[dwood]

Originally posted by elvis2000:
[B]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.



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.

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. [/QUOTE]

question did you try doing the pipelining tweaks?

http://www.masternewmedia.org/news/2...tweak_tips.htm

made a world of difference for me in firefox

[turtle777]

Originally posted by elvis2000:
LOL. So OS9 was "rock solid"? Let's not go there.

Where did I say that ?
Your perception of stability of Mac OS vs. Windows comes from 1 user that is running a 5 year old OS. Maybe you should look beyond that...

Originally posted by elvis2000:
And I'm not trying to turn this into a Mac vs. PC thread.

Ok, you're not trying. It still comes across borderline of a thread like that though...

Originally posted by elvis2000:
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!

You have two options:
1) keep dreaming of Macs becoming cheaper than Wintel PCs
2) Wake up to the reality that quality and a good feel is NOT FOR FREE. Apple has to cross-subsidize their SW / OS development from HW sales. Fact of life.

-t

[hudson1]

Originally posted by elvis2000:
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!

Well then maybe this is what you're looking for (the x86 version):

http://sourceforge.net/project/showf...group_id=15543

[elvis2000]

Originally posted by turtle777:
Where did I say that ?
Your perception of stability of Mac OS vs. Windows comes from 1 user that is running a 5 year old OS. Maybe you should look beyond that...

You are not reading. Perhaps I shouldn't have pulled the OS9 comparison out of my arse (thought it was relevant, but perhaps not). I did give it a go, with two different Minis (one 1.25 256MB, the other a 1.42 512MB). I still own a 12" Powerbook for fun on the road/train. I just need a powerful desktop that runs OSX that doesn't cost $1500. Can't afford it, can't justify it.

You have two options:
1) keep dreaming of Macs becoming cheaper than Wintel PCs

Check

2) Wake up to the reality that quality and a good feel is NOT FOR FREE. Apple has to cross-subsidize their SW / OS development from HW sales. Fact of life.

Understood. Luckily, there are choices.

[iREZ]

Well the iMac is 1199 w/student discount. That's well under 1500 and alot faster than a mini. Though it still wouldn't be a machine for you. A person like you needs a dual G5 (maybe a single) and those won't come down in price for awhile.

[elvis2000]

Originally posted by iREZ:
Well the iMac is 1199 w/student discount. That's well under 1500 and alot faster than a mini. Though it still wouldn't be a machine for you. A person like you needs a dual G5 (maybe a single) and those won't come down in price for awhile.

iMac with DVD burner is $1500, and I'm not a student. And I have issues with any "all in one" design (Apple or anyone else).

What I *need* is a $999 "headless G5". Apple delivered what I *had* been hoping for (in the Mini) four years too late.

[neoptik]

Elvis, I think people understand what you want, but from Apple's standpoint, it makes no sense. Right now they sell lots of G5's to people for an average (off the top of my head) of 2k, and with a wonderful profit margin. Suppose they introduce a mini with a g5, while still trying to sell the g5 towers? A good portion of the professional's buying g5's will buy the g5 mini instead, and apple loses a whole bunch of profit.

I agree, it would be awesome if they did, but I think the existence of the product you are suggesting would hurt Apple's bottom line too much. The only way I can imagine it being helpful is if that machine somehow doubled marketshare or something.

Thoughts?

[turtle777]

Originally posted by elvis2000:
What I *need* is a $999 "headless G5". Apple delivered what I *had* been hoping for (in the Mini) four years too late.

What I really need is a 160 GB iPod with 1028 x 768 color screen, AE, BT, 50 hrs battery life for $ 99.

I also need a dual G5 with all bells and whistles in the size of an iPod for $ 150.

I also need a BMW 7 series for the price of a KIA, and, of course, I'd like to be as resonable and realistic as YOU

-t

[LORL]

If all the zealots here would calm down, he has a point.

He didn't like the mini. It wasn't fast enough.

While I feel that he has exagerated the difference, it is basically context.

Browsing on OS X is damn slow compared to Windows. You get used to it - just have to stick it out...

The Mac Mini is not the next urban tech device that is going to save mankind.

So far, I have only seen Mac users here getting out of hand in the discussion - not the PC user.

[turtle777]

Originally posted by LORL:
So far, I have only seen Mac users here getting out of hand in the discussion - not the PC user.

Well, in my view, unrealistic expactations in connection with rants about Apple's product portfolio qualify for that as well...

-t

[MrGoo]

Originally posted by turtle777:
Well, in my view, unrealistic expactations in connection with rants about Apple's product portfolio qualify for that as well...

-t

Perhaps his unrealistic expactations can be partially blamed on the Mac community itself. Mac zealots love to spout how great Macs are and how they "just work". What many of us Switchers are finding out is that Apple hardware is no better than PC hardware and is some cases Apple hardware might even be worse. I'm not here to bash Apple, but rather point out that the biggest problem I see for Apple is many of it's user base preaches many fallacies.

In the end OS/X is good and Apple Hardware is ok at best.

[iREZ]

..and by "just work" we do mean the OS. I don't think anybody here has claimed that Mac hardware is soo much better than PC hardware, and come to think of it....per price point sometimes you get more with a Mac than a competitively priced PC (ie. having a 9200 vs an integrated chip). I'm a Mac zealot, but I'll be the first to admit if Apple is ripping somebody off on hardware (Apple displays cost way too much compared to the Dells). The mini is a mom 'n pop machine: email, internet, iLife, word and whatever else that's not that cpu taxing. For power users to buy a mini and say it's slow, is like me going to the dark side and saying that a $500 Dell can't compare to a Dual 2.5 G5 and 30" display.....well duh.

