy to use OS. Everything I've ever wanted. Trouble is, it only runs on Apple hardware... which in my opinion, is overpriced and underpowered. My *hope* was the the mini would be more in-line with my value/performance expectations. Nope!

But yes, I've been working with PCs for some 20 years and feel quite comfortable poking around. But Windows is a bloated complicated mess and I'd love to be free of it. However, SP2, a good virus scanner, and Microsoft's Spyware software can keep things relatively in line.

P.S. The anti-aliased fonts are OS X's only downfall. They look like sh*t on a high-res LCD.

P.P.S. There are many people out there running "trouble free" PCs. In fact, the only person I know that seems to have massive computer problems is a friend sticking steadfastly by his old OS9-running Powerbook. He reflexively saves his documents every few minutes because the machine crashes so much!

Elvis

[turtle777]

Originally posted by elvis2000:
But yes, I've been working with PCs for some 20 years and feel quite comfortable poking around.

Well, then stick with your PC and spare us your rants.

Originally posted by elvis2000:
P.S. The anti-aliased fonts are OS X's only downfall. They look like sh*t on a high-res LCD.

And your Wintel box does a better job ? Good for you. Bye !

Originally posted by elvis2000:
P.P.S. There are many people out there running "trouble free" PCs. In fact, the only person I know that seems to have massive computer problems is a friend sticking steadfastly by his old OS9-running Powerbook. He reflexively saves his documents every few minutes because the machine crashes so much!

Well, the key here is "the people I know".

-t

[elvis2000]

Originally posted by turtle777:




Well, the key here is "the people I know".

-t

LOL. So OS9 was "rock solid"? Let's not go there.

And I'm not trying to turn this into a Mac vs. PC thread. I already stated that I believe OS X is the suporior alternative to Windows. Now if only I could find some powerful and inexpensive hardware to run it on!