Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

elvis2000 · Jun 26, 2005, 10:57 PM

Originally Posted by elvis2000

I'll put an end to this right now....

http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0506intelmac.html

"Apple's System Profiler reports the graphics card as an Intel Graphics
Media Accelerator 800"

So, the Apple developer system uses Intel integrated graphics, which uses shared memory.
*cough*

Which, by the way, supports Core Image. And the "superior" Mac Mini with it's dedicated graphics memory, does not. Hmmm....

I believe this argument is over.

galarneau · Jun 26, 2005, 11:42 PM

Originally Posted by elvis2000

I believe this argument is over.

Indeed.

We'll leave it up to the reader to decide who has won, however.

discotronic · Jun 27, 2005, 01:27 PM

Originally Posted by elvis2000

Which, by the way, supports Core Image. And the "superior" Mac Mini with it's dedicated graphics memory, does not. Hmmm....

I believe this argument is over.

Is that a production Mac? I didn't think so.

iREZ · Jun 27, 2005, 02:37 PM

and it'll probably never be a production mac either....

fleaplus · Jun 27, 2005, 03:32 PM

If a revision of an Intel mac mini could use the latest intel integrated graphics and instead have two ram slots (since the intel GPU would eat into system ram, and it would leave more pcb space) i'd definitely buy it.

Actually the intel GPU is more functionally equivelent to a radeon 9600 nowadays. Even pixel shader 2.0 is done in hardware in the most recent revision.. UT2k4 is defintely playable on the windows centrino laptops, and thats probably about as much gaming as i'd want to do on a laptop anyways...

Eriamjh · Jun 27, 2005, 03:49 PM

Comparing a developer system to the cheapest shipping Mac is hardly an argument. I think you meant to go over to abuse.</Python>

elvis2000 · Jun 27, 2005, 04:12 PM

Originally Posted by Eriamjh

Comparing a developer system to the cheapest shipping Mac is hardly an argument. I think you meant to go over to abuse.</Python>

But this "shared memory" GPU at least supports Core Image, while the "dedicated memory" Mac Mini doesn't. What gives?

Agent69 · Jun 28, 2005, 08:15 AM

Having shared memory has nothing to do with a GPU's abilities. Stop being obtuse.

typoon · Jun 29, 2005, 02:36 PM

The mini was good for me. I'm running it as a light duty webserver with OS X server. I upgraded the RAM to 1GB. I'm just waiting for some money to so I can get the BT and Airport upgrade and do a DRD-R upgrade myself.

elvis2000 · Jun 30, 2005, 02:00 PM

Originally Posted by Agent69

Having shared memory has nothing to do with a GPU's abilities. Stop being obtuse.

The defending begins! C'mon -- what of all those "cheap low-end PCs with shared memory" arguments?

Agent69 · Jun 30, 2005, 02:23 PM

Shared memory is not an desired solution, because it robs the system of memory. It is also probably slower to use and access system memory than it is to use dedicated video memory. But how a graphics chipset accesses memory does not indicate the capabilities of a GPU itself.

iREZ · Jun 30, 2005, 02:32 PM

first tell us about the "im a computer geek who knows everything about computers and i'll prove it by quoting this guy and so n so, yet i still went out and bought a mac mini expecting it to be as fast if not faster than anything other than the top of the line dual G5, but i was saddened to find that it was not" argument?

mhuie · Jun 30, 2005, 02:43 PM

Is it my fault if it doesnt run decently on a 21" LCD (1600x1200)? I stopped using exposé, dashboard, and portrait mode. It runs the same than the lowest end iBook. Maybe if Apple added the disclaimer: not to be used on 18+" displays....

You guys already complain how the Powerbooks are too slow (ie no G5), why shouldn't I complain if the Mini is fast as the slowest iBook, and even worse- with a crippled video card?