[MrGoo]

Originally posted by iREZ:
..and by "just work" we do mean the OS. I don't think anybody here has claimed that Mac hardware is soo much better than PC hardware, and come to think of it....per price point sometimes you get more with a Mac than a competitively priced PC (ie. having a 9200 vs an integrated chip). I'm a Mac zealot, but I'll be the first to admit if Apple is ripping somebody off on hardware (Apple displays cost way too much compared to the Dells). The mini is a mom 'n pop machine: email, internet, iLife, word and whatever else that's not that cpu taxing. For power users to buy a mini and say it's slow, is like me going to the dark side and saying that a $500 Dell can't compare to a Dual 2.5 G5 and 30" display.....well duh.

Please don't go down the "sometimes you get more with a Mac than a competitively priced PC" path. you should change the word sometimes to "rarely". It's not my point to discuss pricing.. What we were discussing was "regret of buying a Mac Mini". I like to think that I do my research fairly well before buying anything, however this time around I fell into the trap. I let the hype and the zealots on their soap boxes influence me. I should have read the Apple forums and really did my homework and held off for a bit. Now I have a box that doesn't drive my Monitor in VGA or DVI mode correcly. While I wouldn't say this problem is super duper wide spread I believe it's pretty big. I can't say I've experienced anything like this in the PC world. Maybe it's me who lives in a vacuum or maybe it's Apple. I don't know. I'm trying to make the best of it and I'll probably throw some more cash at a new monitor Dell 2405FPW

[mbryda]

Originally posted by elvis2000:
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.

Been doing this for quite a long time. Have used most configurations of PC's from uber cheap to uper expensive. They all seem to browse at about the same rate. Sure, Safari bogs at times, but I can get Mozilla to bog on the PC too.

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.

Yup. Played with an "ultra fast box" and yawn was more like it. Very underwhelming for what I do. IIRC it was a 3Ghz Athlon or P4.

$1500 G5 to satisfy my expectations (and I'm not buying an all-in-one iMac).

I was a bit aphrehensive when I got my G4 iMac as I always built my PC's. But it's been the best computer I've ever owned for the past 3 years. No regrets at all - it's all there and works 100%.

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).

I never did either. But I also fix PC's on the side and most people have spy/adware problems. It is a huge issue for that side of the fence and something I'm glad I don't have to worry about at home anymore.

[mbryda]

Originally posted by MrGoo:
Perhaps his unrealistic expactations can be partially blamed on the Mac community itself. Mac zealots love to spout how great Macs are and how they "just work". What many of us Switchers are finding out is that Apple hardware is no better than PC hardware and is some cases Apple hardware might even be worse. I'm not here to bash Apple, but rather point out that the biggest problem I see for Apple is many of it's user base preaches many fallacies.

Dono. I switched myself and found the hardware much better than the big box PC vendors. And the software is light years ahead of anything from Microsoft.

I see you've only posted 2 posts both on this thread. Why not start a new thread with your issues and we may be able to help?

It should just work. Most cases I've seen where it doesn't are hardware issues....

[robco]

The Mac mini is a good first step for Apple, but I hope it isn't the last. I hope that Apple finally gets the message that not all consumers want all-in-one systems like the iMac or eMac. Don't get me wrong, they're great. The iMac G5 comes with a beautiful 17 or 20 inch LCD. You just can't move it to your next system, or change the video card that drives it. I have an iMac currently and am considering the mini because I don't like having to toss everything just to upgrade. I would have loved to have been able to change out the monitor or add a new video card, but couldn't. While it can be convienient at times (back in the day, taking it to LAN parties was a cinch), I won't buy another AIO again.

Yes, most PC users out there don't crack their cases, but quite a few do. If that weren't the case, there wouldn't be huge money in selling PC upgrades. Even Mac users with towers upgrade their systems.

The only other alternative if you don't want an AIO design is the G5 tower, which starts at three times the cost of the mini. A nice minitower design (single CPU only) with standard optical bay, standard 3.5" drives and an AGP (or better yet, move to PCI-Express) would be great. And don't bring up the Cube, the Cube was vastly overpriced. The mini is avoiding the same fate by being price competitive, the Cube wasn't. Many people wanted the Cube, they either couldn't afford it or justify the cost.

If Apple hopes to expand its user base, it also needs to expand its product matrix to include the needs of that more diverse user base. It's a perfectly valid criticism. The products should meet the need of the consumer, not the other way around. One advantage the PC does offer is a greater diversity with respect to available hardware. Hopefully Apple will make a little room in its product line for other form factors.

[Kyros]

Originally posted by mbryda:
Dono. I switched myself and found the hardware much better than the big box PC vendors. And the software is light years ahead of anything from Microsoft.

I see you've only posted 2 posts both on this thread. Why not start a new thread with your issues and we may be able to help?

It should just work. Most cases I've seen where it doesn't are hardware issues....

