Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Hanul · May 21, 2005, 04:25 PM

I switched completely to the Mac platform after 2.5 years of using a PowerBook and a Desktop PC side by side. I ordered a mini the day it was announced and had it since Feb 2nd. I sold it to a friend 2 days ago. It was a 1.42GHz, 512MB RAM, SD, AE, BT. Got my money back minus EUR100 for the 3 months of use I got out of it - not bad.

I sold it, because I had the feeling, it was too slow. It drove a 20" ACD (alu), it never seemed to be "snappy", apps needed more time to start than I was willing to spend watching the dancing icons in the dock. When Tiger came out and QT7 could play HD content, I tried it and it was embarrassing. Even the 720i trailers had dropped frames, and 1080i looked like a photo slideshow. HD is the future. There are already TV channels with HD content. Next year's soccer world championchip will be broadcasted as HD. My mini wouldn't allow watching it on a Mac. Why did Apple announce the year of HD and at the same time introduced a system not capable of computing it? I don't think I expected too much from the relative cheap and small system. I just realized, it didn't fulfill my needs.

Well, I won't switch back. I ordered a dual 2GHz PowerMac

. Any mini user doing a similar "upgrade"? Are you all satisfied with the mini's performance? The only thing I will be missing is the small formfactor.

the_glassman · May 21, 2005, 04:30 PM

I almost ordered a Mini to replace my aging eMac, but when the new iMacs were announced, I decided to order one of those. It's been delayed a few times and I think I'm going to cancel and try to get a ahold of a dual refurbished Powermac.

The Mini is a great little computer, but I'm looking towards the next revision which will hopefully fix some of the small shortcomings.

mportuesi · May 22, 2005, 03:08 AM

Originally Posted by Hanul

Why did Apple announce the year of HD and at the same time introduced a system not capable of computing it? I don't think I expected too much from the relative cheap and small system. I just realized, it didn't fulfill my needs.

Are you all satisfied with the mini's performance?

If it doesn't fulfill your needs, by all means upgrade!! Apple will be happy to sell you a faster machine. But keep in mind the Mini is an entry-level machine. It simply doesn't promise the performance you can get from an iMac G5 or other machines in Apple's product line.

I think the performance from my Mini is just superb. No complaints at all. I'm using the 1.42 Ghz model with 1 GB RAM, stock (4200 rpm) hard disk. Even with the slow hard disk, I don't find the system performance a problem at all - the extra memory probably helps. But I'm not a gamer, and I don't want to watch HD content.

For my needs - low-power, quiet home server that does email/web, iTunes, iPhoto and light web development - the Mini is just fabulous for me.

mattsgotredhair · May 22, 2005, 11:59 AM

Originally Posted by Hanul

When Tiger came out and QT7 could play HD content, I tried it and it was embarrassing. Even the 720i trailers had dropped frames, and 1080i looked like a photo slideshow.

The requirements for HD are all set at a G5 as a minimum. A mac mini would in no way be able to handle these.

As for the mini itself. I bought one for my girlfriend, and it's great for her. It works a hell of a lot better than an equally priced Dell. I didn't expect it to be as fast as my powerbook, or any of the G5's I use at work. To expect that seems like an error in judgement to me.

Hanul · May 22, 2005, 01:22 PM

I hadn't thought about HD before QT7 was available. So, I was a little surprised, that 1.42GHz couldn't handle even 720i. I don't exactly, but I think the requirements for HD weren't out, when I ordered the mini. I know now, that HD is extremely taxing on any CPU, be it PPC or x86. You need a lot of horsepower. Playing a HD movie on a Pentium 4 2GHz isn't fun either.