Agent69 · Jun 30, 2005, 06:56 PM

I don't know about that mhuie. I went to the Apple Store and checked out a 1.42ghz Mini coupled with a 20" Apple ACD and I thought it worked okay. Maybe your expectations were too high?

pat++ · Jun 30, 2005, 07:21 PM

Originally Posted by Agent69

I don't know about that mhuie. I went to the Apple Store and checked out a 1.42ghz Mini coupled with a 20" Apple ACD and I thought it worked okay. Maybe your expectations were too high?

I tried a mini 1.42ghz at the Apple Store. It's unusable on a 20" (Expose and Dashboard are dead slow). It's MUCH slower than an iBook (because obviously, the resolution is much too high on the 20" for the video card).

galarneau · Jun 30, 2005, 07:50 PM

Originally Posted by pat++

I tried a mini 1.42ghz at the Apple Store. It's unusable on a 20" (Expose and Dashboard are dead slow). It's MUCH slower than an iBook (because obviously, the resolution is much too high on the 20" for the video card).

I went to an Apple Store several weeks ago and tried a mini with a 20" Apple Display.

Expose worked fine with 10+ windows open.

To those of you who say it's "unusable", I say get a friggin' dictionary.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=unusable

I also suggest looking up:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=half-wit

mhuie · Jun 30, 2005, 10:02 PM

Originally Posted by galarneau

I went to an Apple Store several weeks ago and tried a mini with a 20" Apple Display.

Expose worked fine with 10+ windows open.

To those of you who say it's "unusable", I say get a friggin' dictionary.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=unusable

I also suggest looking up:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=half-wit

Sure its usable if you want to see choppy, jagged motion. Is that how exposé was designed to be used? No. On a brand new computer? Hell no. Exposé is choppy with only 4 Safari windows open. Choppy = 4fps.

I suppose you could have 10 quicktime player windows and it not be choppy.

galarneau · Jun 30, 2005, 10:33 PM

I'm going to explain it to you like you're a 4 year old so there are no misunderstandings:

1) Expose was designed to allow users to quickly see open windows or move all windows on/off screen.

2) The programmers who designed Expose designed it so that windows would move in the span of less than 1 second.

3) If the video card or processor is too busy to draw every frame of the animation, then that frame is dropped at the expense of having a smooth animation.

4) If Apple didn't do this, then the movement of windows on slower or very busy machines would take longer than 1 second, thus making Expose less usable.

5) The fact that they make the tradeoff of having occassionally rough animation in order to get the windows moved/offscreen in the proper amount of time (<1 sec) PRESERVES usability on slower/heavily used machines.

6) If you can't understand why this compromise occurs to preserve the usability of Expose on slower machines, you're really not thinking very hard.

7) If you can't accept that Apple had to make compromises to reach the $500 price point, you may want to consider therapy to help you come to grips with this obviously traumatic time in your life. There are many self-help groups that may be able to lend assistance.

In conclusion:

The fact that Apple didn't build the machine you wanted for $500 does not make the mini junk.

It works just fine for many, many things... for many,many people.

If you can't admit when you're wrong, you're going to have a very hard time dealing with people the rest of your life.

mhuie · 11:18 PM

Thanks for the personal attacks.

#3, the GPU is too busy because it is too weak. It makes it worse on large monitors. This is a valid point.

Who cares how much I spent. I could have spent $200 and it still would be an issue.

Maybe if you actually had a mini running @ 1600x1200 you would have a valid point.

"It works just fine for many, many things... for many,many people."
Thats nice, it doesn't work fine for me. Your point again?

Different people have different needs. I use portrait mode a lot to read O'Reilly books (safari.oreilly.com). It unusable for me. I find it painful to use exposé when it is so choppy. Maybe you have lower standards?

If this thread pisses you off so much, don't post. It's actually quite amusing seeing people getting so worked up about someones opinion on something about a product that most in this thread don't even own.

galarneau · Jun 30, 2005, 11:20 PM

Hey, someone needs to post reasonable well thought out arguments to counter the FUD you've been spewing.

... and those weren't ad hominem attacks. Those would be something like "you're an idiot"

Originally Posted by mhuie

Thanks for the personal attacks.