The hardware can be considered "better" in the sense that you don't have to worry about random, cheap parts causing problems. Except maybe for ram and graphics cards, everything is made by apple and is generally high quality. It really is the same for expensive pc's and pc parts, in most cases. Most pc hardware problems are because of the cheap stuff. However, every once in a while you get lucky and the cheap things work just as well.

What really makes macs better, in my opinion, is the software. The hardware is fine, a bit expensive and a bit slow compared to pc's, but specs and speed are not everything. I run a 450 mHz cube, and personally, I'm happy with the speed. Like others said, it's all relative. If I were used to dual g5 towers, I don't think I would be content with the cube.

One thing is certain, though. You can't switch from a 64 bit processor that compares to 3.2 gHz with a 1.4 gHz g4. I don't really know why you thought that would work out. Of course it will be slower. Maybe to others it wouldn't be unbearably slow, but it seems you are used to fast machines. You seem to have gotten lucky with a cheap, fast pc (the cheap pc's I have used all sucked, even at high clock speeds, that's why I say lucky). Macs are not cheap if you want top of the line performance. The mini is basically an iBook put in a small desktop case. It's a really cheap laptop that lacks a screen and keyboard. It is not a powerhouse, although if I got one, it would probably feel insane.

EDIT: I just want to mention that I got around the huge cube price by buying it used this summer for 500 bucks. Do I regret that I could have gotten a mini at the same price? No way, this thing is way too cool! Also, Sonnet can hook me up with a nice 1.2 gHz upgrade if I really want it.

[hudson1]

Originally posted by robco:
The Mac mini is a good first step for Apple, but I hope it isn't the last. I hope that Apple finally gets the message that not all consumers want all-in-one systems like the iMac or eMac. Don't get me wrong, they're great. The iMac G5 comes with a beautiful 17 or 20 inch LCD. You just can't move it to your next system, or change the video card that drives it. I have an iMac currently and am considering the mini because I don't like having to toss everything just to upgrade. I would have loved to have been able to change out the monitor or add a new video card, but couldn't. While it can be convienient at times (back in the day, taking it to LAN parties was a cinch), I won't buy another AIO again.

Yes, most PC users out there don't crack their cases, but quite a few do. If that weren't the case, there wouldn't be huge money in selling PC upgrades. Even Mac users with towers upgrade their systems.

The only other alternative if you don't want an AIO design is the G5 tower, which starts at three times the cost of the mini. A nice minitower design (single CPU only) with standard optical bay, standard 3.5" drives and an AGP (or better yet, move to PCI-Express) would be great. And don't bring up the Cube, the Cube was vastly overpriced. The mini is avoiding the same fate by being price competitive, the Cube wasn't. Many people wanted the Cube, they either couldn't afford it or justify the cost.

If Apple hopes to expand its user base, it also needs to expand its product matrix to include the needs of that more diverse user base. It's a perfectly valid criticism. The products should meet the need of the consumer, not the other way around. One advantage the PC does offer is a greater diversity with respect to available hardware. Hopefully Apple will make a little room in its product line for other form factors.

Mac users don't "toss" their hardware when they upgrade. They either keep their current machines for good use or they sell it. The market is much better for used Mac equipment than for used PCs. It's the PCs that are much more likely to be tossed so the risk of going with an AIO Mac system is overblown.

The hardware diversity issue isn't as big as it may seem, either. In addition to the desktop AIO's (iMad and eMac) the PowerMac is fully upgradeable and the Mac mini can be custom ordered in several different combinations that would fit just about any interested buyer in the $500 to $1000 price range for a non-AIO machine.

[power142]

Where I work, we have an old beige G3 sitting around serving web pages. That the machine still works perfectly and is still (marginally) useful says something. Sure, I could still do that with a 333MHz PC too. To my knowledge, it's never caused a days trouble in its extensive life.

To our trolling audience: I'm no Mac zealot and I will employ whatever machine is required to do a specific job, Mac or otherwise. I don't care, so long as it does its job well enough. To me, hoping that a Mac mini, regardless of clock speed or browser, could compete with a high-performance PC processor-driven computer is flawed logic, not misleading marketing. Just one look at Apple's website is enough to remind us that the mini is at the bottom of the Mac foodchain

[jon l. dawson]

Originally posted by power142:

To our trolling audience: I'm no Mac zealot and I will employ whatever machine is required to do a specific job, Mac or otherwise. I don't care, so long as it does its job well enough. To me, hoping that a Mac mini, regardless of clock speed or browser, could compete with a high-performance PC processor-driven computer is flawed logic, not misleading marketing. Just one look at Apple's website is enough to remind us that the mini is at the bottom of the Mac foodchain

You're absolutely right, and that is also my philosophy and approach to computers- use what works best for the job. With that sometimes comes a sacrifice of one thing for another, like speed for usability. Even though I have a custom buit, really sleek looking 3Ghz P4 - 1GB RAM, 200GB HD, Radeon 9800 AIW, DVD dual layer burner -- (It's also interesting to note regarding resale of Mac vs. Pc that I could probably sell this PC on eBay for about the same as my Mini would go for), I've decided to use the Mac as my all purpose computer, for internet web and email and chat, photo and music libraries, organizing and storing my documents, writing, and more. For example I was originally going to keep using the PC for audio recording and processing, but I've gotten into using the Mac so much, and I have the same software on both platforms, that I'm going to give it a try on it instead. I may not be able to use as many plugins have as many audio tracks, but it's something I'm willing to work with, because I really enjoy the whole Mac experience and can't afford a dual G5 now. If anything I have the PC to fall back on. It's nice when I can have both of them running, then turn off the PC and have it become near silent in the room. Ah, peace and quiet.

