Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Hardware - Troubleshooting and Discussion > Mac Desktops > The Mac Mini is a joke

The Mac Mini is a joke (Page 5)
Thread Tools
brother337
Forum Regular
Join Date: Dec 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2005, 05:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by rpm126
HAY GUYS MY BRAND NEW HONDA CIVIC ISNT AS FAST AS MY 5-YEAR OLD CORVETTE, WHAT GIVES!!?!?111
LOL!
15" MacBook Pro Core2Duo 2.33
160gig PMR HD / 2 GB RAM
     
WOPR
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NORAD (England branch)
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2005, 06:07 PM
 
Why would anyone buy a budget machine with only 32mb of VRAM if they planned to run a 1600x1200 screen? Does not compute!

 iMac Core 2 Duo 17" 2ghz 3gb/250gb ||  iBook G4 12" 1.33ghz 1gb/40gb
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2005, 08:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by WOPR
Why would anyone buy a budget machine with only 32mb of VRAM if they planned to run a 1600x1200 screen? Does not compute!
It's called wanting the latest in computing power, but they not wanting to pay for it. You see it more on the PC side of things than the Mac side, but it does occur here as well sometimes.
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2005, 08:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by mhuie
Am I supposed to deal with choppy exposé just because I only paid *only* $600 for my new computer? Am I supposed to not use the monitor rotatation in my Displays prefpane just because my new computer cost $600?
Yes, you are. These festures require more power than the Mini has, and Apple is quite up-front about that.
Who cares what a "deal" the Mini is, because buying a new "cripped" computer isn't a deal in my mind.
The Mini was not targeted at your market. If you want a high-end computer, you should be prepared to pay for a high-end computer. It isn't reasonable to expect a low-end desktop to be faster than a high-end laptop.
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
buggsuperstar
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: May 2005
Location: chillin with Billy, James, D'Arcy and Jimmy
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 25, 2005, 05:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by rpm126
HAY GUYS MY BRAND NEW HONDA CIVIC ISNT AS FAST AS MY 5-YEAR OLD CORVETTE, WHAT GIVES!!?!?111
     
mhuie  (op)
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Seattle
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 25, 2005, 08:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by Millennium
Yes, you are. These festures require more power than the Mini has, and Apple is quite up-front about that.

The Mini was not targeted at your market. If you want a high-end computer, you should be prepared to pay for a high-end computer. It isn't reasonable to expect a low-end desktop to be faster than a high-end laptop.
Care to show me where Apple says not to use the Mini on large monitors? Or says not to use display rotation?

I don't need a high end computer to run Safari, Mail, and Word. I bought the Mini expecting it to handle the most basic of tasks. On my setup, it does not.

Does the fact that I have a 21" LCD mean I need a high end computer? My $300 Generic PC with onboard video runs on a 21" fine.
MBP 1.83
     
mhuie  (op)
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Seattle
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 25, 2005, 08:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by WOPR
Why would anyone buy a budget machine with only 32mb of VRAM if they planned to run a 1600x1200 screen? Does not compute!
1600x1200x32 requires 8mb of VRAM. Your point?
MBP 1.83
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 25, 2005, 11:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by mhuie
1600x1200x32 requires 8mb of VRAM. Your point?
Where the heck are you getting that math from? 1600 x 1200 equals 1,920,000, but that's just for one-bit video. Multiply by 32, and you get 61,440,000: 58 megs. However, that's just enough to hold the framebuffer. Modern video cards use two of these, so let's double the RAM requirement: 116 megs.

So there, 1600x1200x32 requires 116 MB of VRAM. Except... oops. We've only accounted for holding the framebuffers. We haven't even begun to discuss acceleration. I sincerely hope you don't want to go back to the days before OSX had any video acceleration. This requires the card to have even more RAM to perform its various operations, just as a computer does. At that point, 128MB starts to sound almost reasonable, if not a bit slim.
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 25, 2005, 11:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by mhuie
Care to show me where Apple says not to use the Mini on large monitors? Or says not to use display rotation?
You can use the Mini just fine on large monitors, just not at that insane resolution. As for where Apple says not to use it, they don't, because it's not actually an Apple feature: it's an ATI feature. The Versavision monitor-rotation system requires a high-end Radeon. This is all in the documentation for the ATI Displays control panel.
Does the fact that I have a 21" LCD mean I need a high end computer? My $300 Generic PC with onboard video runs on a 21" fine.
Does it run at 1600x1200? Does it do it at anything remotely resembling a decent speed (i.e. do you not have to wait for the screen to redraw itself)?
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
Commodus
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 25, 2005, 11:55 PM
 
1600x1200 sucks up a lot of juice (particularly for Exposé) because Apple uses 3D acceleration effects on a 2D interface. Simple as that.

When Windows Vista comes out in late 2006 (maybe), you may start to see people complain on that front, too. After all, if you don't meet a certain compatibility threshhold, you'll miss out on a good deal of the visual effects. The Alt-Tab menu may also slow down at higher resolutions. You think you have a sob story now? Guess how the people using Intel integrated graphics will feel!
24-inch iMac Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz
     
galarneau
Senior User
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Canastota, New York
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2005, 12:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by Millennium
Where the heck are you getting that math from? 1600 x 1200 equals 1,920,000, but that's just for one-bit video. Multiply by 32, and you get 61,440,000: 58 megs. However, that's just enough to hold the framebuffer. Modern video cards use two of these, so let's double the RAM requirement: 116 megs.