#3, the GPU is too busy because it is too weak. It makes it worse on large monitors. This is a valid point.

Who cares how much I spent. I could have spent $200 and it still would be an issue.

Maybe if you actually had a mini running @ 1600x1200 you would have a valid point.

If this thread pisses you off so much, don't post. It's actually quite amusing seeing people getting so worked up about someones opinion on something about a product that most in this thread don't even own.

mhuie · Jul 1, 2005, 03:03 PM

Originally Posted by galarneau

Hey, someone needs to post reasonable well thought out arguments to counter the FUD you've been spewing.

... and those weren't ad hominem attacks. Those would be something like "you're an idiot"

Unlike you and most other people in this thread, I have a Mini. Other people in this thread have posted good experiences, I don't feel the need to argue that fact with them. I actually *can't* argue with them because I'm not running the same setup as them.

If people would post constructively, I wouldn't have to reply to every post that was attacking/insulting/flaming me, whatever you want to call it.

If you feel the need to rush to Apple's aid everytime someone posts an opinion of an Apple product, well thats not my problem.

elvis2000 · Jul 1, 2005, 04:10 PM

Originally Posted by mhuie

Unlike you and most other people in this thread, I have a Mini. Other people in this thread have posted good experiences, I don't feel the need to argue that fact with them. I actually *can't* argue with them because I'm not running the same setup as them.

If people would post constructively, I wouldn't have to reply to every post that was attacking/insulting/flaming me, whatever you want to call it.

If you feel the need to rush to Apple's aid everytime someone posts an opinion of an Apple product, well thats not my problem.

Right on. Similarly, I also owned a Mini for about a month before selling on ebay due to all of the issues I've pointed on on this forum. I even bought a new monitor because my old one (Viewsonic 20" LCD) didn't work properly (replicated problem in CompUSA with same model combo). Why would I go through all that trouble just to be a "mac basher". Quite the contrary... I wanted it to work out, and was highly dissapointed. Many of the defenders here have never used one, and have no idea. They just blindly defend Apple.

Tyr. · Jul 5, 2005, 09:43 PM

I registered to post this because this thread has to contain some of the biggest bull I've heard. This post is to offset that for people reading it thinking of getting a mini.

First off, I am a switcher. My other system is a self-built AthlonXP 1800+ with a gig RAM and GeforceFX5200 256Mb. My mini is a 1.42 (os 10.4.1) with 512 RAM and superdrive.

The tasks I use a computer for : email, browsing, im, music download, DVD viewing, some gaming, coding (python/java/c). I am a unix admin - a unix-like os is a plus.

Why I like the mini :
- exposé rocks - I haven't seen "choppyness" despite reasonable load (firefox/adium/azureus/mail/itunes/activitymonitor/desktopmanager open) probably because of the "low" resolution : 1024x768 on a 19" crt.
- my gaming needs are simple : civilization3, c64/amiga emulation and a handfull of simple games. The mini handles all this (and more) just fine.
- I love the small size - anything bigger and I would have gotten a Shuttle pc instead
- the silence is amazing and worth the price alone
- I already have a display, no need to put it in the computer thank you very much
- computer no matter how advanced are obsolete in about 2 years. Buy cheap now and spend the money on accessories or save it for in 2 years time.
- the only slowness I have seen is when swapping in an app due to the slow disk. Even this is not really slow compared to a spyware infested pc and would be completely avoided by keeping the number of open apps down.

Bottom line : I am a satisfied customer. The mini satisfies all my needs and will completely replace the more expensive pc. Most computers, like most software these days, are full of crap you don't use anyway - it's just there to make it look impressive. The mini goes the other route : "good enough" hardware in a sexy small package.

mhuie · Jul 12, 2005, 05:00 AM

As I just purchased another 19" LCD, running the Mini on it is MUCH more responsive. Window resizing, moving and scrolling is much better. Programs even seem to load faster (?) On par with my Powerbook for general use.

