Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Mrjinglesusa · Mar 9, 2009, 07:54 PM

Wel I received my new Mini today. Typical Apple, it showed up earlier than expected.

Using a mini-DVI to HDMI adapter, I connected it through HDMI to my LCD (46" 1080p) and booted her up (still waiting for the adapter to attach optical audio to my receiver). Mini resolution was adjusted instantaneously to display full 1080p according to Displays Pane.

Everything looks great so far. I'm using DiNovo EDGE for input and sitting on my couch some 7-8 feet away text is crystal clear and more than readable. I could easily web browse, email, etc. with no eye strain.

I still need to upgrade the RAM to 4 GB but this Mini is going to be the perfect HTPC for me.

driven · Mar 10, 2009, 11:22 AM

Encouraging post. Thanks!

MikeD · Mar 10, 2009, 09:13 PM

Would you guys say that if I have a stock dual 2.7ghz G5, a new loaded mac mini could replace it and be 'faster'? I'm guessing that I can only sell my 2.7 dual for about the price (if not even less) than a new mac mini. Then the mini can hold me over until I can get a new MacPro.

What do you guys think? I have the 250GB drive and 2.5gb ram.

iREZ · Mar 10, 2009, 09:31 PM

You should be able to fetch a little more than 600 dollars for your machine. Remember that your G5 is upgradeable whereas the mini is very limited when it comes to upgrades.

Simon · Mar 11, 2009, 03:41 AM

The Mac mini is indeed very limited. In terms of raw CPU power a 2.26 GHz Penryn can compete with a 2.7 GHz dual G5. But a system isn't just about CPU speed. Keep in mind things like memory, disk speed (the Mac mini's stock drive is slow), and PCI expansion.

If you don't need the expansion and you consider installing a really fast disk (like the Momentus 7200.4) you might get by. Especially if you just need something to hold you over until Apple get their act together with the MP. But if you're the kind of person that bought a PM because they needed the tower's expansion options the Mac mini is hardly the right choice.

MikeD · Mar 11, 2009, 11:34 AM

I don't have any pci cards in the dual G5. I have one extra internal drive that I could put in an external enclosure I guess (That system I believe could only hold 2 drives total. I'm also guessing that power consumption is a lot more in the powermac dual g5 vs the mac mini and that the mini would handle apps better just due to the faster processor. I may edit some iMovie and encode with handbrake and both those tasks should be better in the new mac mini right?

Overall, I'm hoping that I can get something faster in the meantime than the dual g5 without having to spend too much money.

Mrjinglesusa · Mar 11, 2009, 12:03 PM

Originally Posted by MikeD

I don't have any pci cards in the dual G5. I have one extra internal drive that I could put in an external enclosure I guess (That system I believe could only hold 2 drives total. I'm also guessing that power consumption is a lot more in the powermac dual g5 vs the mac mini and that the mini would handle apps better just due to the faster processor. I may edit some iMovie and encode with handbrake and both those tasks should be better in the new mac mini right?

Overall, I'm hoping that I can get something faster in the meantime than the dual g5 without having to spend too much money.

Some "benchmarks" (2.26 GHz, 4 GB RAM, 250 GB 5400 HD):

1) Ripping "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" (full disk extraction with MTR -- 7.09 GB) took 34 minutes

2) Encoding the resulting TS folder using Handbrake (.mv4) took about 30-40 minutes.

So, if you've ripped and encoded on your G5 you might be able to do a rough comparison between the new Mini and your G5.

Kenneth · Mar 11, 2009, 08:49 PM

I placed my order on Monday with the following upgrade from Apple, 2.26Ghz/4GB RAM/250GB HDD. It should arrive by next Monday.

Simon · 03:32 AM

Congratulations!

Don't forget to post your initial impressions.

Realtime · Mar 12, 2009, 11:22 AM

Simon,
What are your thoughts on 2.26 vs. 2.0 Mini? Also loaded-up Mini vs. basic (assuming no subsequent self installs/upgrades).

Simon · Mar 12, 2009, 01:55 PM

Originally Posted by Realtime

Simon,
What are your thoughts on 2.26 vs. 2.0 Mini?

I don't think paying $150 on top of $599 for a mere 13% CPU clock increase it worth it. On one hand the CPU is soldered now, so you better upgrade it now if you think you'll ever need it. On the other hand, if you're really worried about maximum performance I don't think you should be looking at a Mac mini anyway.

Also loaded-up Mini vs. basic (assuming no subsequent self installs/upgrades).

If you're not going to add anything yourself, you should definitely go with the 2.26 GHz model. 1 GB RAM will never be enough, the 120 GB disk is too small. Along with the CPU upgrade, I'd say that's $200 well spent (if you wouldn't consider upgrading components yourself).

Realtime · Mar 12, 2009, 02:42 PM

Thanks for the advice, I tend to agree. If you're going to be committed to the Mini either over time or as the main desktop, the 2.26 along with at least 2gb RAM and the 320 drive is worth it.

BTW, I was just reading today that in addition to the obvious additional capacity, the 320 drive outperforms the 120 base standard (single vs. dual platter).

Undo Redo · Mar 12, 2009, 11:40 PM

Got my new (low end) mini today and immediately installed 4GB RAM. (Took about 20 minutes.) Left the drive as is because I'll be using an external FW800 drive for media files. I reloaded the OS, without the extra fonts, printer drivers, and software. (Gained 9GB of disk space on the internal boot drive.)

I'll be using the mini as a file server, HTPC and DVR. Watching HD video purchased from iTunes, I can't hear the fan running at all. On my previous C2D mini or MacBook, the fan would be running fast and loud when playing HD video.

So far I'm impressed! With the inclusion of FW800, an extra USB port and cooler internals, this is a nice upgrade; finally!