The mini was a test run anyway. What I experienced is, that doing without a PC is fine, but I need a Mac with a G5.

nickw311 · May 22, 2005, 10:29 PM

I think I may do that in about a year. I would like some sort of low-end PM G5. Maybe the lowest DP model. I would also like to be able to entirely get rid of Windows. The only reason I keep my Dell Laptop around is to burn DVDs.

polendo · May 22, 2005, 11:41 PM

I also have a Mini and for me it all boils down to MS Office and the apps that come in Tiger.. so for me it´s a fine computer. I don´t really look into having the HD stuff in my monitor.. but if you are a video graphics intensive user then I guess that no less than a G5 will do with a capable video card.

Eug Wanker · May 22, 2005, 11:42 PM

I was testing a Mac mini with a 20" screen today at the Toronto Yorkdale Apple Store.

For most stuff it felt merely adequate, but for Exposé it was unbearable. That 32 MB RAM for the GPU is definitely way too low. I'd like to see its next iteration bumped to 64 MB, with a Core Image capable GPU.

Then I tried the iMac G5. It screamed in comparison. It was so much nicer in just about every way.

BTW, here is my QT7 H.264 HD performance table. An iMac will do 720p, but drops frames for 1080p. 720p plays at 12 fps on my TiBook 1 GHz. Despite being only 12 fps, it's not *that* bad...

Randman · May 22, 2005, 11:51 PM

Naturally, a mini won't do as well as a PM or iMac. It's basically a monitorless iBook. And as the poster above said, my mini doesn't match my PB17 in performance but it's not bad.
I have 1GB of ram on a 1.42 and it gets the job done. It's perfect for my needs, having a second Mac, letting me keep my music collection on it to free up 45GB from the PB and letting me have my monitor and external HDs and printer and other stuff hooked up all of the time while letting me keep the PB portable.

The original poster went with a dual PM, which is a world apart from a Mac mini. If anything, he should have done a little research first into what he needed.

Big Mac · May 23, 2005, 06:11 AM

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

I was testing a Mac mini with a 20" screen today at the Toronto Yorkdale Apple Store.

For most stuff it felt merely adequate, but for Exposé it was unbearable. That 32 MB RAM for the GPU is definitely way too low. I'd like to see its next iteration bumped to 64 MB, with a Core Image capable GPU.

Then I tried the iMac G5. It screamed in comparison. It was so much nicer in just about every way.

BTW, here is my QT7 H.264 HD performance table. An iMac will do 720p, but drops frames for 1080p. 720p plays at 12 fps on my TiBook 1 GHz. Despite being only 12 fps, it's not *that* bad...

How many windows were you working with in order to make Expose unusable? Even my iBook can handle Expose acceptably. Anyone who expects the ultra-low cost mini to really perform well (especially with the anemic stock RAM installed) really needs an adjustment of expectations.

stinch · 06:55 AM

People do appear to expect far to much from it. The op wants a faster cpu, someone else wants a faster gpu and someone else a fast 3.5" hd. If apple upped all those specs it wouldn't do what they wanted anymore.

Perhaps apple should produce a bigger mini that is just an imac without the screen. I want something more powerful than a mini but don't want a built in screen or a big tower. The mini and the powermac are just too far apart.

Randman · May 23, 2005, 06:48 AM

Next people will be asking when the Mac mini will go G5.

stinch · May 23, 2005, 06:53 AM

dp

ajprice · May 23, 2005, 07:08 AM

When will the Mac mini go G5?

Eug Wanker · May 23, 2005, 08:40 AM

Originally Posted by Big Mac

How many windows were you working with in order to make Expose unusable?

4

Even my iBook can handle Expose acceptably.

Your screen is only 1024x768.

Anyone who expects the ultra-low cost mini to really perform well (especially with the anemic stock RAM installed) really needs an adjustment of expectations.

The unit had 512 MB. Consider my expectations adjusted. I did not have high expectations, and it still failed to meet them.

Originally Posted by stinch

People do appear to expect far to much from it. The op wants a faster cpu, someone else wants a faster gpu and someone else a fast 3.5" hd. If apple upped all those specs it wouldn't do what they wanted anymore.

I'm expecting that the next Mac mini will get a faster CPU, and a Core Image capable GPU, possibly with 64 MB GPU memory too.