I guess that 30+% decrease in resolution helps a lot. (My 21" 1600x1200, vs this 19" 1280x1024).

iREZ · Jul 12, 2005, 12:09 PM

Originally Posted by Tyr.

- the only slowness I have seen is when swapping in an app due to the slow disk. Even this is not really slow compared to a spyware infested pc and would be completely avoided by keeping the number of open apps down.

if you wanna speed this process up...get more RAM. the more RAM you have the more apps you could keep open.

Kyros · Jul 13, 2005, 02:57 AM

I don't see why people are complaining that the mini is as slow as an iBook. Look at the specs side-by-side. Of course the mini is no faster than an iBook, they are almost identical. Did you think the mini had some sort of magical powers?

mhuie · Jul 13, 2005, 03:23 AM

Originally Posted by Kyros

I don't see why people are complaining that the mini is as slow as an iBook. Look at the specs side-by-side. Of course the mini is no faster than an iBook, they are almost identical. Did you think the mini had some sort of magical powers?

Well when the iBook is driving a 12"/14" LCD, and you're trying to run the Mini on a 21" LCD, of course theres a difference. The Mini is a lot slower. Your point again?

elvis2000 · Jul 13, 2005, 02:48 PM

Yes -- people should *not* be using a Mini with a high-resolution monitor. Even 1280x1024 is pushing it with only 32MB VRAM.

galarneau · Jul 14, 2005, 10:58 AM

Originally Posted by elvis2000

Yes -- people should *not* be using a Mini with a high-resolution monitor. Even 1280x1024 is pushing it with only 32MB VRAM.

Yes, elvis2000 and mhuie are correct.

If you try to use a mac mini with a monitor at resolutions higher than 1280x1024, your dog will get fleas, your credit score will drop by 130 points, and you may suffer permanant neurological damage to your frontal lobes.

You have been warned.

Thank you elvis2000 and mhuie for looking out for us.

iREZ · Jul 14, 2005, 12:05 PM

you guys are ignorant...my cousin uses his mini on the older 23" HD cinema displays (plastic bezel) and it works just fine. i have to use it at my work place sometimes when i need bigger screen and it hasn't hiccuped on me yet. granted im comparing this to my 867ghz tower, but if i could use the mini for prepress work professionally im sure people at home can use it for most of their needs.

JUST BECAUSE EXPOSE IS CHOPPY DOESNT MEAN IT DOESNT WORK!!!! F9 ALL MY PROGRAMS ARE RIGHT THERE, F11 EVERYTHING IS OFF SCREEN, AND F12 DASHBOARD IS UP AND ALL THIS IS IN LESS THAN A SECOND...HOW IS THIS SLOW? OR UNUSABLE?

discotronic · Jul 14, 2005, 12:39 PM

Originally Posted by iREZ

you guys are ignorant

JUST BECAUSE EXPOSE IS CHOPPY DOESNT MEAN IT DOESNT WORK!!!! F9 ALL MY PROGRAMS ARE RIGHT THERE, F11 EVERYTHING IS OFF SCREEN, AND F12 DASHBOARD IS UP AND ALL THIS IS IN LESS THAN A SECOND...HOW IS THIS SLOW? OR UNUSABLE?

I have to agree. Expose was choppy on my PowerMac G5 1.8GHz until I updated to 10.4.2. Was my Mac slow until the update? I don't think so.

I would like to know how Expose being choppy ever kept anyone from doing real work. If people can't get their work done because of this then they don't have real work to do.

the_shadow · Jul 14, 2005, 01:31 PM

Even I have to answer to this one, dude, c'mon, you are spending about $600 in a desktop. What do you expect? Top of the line quality and speed?

turtle777 · Jul 14, 2005, 01:46 PM

Can't believe this thread and all the

is still alive.

-t

Macpilot · Jul 15, 2005, 08:21 PM

The Mac mini is targeted at people on a budget! Windows-switchers especially. People who don't want to spend more than $500 to $700. While it is too slow for me, there are many people it suits well.