If you're looking for raw speed, the Mac Mini is not for you. If you're the type of user who runs Windows XP and sets the theme to look like Windows 2000 with all the animations disabled, OS X is probably not for you.

Provided it's not your job, I think what it comes down to is using what you like. That's what I am doing. I really enjoy using my Mini and OS X, I don't have to do so much tinkering around with the system. Coming from a Linux and BSD background I'm at ease knowing that it's got the BSD subsystem under the hood if I ever need to do anything more complex, but I rarely find myself using the Terminal for anything but ssh.

This is what I'll say. When it works, the Mac does "just work". There are always some users who don't have that experience, and I'm sorry that has to be the case. For the large majority though, it really does just work, it's not just some phrase from Apple marketing. When I'm able to sit at the computer and focus on what I came on it to do, rather than maintaining the operating system and using to me what feels like an almost primitive UI compared to even OS 9 (personal opinion, don't get mad), it's a lot less like work, and a lot more fun, so I get a lot more accomplished. That is the bottom line for me.

I'm not a mac zealot, I have no loyalty to any company, and that's what Apple is, just some company trying to make money. This is the first Mac I've used as my full time computer. No it's not as fast as my P4, probably not anywhere close. For what it's worth, I have Firefox optimized for G4 on here with the speed tweak (multiple connections, no delay before drawing window), and it's just as fast as its PC counterpart, honest. Safari is definitely slower, I use it because of its Keychain intergration and really awesome bookmarks management which also I can sync with my iBook. The cpu, the hd, the video card, the dvd burner, all of those are slower, so why do I use it? I like it, that's why. It "just works", for me. And in two years hopefully the Mini will still be around and I can just swap this one out for a new one and double or triple my speed. For now I have to work within some limitations and that's ok, I knew that going in, and I'm going to make the most of what I have. So far there's nothing I haven't been able to do with this that I've wanted to.

In closing, use what you like. If you were dissatisfied with the Mini, sell it and go back to the PC. It's just not for you then. There's nothing wrong with that.

[MrGoo]

Originally posted by power142:
To our trolling audience: I'm no Mac zealot and I will employ whatever machine is required to do a specific job, Mac or otherwise. I don't care, so long as it does its job well enough. To me, hoping that a Mac mini, regardless of clock speed or browser, could compete with a high-performance PC processor-driven computer is flawed logic, not misleading marketing. Just one look at Apple's website is enough to remind us that the mini is at the bottom of the Mac foodchain

I see no trolls here. I see a couple Mac zealots. Most of the posts have been rather rational and objective. I do have a question though, why do many (I'm not pointing out anyone here) Mac owners seem to take such a defensive approach with their machines? I own both and I'd be hard press to defend either platform for any reason. I see the strengths in both of them and I also recongize many weaknesses in both platforms. I do believe however you are far less likely to encounter a PC Zealot than a Mac Zealot.

Now for the positive side of my post. I believe that Apple is in a position to take a chunk of the computer market from Microsoft. The real question is if Apple is interested in doing so. Apples are a premium machine and the mini is no exception. Should be interesting to see what Apple does, I'm thinking they don't really care about the computer market. Service models are a far better model.

[robco]

Originally posted by hudson1:
Mac users don't "toss" their hardware when they upgrade. They either keep their current machines for good use or they sell it. The market is much better for used Mac equipment than for used PCs. It's the PCs that are much more likely to be tossed so the risk of going with an AIO Mac system is overblown.

The hardware diversity issue isn't as big as it may seem, either. In addition to the desktop AIO's (iMad and eMac) the PowerMac is fully upgradeable and the Mac mini can be custom ordered in several different combinations that would fit just about any interested buyer in the $500 to $1000 price range for a non-AIO machine.

Exactly, however you have to sell the whole machine, that's my point. If I buy a nice iMac G5 with a 20" LCD and want something faster, I can't keep that nice 20" display to use with my next machine. If I decide that the graphics card just isn't keeping up as well as I'd like, tough luck, I have no choice but to replace the entire machine.

The PowerMac is the only fully-upgradeable machine in Apple's product line. If you don't want an AIO, and want expandability and you don't want to drop $1500+ on a PowerMac, you're SOL. Are the eMac/iMac bad machines? Absolutely not. They're great - if you don't mind not being able to change out components or take pieces of the system with you when you upgrade. I can get a mini and a nice LCD. In a few years, I can replace just the mini with a new mini and keep my current display, etc. and it will be pretty inexpensive. Or, I can even save up and replace the mini with a tower in the future. With an e/iMac, I have to throw out the baby with the bathwater as it were and replace the whole widget. Not all users want that and their concerns are perfectly valid.

Many PC consumers are used to having the ability and peace of mind of knowing they can upgrade their existing systems, even if most don't.

[mappingman]

You are talking about Pro tasks here. If you want to perform Pro work, get a Pro Mac, if you want a home based Mac for email web browsing, iPhoto, etc., then get a Mini. You are comparing Golden Deliciuos to Granny Smith here.

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. 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.

[iREZ]

Uhhhh.....that was sarcasm. Did you read the rest of the post I made, or am I confusing your response towards someone else as one directed towards me. I think the mini is a great machine in the new Mac lineup.