Hanul · May 23, 2005, 09:44 AM

There is always something to complain or the yet to be released dream machine for someone. I think the mini is a nice system, but I found out, I need more power.

Still, there is an empty space between the mini and the PowerMac. Something with the formfactor of an Shuttle XPC with a G5. The mini isn't the headless iMac a lot of us would like to buy. If I glance over the product lines in the 90s over at apple-history.com, I have the impression, there was more choice. A low-cost Mac, something for the "semi-pro" and the professional. It would be nice to have the innards of an 20" iMac in a seperate box, but not as big as a PM tower.

Anyway, I'm expecting my new PM to arrive tomorrow

Hi I'm Ben · May 23, 2005, 10:40 AM

Originally Posted by stinch

dp

Dual processors in a $500 computer?...

thereubster · May 23, 2005, 05:54 PM

I think he meant double post... And I agree about the Shuttle XPC form factor, it would allow much cheaper full size drives (HD and optical) and better cooling as well. It could still be smaller than a shuttle and fit 2 HD and one optical. But hey! its Apple, so form over function wins every time.....

polendo · May 24, 2005, 01:10 PM

IMHO, low cost and semi pro/pro equipment don't mesh. Is like water and oil.

hudson1 · May 24, 2005, 04:27 PM

Originally Posted by polendo

IMHO, low cost and semi pro/pro equipment don't mesh. Is like water and oil.

And a form factor that requires the use of laptop components only aggravates that trade-off.

As was stated by others, making the Mac mini just 50% bigger (to simply throw out a number) would have allowed faster and less costly components.

elvis2000 · May 24, 2005, 05:10 PM

Originally Posted by Big Mac

How many windows were you working with in order to make Expose unusable? Even my iBook can handle Expose acceptably. Anyone who expects the ultra-low cost mini to really perform well (especially with the anemic stock RAM installed) really needs an adjustment of expectations.

iBook = 1024 x 768
20" = 1680 x 1024

Big difference for a piddly 32meg video card.

kjbetz · May 24, 2005, 10:14 PM

I've been thinking about the same thing. I got a Mac mini mainly because, at the time, my financial situation, my curiosity for Apple / Mac OS X, needing a computer right away and the price. I got the best I could get, then maxed the ram and the HD. It now runs pretty well. Alot of work though to get a good working machine.

That purchase though has let to the purchase of a Powerbook which I'm very pleased with. And I plan on getting a PowerMac sometime in the future to make that my main machine.

I'm pleased with the Mac mini and it's performance for what it is. But I do plan on upgrading eventually. For now it will do fine as my desktop machine, with my PowerBook as my travel / lounge around the house machine.

Next in the purchase que is an LCD... still debating on an Apple or something like the Dell with it's many inputs.

andrewgf · May 24, 2005, 11:25 PM

A larger Mini with proper expansion would end up being the Cube. For the person wanting expansion but not at a huge entry point and headless isn't well served by the Mini. So there is a gap in that respect.

I'm currently on a slightly self upgraded Mini and will move to a Powermac some time in the future. Performance wise it chugs along nicely. Hidef 720i trailers play at 25fps and its handles most everything I've thrown at it.

So its a good stepping stone and is intended that way by Apple.

buggsuperstar · May 25, 2005, 03:32 AM

Originally Posted by andrewgf

A larger Mini with proper expansion would end up being the Cube. For the person wanting expansion but not at a huge entry point and headless isn't well served by the Mini. So there is a gap in that respect.

I'm currently on a slightly self upgraded Mini and will move to a Powermac some time in the future. Performance wise it chugs along nicely. Hidef 720i trailers play at 25fps and its handles most everything I've thrown at it.

So its a good stepping stone and is intended that way by Apple.

I fully agree with andrewgf.