Those people are not going to blow $800 on an Apple Display, and probably already have a Display, hence the "bring your own Display, Keyboard, and Mouse"!

I would say that it is a great machine for its price. And I am sure many mini owners would happily agree.

TomR · Jul 15, 2005, 09:13 PM

As I've said, I LOVE mine!

Well worth the money IMHO....

Tom

elvis2000 · Jul 15, 2005, 11:54 PM

Originally Posted by the_shadow

Even I have to answer to this one, dude, c'mon, you are spending about $600 in a desktop. What do you expect? Top of the line quality and speed?

For $600 you can do very well on the PC side of the fence. You guys might not think so... but $600 is *not* exactly "cheap" in the computer world anymore.

mhuie · Jul 16, 2005, 12:15 AM

Originally Posted by iREZ

you guys are ignorant...my cousin uses his mini on the older 23" HD cinema displays (plastic bezel) and it works just fine. i have to use it at my work place sometimes when i need bigger screen and it hasn't hiccuped on me yet. granted im comparing this to my 867ghz tower, but if i could use the mini for prepress work professionally im sure people at home can use it for most of their needs.

JUST BECAUSE EXPOSE IS CHOPPY DOESNT MEAN IT DOESNT WORK!!!! F9 ALL MY PROGRAMS ARE RIGHT THERE, F11 EVERYTHING IS OFF SCREEN, AND F12 DASHBOARD IS UP AND ALL THIS IS IN LESS THAN A SECOND...HOW IS THIS SLOW? OR UNUSABLE?

Of course it works fine. It is acceptable performance? No. Can you get work done on it? Of course. I can get work done on a 300mhz machine, your point?

Finder, moving window, scrolling, resizing is slow. I guess you guys have selective reading.

Try again when you actually have the setup IN FRONT of you.

mhuie · 03:33 AM

Originally Posted by galarneau

Yes, elvis2000 and mhuie are correct.

If you try to use a mac mini with a monitor at resolutions higher than 1280x1024, your dog will get fleas, your credit score will drop by 130 points, and you may suffer permanant neurological damage to your frontal lobes.

You have been warned.

Thank you elvis2000 and mhuie for looking out for us.

And if you stopped posting garbage maybe this thread would die?

Originally Posted by the_shadow

Even I have to answer to this one, dude, c'mon, you are spending about $600 in a desktop. What do you expect? Top of the line quality and speed?

I don't care if the Mini cost $200, the point is, on large LCD's the UI performance is just terrible. I'm sorry if I have a decent standard of how the UI should function. Way slower than my friend's iBook 1ghz.

But no one will ever get my point because someone will post the fact that the iBook costs more than the Mini.

galarneau · Jul 17, 2005, 12:30 PM

Originally Posted by mhuie

And if you stopped posting garbage maybe this thread would die?

Wow, we actually agree on something.

iREZ · Jul 18, 2005, 01:39 PM

mhuie...your friends ibook reacts better for gui because it's only pushing a 12" screen...run it in spanning mode and then tell me that the ibook handles better than the mini. you really are ignorant. i know my powerbook has a tough time handling my 20" dell flatscreen when it comes to graphic performance...but im not prepared to say that my powerbook is unusable or anything of the sort.

legacyb4 · Jul 18, 2005, 01:43 PM

Hmm, I guess that the Mac Mini is bad enough that in Japan, OCN (ISP) is running a campaign that gets you hooked up on 100Mbit Fiber including installation, paperwork, and throws in a Mac Mini (1.25/40GB) for a measly JPY30,000 (which is about US$275)...

mhuie · Jul 18, 2005, 03:16 PM

Originally Posted by iREZ

mhuie...your friends ibook reacts better for gui because it's only pushing a 12" screen...run it in spanning mode and then tell me that the ibook handles better than the mini. you really are ignorant. i know my powerbook has a tough time handling my 20" dell flatscreen when it comes to graphic performance...but im not prepared to say that my powerbook is unusable or anything of the sort.