[PookJP]

Originally posted by 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.

You're talking to a bunch of people on a Mac message board. They're not normal people. They speak in hyperbole, using words like "awful," "maddening," "intolerable," and "insane" whenever something doesn't quite meet their unbelievably high expectations. They do not have perspective. They do not realize what classifies as a significant issue. They do not understand what normal people expect and need in a computer.

In short, they live in a fish bowl, and honestly believe it's a significant event when their little plastic tree shifts a few centimeters.

[chrisutley]

Originally posted by Hanul:
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).

There is most certainly a noticeable difference. Everything from processor to RAM and your video card play a role in how big the difference is.

[OtisWild]

Originally posted by PookJP:
You're talking to a bunch of people on a Mac message board. They're not normal people. They speak in hyperbole, using words like "awful," "maddening," "intolerable," and "insane" whenever something doesn't quite meet their unbelievably high expectations. They do not have perspective. They do not realize what classifies as a significant issue. They do not understand what normal people expect and need in a computer.

So, in other words, we're demanding consumers who expect stuff to work properly. If anything, it's PC people who put up with unforgivable retardation for the sake of a few $$$ that need to get some perspective.. It's not that Mac people have particularly high expectations, it's that MS and Dell have been beating folks heads in with a crap bat for so long they have learned to expect very little. For every "extra" dollar I spend on a Mac (which, quite frankly, has been a minimal difference for at least 5 years, given what comes standard) I save at least $10-15 in heartache.

I mean, if there were a car with the reliability and functionality of Windows, the manufacturer would have the crap sued out of it and be railroaded out of the market. But, everyone's been conditioned to eat the Holy Bill's lotus leaves and gotten used to the pain. It's like 1984, how Ingsoc conditioned everyone to be happy with their misery, and how people were bludgeoned into loving Big Brother for their misery. It's a psychological condition stemming from prolonged torture.

[ptaylor]

To address the original poster's question:

I bought a mini on Jan 22nd, the Saturday they went on sale. I had read a few articles on the internet related to it only have 256 MB of ram, so I was expecting a pitiful performance out of it until I could get the upgrade. I must say that I was happily suprised, since I was so prepared for bad perfomance... It actually wasn't that bad.

I did start having problems with fast user switching - My wife would have a browser open or something and I would switch to my session and open programs... That was when I started to see the poor performance I had come to expect... Until the upgrade arrived, we simply logged out instead of using fast user switching. I bought a 1 GIG chip from Crucial and installed it myself with my putty knife... It was easy, but a tough on the nerves.

Now, both my wife and I leave programs open without much thought and we are back to fast user switching...

I will say that OS X doesn't have the fastest browsing on the planet, though.. It isn't that bad, but I think Firefox is faster at general browsing than Safari... I like Omniweb too, but it is even slower than Safari. The version of Safari that comes with Tiger is supposed to be substantially faster than any other browser with the exception of Opera 8... I've tried it too, and it is fast. It doesn't seem to render things quite like I like them, though, so I've not bought it yet... Perhaps Opera will get things straight soon.

I still have 4 other PCs that are in service at home (3 windows, 1 linux)... The linux one is a file server for backups, one windows machine is running Sage TV (a PVR), another Windows machine is for my wife (with a Sage TV remote client to watch recordings or live TV upstairs too), and my final Windows machine is work related and houses my mail server. Technically, I have another PC, (an embedded PC running monowall) as my firewall.

Anyhow, I use my Mac for everything now, basically... So far, the one thing that I haven't found a good Mac version of is an FTP Client.. I've seen a few out there, but my favorite Windows client is FTP Voyager, and there just doesn't seem to be any competition on that level on a Mac.

Paul

[ptaylor]

Originally posted by robco:
I can get a mini and a nice LCD. In a few years, I can replace just the mini with a new mini and keep my current display, etc. and it will be pretty inexpensive. Or, I can even save up and replace the mini with a tower in the future. With an e/iMac, I have to throw out the baby with the bathwater as it were and replace the whole widget. Not all users want that and their concerns are perfectly valid.

I completely agree... I was planning to save up to buy a PowerMac because I just hate the idea of an all-in-one... Now, if money was no object at all, I wouldn't mind it...

In my "PC life", I've upgraded just about every PC that I've ever owned... Parts from one went into the next one (cards, etc., not just montiors/keyboards, etc), and I upgraded things as I had the money and desire to do so.

Now, I'm using a Mini... It isn't nearly as upgradable and re-usable as my PCs, but I don't mind. It is upgradable enough. I've upgraded the memory and I might even upgrade the drive to a 7200 RPM unit... If I really want to upgrade, I'll go for the SuperDrive...

Paul

[jon l. dawson]

I just want to say in regards to the browsing in Safari speed issue, on my Macs (iBook G3 800 and Mac Mini 1.42), I've gone and applied some of the speed tweaks that can be found by doing a google search for "safari speed". The one tweak that's made the most difference is the one which modifies the delay set in Safari before displaying a page that is loading. The default is 1.0 and I've set mine to 0.0 (as opposed to the suggested 0.25).

I'm now completely satisfied, even impressed with how Safari performs. I've consistently chosen it over Firefox because of Keychain integration & its Bookmarks management (synchronized on .Mac), but I'd use Firefox on some sites because I could move between pages faster. Not anymore. Browsing is indeed *fast* for me in Safari and I really recommend trying this out, you'll see the difference.