I'll be getting a Mini with 20" ACD within the next couple of months. For me, the Mini is a stepping stone into the Mac world (being a lifelong Wintel user). I went the Mini + ACD route because if the Mini is not able to serve my needs, I'll just upgrade to a PowerMac. There I'll have full expandability. With a separate monitor to boot.

I considered the iMac G5, but it's an all-in-one device, and doesn't give me the flexibility to upgrade that "headless" Macs have.

Basically, the Mini is just right for me, and serves it's intended porpose well. Which is to be a stepping stone and introduction into the Mac World for potential switchers like me.

Hanul · May 25, 2005, 05:16 AM

I got my PowerMac yesterday and boy, this thing is huge. Although I knew it from stores, I wasn't really prepared. The mini is the size of the PowerMac's CPU cooler, maybe even smaller. I put pictures in the PowerMac Picture Thread of my setup before and after.

But the speed increase is worth it (well, for me). It's still a pity that Apple isn't aiming for the living room (yet) with a small AND powerful machine.

buggsuperstar · May 25, 2005, 05:38 AM

Originally Posted by Hanul

I got my PowerMac yesterday and boy, this thing is huge. Although I knew it from stores, I wasn't really prepared. The mini is the size of the PowerMac's CPU cooler, maybe even smaller. I put pictures in the PowerMac Picture Thread of my setup before and after.

But the speed increase is worth it (well, for me). It's still a pity that Apple isn't aiming for the living room (yet) with a small AND powerful machine.

That's a very nice setup Hanul.

Apple is on the cutting edge of pushing the design envelop and I hazzard it would only be a matter of time before we see a small AND powerful machine.

btw, is that a 20 or 23 inch ACD you have there?

westrock · May 26, 2005, 04:54 AM

I bought the Mini because I could afford it if I didn't like it. For just normal usage (internet, music, documents, etc..) its a excellent machine. Plus everything just works.

Its my first Mac and I'm really starting to like it. I find my self at work moving the mouse to the "wrong" side to close windows out more and more.

However I knew that if I did infact like it I could come back later and upgrade. I really like the 30" monitor, although I have only recently liked Macs, I have always thought their LCD monitors to be the best.

Depending on how tax return goes I might do Dual 2.3Ghz with 30"

buggsuperstar · May 26, 2005, 06:37 AM

Originally Posted by westrock

Its my first Mac and I'm really starting to like it. I find my self at work moving the mouse to the "wrong" side to close windows out more and more.

excellent!

Eriamjh · May 26, 2005, 07:30 AM

Personally, I wouldn't buy anything less than a G5 today, even for casual use. Unless you plan on upgrading within a year, anything else will start to seem slow very soon.

iMac G5 1.6 refurbs are selling for $900. Sounds like a bargain to me.

osxrules · May 26, 2005, 07:24 PM

I used to have an ibook and I sold it to buy a 1.25 Mac Mini 1GB Ram because I needed higher than 1024x768 - the deal meant I pretty much just paid for the Ram (£130) and I got the Mini with the superdrive. I got a cheap 17" CRT refurb for £30 and I've had it up to 1920x1440. I keep it on 1280x1024 normally and Expose works great - I've never had a problem with it. Initially I thought the graphics were a bit slower than I expected as I compared to my old ibook, which had a 16MB Radeon 7500 until I discovered I was getting about 100fps at high quality in Quake 3 and I was actually able to play Unreal Tournament 2004 at 1024x768 with graphics pretty much full on - my ibook stuttered badly on UT2003.

The hard drive is slow but it's quiet. My brother had his old imac beside it with a 7200 and the noise drowned out my Mini even when the fan was running - the Mini's fan is extremely quiet compared to my ibook, I crapped myself everytime my ibook fan kicked in. I don't know why people complain about it. Overall, I'm fairly impressed with the Mini's performance considering the price. I'm not into HD stuff or anything so I don't mind it doesn't handle it. I'm not all that sure why people need higher than DVD to be honest. It just means that media will get increasingly impossible to back-up/create. I can just author a DVD with my 40GB HD.