Yes, I'm ignorant because Apple's marketing is BYODKM. I brought my own display. The mini runs like crap. Sure, I guess it's my fault that I followed their advice.

ApplCmptrDood · Jul 18, 2005, 04:05 PM

I can see both sides of the arguement. I don't think it's a joke, but all you need to have it run better is some more RAM (i have a mac mini with only 256 RAM, and the expose is fine, but dashboard takes forever to load if i have lots of widgets up. The main thing to do is to upgrade your RAM.

Jawbone54 · Jul 20, 2005, 12:04 PM

It's quite obvious (especially since Stevie J flat out said it) that the Mini was designed to introduce price-sensitive PC users to Mac OSX, especially those who have become interested in Apple products due to their (incredibly wise) purchase of an iPod. It's not designed to impress anyone with its performance, which is mediocre at best. Like ApplCmptrDood said, you need at least 512 MB of RAM for Tiger to run on a Mini. If someone wants a slight performance upgrade, spend $1,300 on an iMac. If you want serious performance, then spend $2,000 on a Power Mac. If you want the bare necessities, spend $500 on a Mini.

alimunnik · Jul 21, 2005, 07:11 PM

I have some sympathy for ehuie's jaundiced view of Apple's marketing style. While the Mini is good value for the money, Apple fosters unrealistic great expectations with it's gung-ho advertising; e.g. "blistering" effects from a 32 VRAM card, "screaming" applications with 256 memory and so on. While it is the nature of advertising to exaggerate, it is not surprising that less market savvy buyers of lower end Mac products, such as the Mini and iBook complain of getting something less than they bargained for.

ApplCmptrDood · Jul 22, 2005, 12:39 PM

my iBoook works fine on 256 megs of RAM, and i use the exct same stuff on there as i do on my mac mini which befuddles me. i'm begging my dad for some more RAM but he says no... where should i get some good cheap RAM?

xira · Jul 23, 2005, 04:53 PM

I'm using a Mini at 1280x1024, Expose is smooth for me.. maybe he's having some VRAM problems.

He's obviously taking the topic far too seriously.. If you want blazing performance, buy a PowerMac and stfu.

mhuie · Jul 23, 2005, 08:25 PM

Originally Posted by xira

I'm using a Mini at 1280x1024, Expose is smooth for me.. maybe he's having some VRAM problems.

He's obviously taking the topic far too seriously.. If you want blazing performance, buy a PowerMac and stfu.

If you would actually READ the posts. I'm running it @ 1600x1200.

Anyways, already a step ahead of you, I have a PowerMac now.

mhuie · Jul 23, 2005, 08:35 PM

Originally Posted by alimunnik

I have some sympathy for ehuie's jaundiced view of Apple's marketing style. While the Mini is good value for the money, Apple fosters unrealistic great expectations with it's gung-ho advertising; e.g. "blistering" effects from a 32 VRAM card, "screaming" applications with 256 memory and so on. While it is the nature of advertising to exaggerate, it is not surprising that less market savvy buyers of lower end Mac products, such as the Mini and iBook complain of getting something less than they bargained for.

I was not expecting "screaming" speed or even any fancy effects. I wanted a simple machine that would browse the web and check e-mail. I haven't even tried to play a game on it yet.

The simple fact is, that @ 1600x1200, using the Mini is painful. I have 1gb in mine and have even tried running it off my LaCie firewire HD. Performance is fine, the problem is with the user interface.

If people would actually read my posts, I stated earlier that on my 19" LCD, running @ 1280x1024, the mini runs perfectly fine.

rpm126 · Jul 24, 2005, 01:02 AM

Originally Posted by mhuie

Who said circles? If I buy a NEW desktop computer 1 year later than I bought my Powerbook, c'mon, you don't expect the NEW computer to be FASTER? Maybe its just me, but I expect any newer desktop machine to be faster than my PB.

HAY GUYS MY BRAND NEW HONDA CIVIC ISNT AS FAST AS MY 5-YEAR OLD CORVETTE, WHAT GIVES!!?!?111