[lambyfish]

I bumped up the RAM to 512 and it feels just fine even with several apps open and chugging away. As noted by many others, Firefox is the key to a pleasant browsing experience. I work all day on a PC w/ a blazing T1 line; then come home to DSL & OSX and it doesn't seem slow to me at all.
I've had no problems at all with this little machine. It's not as easy to love as those various iMacs (which seem to take on their own personality over time...I think it's the all-in-one nature of those guys that makes them so like a pet). It's cool looking, simple to use, quiet, and small...the price was just right for me.

PS I have to agree with Apple upping the basic RAM provided on their machines.

[BWhaler]

I have had my mini for some time now, and I love it. (As background, I also own a D2.5 Ghz PowerMac and a 17" PowerBook.)

My general impressions are it is a great mid range desktop, perfect for Office, iLife and light use of Adobe products. If you are doing industrial strength design and editing of large files, the mini will not be for you. Short that, it is more than fast enough. And remember, it's not all things to all people--that's what the PowerMacs are for--but for 500 bucks, the mini is an incredible value.

The mini is beautiful and full featured. Just be sure to upgrade it to at least 512MB memory. Do not use it at 256MB.

[MrGoo]

Originally posted by OtisWild:
So, in other words, we're demanding consumers who expect stuff to work properly. If anything, it's PC people who put up with unforgivable retardation for the sake of a few $$$ that need to get some perspective.. It's not that Mac people have particularly high expectations, it's that MS and Dell have been beating folks heads in with a crap bat for so long they have learned to expect very little. For every "extra" dollar I spend on a Mac (which, quite frankly, has been a minimal difference for at least 5 years, given what comes standard) I save at least $10-15 in heartache.

Please tell me exactly what you mean by "unforgivable retardation for the sake of a few $$$".

Since I take it your position is that Macs are better than PCs, please tell me why they are so much better even for a couple of dollars more... Also please define "few $$$".

-Goo

[Bill Harrison]

Well, here is a comment from a guy who's pc excels 99% of the worlds.

I have a Dual Athlon XP using 2x XP M's overclocked to 2.6ghz each. 2gb of ram. 2x wd Raptor drives.

Yes, its fast. Obscenely so. With the right encoders, I can pump out divx movies in a very short amount of time.

Is it really ANY faster than my new 1.25ghz 256mb mini in my day to day tasks?

Nope. Not at all.

I notice the safari delay. This is fixable, as posted above. Not a deal breaker. I have not even done it yet. I find it very usable.

The ram is a bit low. This I can say. Is it unusable? Not at all.

Right now I have 7 programs running, using 4 of them, and tasking between them. I get a stutter now and then when it pages out. Nothing more than 1/2 second blip.

More ram would fix this, and I will be adding it shortly.

But, it works, works well, and is not slow at all for day to day tasks. And trust me, I know what fast and slow is.

Bill

[AppleCello]

Wlvis, Dont forget that while the mac approaches your Athlon machine in price, it is still cheaper WHILE including the iLife suite and all of that great apple software. Your PC didnt come with anyhting that good. So it may in fact be a slower machine, but i think the value is clear when comparing those two. You should have had your wife playing with iTuned and iPhoto. Then maybe she would have understood why you wanted a mac.

Patrick

[henbrown]

I discussed this issue with a family I've helped "switch." (Well, everyone except the CPA dad.) He was complaining that "family" iMac was slow when browsing the web. I did a side-by-side comparison and found that Safari waits to load the page information until it has gathered all of it, while MSIE for WinXP loads something (usu. a graphic) before loading the entire page. While MSIE seemed faster because it loaded a graphic first (tricking one into thinking it is faster) the entire page loads faster on Safari.

Basically, a lot of it comes down to browsing "habits," or what you are used to seeing: some of the page structure popping up instantly or the finished page loading quicker.

[sumtermug]

The problem with the browsing load speed tends to be Safari. If you want to browse at speeds like you have on your PC, go to http://www.mozilla.org and download the newest version of Firefox (1.0.1) and then follow these simple instructions (only really helps a lot if you are using broadband):

1.Type "about:config" into the address bar and hit return. Scroll down and look for the following entries:

network.http.pipelining network.http.proxy.pipelining network.http.pipelining.maxrequests

Normally the browser will make one request to a web page at a time. When you enable pipelining it will make several at once, which really speeds up page loading.

2. Alter the entries as follows:

Set "network.http.pipelining" to "true"

Set "network.http.proxy.pipelining" to "true"

Set "network.http.pipelining.maxrequests" to some number like 30. This means it will make 30 requests at once.

3. Lastly right-click anywhere and select New-> Integer. Name it "nglayout.initialpaint.delay" and set its value to "0". This value is the amount of time the browser waits before it acts on information it recieves.

If you're using a broadband connection you'll load pages MUCH faster now!

[cal6n]

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

Old news

http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/4924

It's a Safari thing, not hardware

[MrGoo]

Originally posted by AppleCello:
Wlvis, Dont forget that while the mac approaches your Athlon machine in price, it is still cheaper WHILE including the iLife suite and all of that great apple software. Your PC didnt come with anyhting that good. So it may in fact be a slower machine, but i think the value is clear when comparing those two. You should have had your wife playing with iTuned and iPhoto. Then maybe she would have understood why you wanted a mac.

Patrick

So tell me how much do you think ilife is worth? $500, $1000? iLife is neat, but it's nothing revolutionary.
Just for grins tell me why iPhoto is so good?

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1756166,00.asp

Elvis is entitled to his opinion. I can understand his frustration.. I know it's not exactly fair to compare a mini to any new PCs, it would be fairer to compare it to an older PC from about a year or two ago. Since we unfortunatly live in a windows world surfing probably isn't going to be as good on a Mac if you choose to use Safari or Firefox (gaining ground) to surf the web with so many sites that target IE.

[iREZ]

I don't understand your issues with Safari.....does it open pages too slowly? It's plenty fast for me, I don't see how it opening a page a second or two faster warrants a complaint on how crappy a $500 computer is. So your in front of your computer for an extra five minutes, it's not like you get paid to view the web. The thread title is "do you regret buying your Mac mini," not let's have a general discussion about how crappy using the web on a Mac is.

Yes the iLife suite is much better than any garbage MS hands over....Garageband, iMovie, iDVD, iTunes, and even iPhoto are much better than anything that comes with a PC, and before you go into downloads...most consumers don't even know that you could download programs for free unless they're somewhat computer savvy, and most consumers aren't.

This mini is a great computer for the price, and telling somebody to stay away from it because it's a second or two slower on Safari than your super optimized Windows browser is ridiculous. Just know that $500 dollars isn't getting you top technology and with that in your mind go buy it, use it, and forget about all this stupid childish "Mac/PC is better at this" argument.

[MrGoo]

Originally posted by iREZ:
Yes the iLife suite is much better than any garbage MS hands over....Garageband, iMovie, iDVD, iTunes, and even iPhoto are much better than anything that comes with a PC, and before you go into downloads...most consumers don't even know that you could download programs for free unless they're somewhat computer savvy, and most consumers aren't.

Just know that $500 dollars isn't getting you top technology and with that in your mind go buy it, use it, and forget about all this stupid childish "Mac/PC is better at this" argument.

Pretty funny... You start your thread by argueing that a Mac is better than a PC.. Then you finish it by saying "forget about all this stupid childish "Mac/PC is better at this" argument"..

LOL.. I'm dieing here.. I better go get me a Jack La Lanne's Power Juicer


"Change your life! Save your life! You are the most important person you have. Juicing is the easy way to help save your life!"

�Jack La Lanne

[truckweb]

I've transfered all my photos (iPhoto), MP3 (iTunes) and documents from my PC to the mini. I went with Firefox, Office 2004 Mac, GIMP, nVu.

My PC being 64bits AMD Athlon 3500+ with 1Gb RAM with SATA drives, it's far from slow. WinXP run on it without any crash or slowdown. That said, the mini does not feel slow, with 512Mb OSX seem to do a nice job. I've not turn it OFF since I have it and no crash.

Above all, it's the software. Microsoft may talk very loudly about WinXP, but it's missing something like iLife. MovieMaker2 is no match for iMovie. Nothing built in XP is like iPhoto / iDVD. Tight integration of all softwares with the OS make it very cool.

I know, if Microsoft where to do something like iLife, they would endup in court again...

So, I have no regrets. I love my mini, probably more than my PC as of now.

[OtisWild]

Originally posted by MrGoo:
Please tell me exactly what you mean by "unforgivable retardation for the sake of a few $$$".

No problem.. Registry. Macro virus capability thanks to MS featuritis. Crap multiuser capability. Installing apps can clobber existing system DLLs. You have to go to a 'Start' menu to shut down. Tons of insecure stuff enabled by default. Crap programming practices and crufty backwards compatability leading to massive and continuous security flaws in multiple subsystems (you can get hacked by displaying a F---ING JPEG?!?!?! 10 years ago that was a bloody hoax!). Crap default browser built into the OS so browser sploits become OS sploits. System instability fixable only by rebooting, various network and system changes require rebooting unnecessarily. Did I mention adware, spyware, popups, etc?

Need I continue?

Since I take it your position is that Macs are better than PCs, please tell me why they are so much better even for a couple of dollars more... Also please define "few $$$".

I think the 'unforgivable retardation' explains why Macs are superior, and it's not even a complete list.

A few $$$ is roughly 10-15 percent, and by default Macs come with _USABLE_ software rather than the lame list of demos and weak junk that come with most PCs that are only usable as coasters. Macs come with Firewire, which is standard for digital camcorders, and has superior sustained thruput to USB2. Macs popularized USB before Microsoft even wrote a driver for Windows 98, so if you like USB you can thank Apple for kickstarting the chicken/egg thing.

[iREZ]

uhh....never said that Mac was better than PC. Sure I'm going to defend the Mac when somebody says it suck but all I said was that the mini is a good computer, and you get what you pay for. Don't expect 64bit processing from a 32bit $500 computer. Go juice or something.

[MrGoo]

Apple zealots live in a bubble; you are protected mainly because of your obscurity. In short most of the world doesn't care about Macs and have no interest in trying to exploit the over-priced and over-hyped machines It�s nice of apple to include applications with their OS for free, I suspect it�s because they have to because so few company actually develop applications for their platform. I don�t hate Macs; I just don�t like the Mac community in general. I think it�s mainly made up of a bunch of masochistic elitists who like to be outcasts. The unfortunate truth for the Mac Zealots is it�s a Windows world. Windows might not be perfect, but it�s more than good enough for 97% of the computer owning population. I own both a PC and a MAC and I think OS/X is slick, but the lack of applications and ability to play nice in the windows world is the real deal killer for me.

Enough ranting tonight� Macs have a place in this world; it�s just a very small place.

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1752632,00.asp

[mbryda]

Originally posted by MrGoo:
] Since we unfortunatly live in a windows world surfing probably isn't going to be as good on a Mac if you choose to use Safari or Firefox (gaining ground) to surf the web with so many sites that target IE.

What sites? I love when people bring this argument up. I work in IT and use the Internet every day. Surf with FireFox on my PC for the past year, Mozilla for 2 before that. Never encountered any mainstream sites that wouldn't work. And the little ones that didn't, I told them why they lost my business.

Now I've been using a Mac for 3 years and same here. No real issues surfing the web. Ran across a couple sites that gave issues and promptly told them why they lost my business.

No biggies here. As more people move away from IE this will become less of an issue. Not that it's a big issue now.

[mbryda]

Originally posted by MrGoo:
Apple zealots live in a bubble; you are protected mainly because of your obscurity. In short most of the world doesn't care about Macs and have no interest in trying to exploit the over-priced and over-hyped machines

Yeah. That's why every security firm rates OSX and BSD as the most secure OS's. Or maybe it's because writing a virus/trojan/whatever for OSX is more than point and click as it is with Windows. Or that there are built in protections in the OS that help us (prompting for a password when something tries to install in the startup) be aware of what's going on.

Please. Windows is swiss-cheese security at its best. But at least it puts food on my table. But the real security is in a good OS foundation, something MS doesn't have and Apple does have with the BSD base of *NIX.

Just a little more for you. The most widely used Web server software is Apache. Yet, IIS gets hacked the most. If your theory (security by obscurity only) were true, Apache and IIS would get hacked equally with Apache getting hacked more often.

Nice try, though.

Windows might not be perfect, but it�s more than good enough for 97% of the computer owning population.

It's far from perfect. Or even far from an adequate OS.

But, Windows is less than 95% of the market. Apple has 3-5%, Linux has 2-5%, so right there is only 90-95% of the market for Winblows. Linux and Apple are gaining, so it will be interesting to watch in the coming years. Especially with MS's new "security measures" where you need to phone them for their permission to reinstall XP. See www.zdnet.com for details.

[mbryda]

Originally posted by robco:
The iMac G5 comes with a beautiful 17 or 20 inch LCD. You just can't move it to your next system, or change the video card that drives it.

I wasn't thrilled with the AIO concept when I got my 15" iMac 3 years ago. But, I analyzed my PC upgrades and each time I ended up almost redoing the whole box due to different RAM, power requirements, etc.

So now I have a 15" 1024x768 machine that's 800 Mhz (typical of the time). The speed is OK, but having gotten a new digicam, would like more screen resolution. Since I'm upgrading, more speed would be nice. So I can get another iMac with a much higher resolution screen or a Mini + display. Either way I would have been buying a new monitor + CPU. And in 3-4 more years I'll repeat the cycle as I'll want more power and resolution.

I'd probably do the iMac without thinking, but it's probably the FUGLIEST computer I've ever seen. The iLamp models are just way cooler and more functional. I can't beleive how many times I swivel the screen to show people what's going on.

Maybe the '06 redesign will get to something more appealing with the iMac....

[OtisWild]

Originally posted by MrGoo:
Apple zealots live in a bubble; you are protected mainly because of your obscurity. In short most of the world doesn't care about Macs and have no interest in trying to exploit the over-priced and over-hyped machines It�s nice of apple to include applications with their OS for free, I suspect it�s because they have to because so few company actually develop applications for their platform. I don�t hate Macs; I just don�t like the Mac community in general. I think it�s mainly made up of a bunch of masochistic elitists who like to be outcasts. The unfortunate truth for the Mac Zealots is it�s a Windows world. Windows might not be perfect, but it�s more than good enough for 97% of the computer owning population. I own both a PC and a MAC and I think OS/X is slick, but the lack of applications and ability to play nice in the windows world is the real deal killer for me.

What a bunch of crap. If 95% of your friends were jumping off a cliff, would you follow?

Seriously, given the stats and your logic of security thru obscurity, it would be safe to assume that Mac OS X has around 5% of the security exploits. Do a quick search of Bugtraq. How many public remote exploits have there been?

Also, OS X leads with its chin when it comes to security bragging. One would assume that given such a hard target more glory would come from a hack. Therefore the attention would be greater. However, Windows makes it so easy that even uneducated skript kiddies can whip up a bug from a toolkit and spraypaint their tag across the Windows population. What is the Windows / Mac virus relation? It doesn't exist, since you can't divide by zero. Macro viruses, the most egregiously stupid thing in the computing world, don't exist in OS X.

I have some sympathy for people who are forced into Windows because of their jobs or whatever, but anyone who's actually an enthusiastic Microsoft fan and who isn't being paid by Microsoft to drink their kool-aid is a delusional tool.

[abe2]

Yes, you can get optimized versions of Camino and Firefox if people would bother to look, then those whining of 'slow browsing' could finally be made to shut up as they already should have.