Actually, mhuie is correct. 1600x1200 only requires 8MB of video ram (at least on a traditional system). The flaw in your math is that 1600x1200 does equal 1,920,000, but you need to multiply by 32 bits (not bytes) = 61440000 bits. Now divide that by 8 to get bytes = 7,680,000 bytes =~ 7.32MB


As for why your mini is so slow mhuie, I have one question for you:

Is the expose/dashboard performance on your mini slow when you do not run the screen in portrait mode?
( Last edited by galarneau; Jul 26, 2005 at 12:21 AM. )
     
mhuie  (op)
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Seattle
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2005, 01:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by galarneau
Actually, mhuie is correct. 1600x1200 only requires 8MB of video ram (at least on a traditional system). The flaw in your math is that 1600x1200 does equal 1,920,000, but you need to multiply by 32 bits (not bytes) = 61440000 bits. Now divide that by 8 to get bytes = 7,680,000 bytes =~ 7.32MB

As for why your mini is so slow mhuie, I have one question for you:

Is the expose/dashboard performance on your mini slow when you do not run the screen in portrait mode?
Thanks for the clarification on the math galarneau.

Millenium: Thats 4x the available amount. Even more generous than your stated 128mb over 58mb.

Exposé and Dashboard work, but they are slow. That is more of an annoyance than anything else. The problem I have is with resizing, moving or scrolling *any* window and menus. The UI is just so sluggish that its just a big turn off trying to use the Mini at all. Portrait mode is not even worth going into. Slow as molasses. I have not bothered to try Dashboard or Expose in portrait mode.

As for the ATI control panel, sorry I don't have that installed. It seems to be an Apple feature as it is in the Displays prefpane. It is there by default.

Regarding the other comments, 1600x1200 is no way "insane". The Apple 20" (their SMALLEST) runs at 1680x1050 (~8% smaller). And then they have the 23" and 30".

My PC with onboard graphics runs @ 1600x1200 just fine. It may not like the Windows XP Luna theme, but at least I can turn it off as well as full window moving. The Mini is pretty much stuck in its "laggy" state.
( Last edited by mhuie; Jul 26, 2005 at 01:58 AM. )
MBP 1.83
     
mhuie  (op)
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Seattle
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2005, 02:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by Commodus
1600x1200 sucks up a lot of juice (particularly for Exposé) because Apple uses 3D acceleration effects on a 2D interface. Simple as that.

When Windows Vista comes out in late 2006 (maybe), you may start to see people complain on that front, too. After all, if you don't meet a certain compatibility threshhold, you'll miss out on a good deal of the visual effects. The Alt-Tab menu may also slow down at higher resolutions. You think you have a sob story now? Guess how the people using Intel integrated graphics will feel!
I'm sure Vista will have an option to turn down visual effects just as XP, 2000, and even 98 (IIRC) have. Most PC's have upgradable video cards, and even onboard video should run Vista decently with some of the visual effects turned down.
MBP 1.83
     
galarneau
Senior User
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Canastota, New York
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2005, 02:09 AM
 
The reason I asked about the performance in portrait mode is that I've seen others complain about how much slower it is than the standard landscape mode (even on fast computers), which may point to it being a software problem more than a hardware problem.
     
mhuie  (op)
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Seattle
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2005, 03:11 AM
 
On my just arrived Powermac DP 2.0 with the Radeon 9600, portrait mode is fine. No noticable slowdown, I tried exposé with 12 windows open and it performed the same as standard lanscape mode.
MBP 1.83
     
elvis2000
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jan 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2005, 10:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by Jawbone54
If you want the bare necessities, spend $500 on a Mini.
Or spend $50 on an iMac on eBay. Drop some memory in it, upgrade the harddisk... and off you go.
     
elvis2000
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jan 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2005, 10:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by WOPR
Why would anyone buy a budget machine with only 32mb of VRAM if they planned to run a 1600x1200 screen? Does not compute!
Because they can with a $500 PC? Because Apple's own marketing pairs the mini with a 20" LCD? Because a 20" LCD is the lowest price monitor Apple offers?

Better question: why does Apple only offer 32mb VRAM on their low-end machine when consumers clearly want to pair it with a 20" LCD?

Does not compute indeed.

JW
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2005, 10:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by galarneau
Actually, mhuie is correct. 1600x1200 only requires 8MB of video ram (at least on a traditional system). The flaw in your math is that 1600x1200 does equal 1,920,000, but you need to multiply by 32 bits (not bytes) = 61440000 bits. Now divide that by 8 to get bytes = 7,680,000 bytes =~ 7.32MB
Fair enough, but that's still only enough for one framebuffer. It doesn't account for acceleration or for a second framebuffer.
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2005, 11:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by elvis2000
Because they can [run 1600x1200] with a $500 PC?
Show me a $500 PC that can run that resolution at anything remotely resembling an acceptable speed.
Because Apple's own marketing pairs the mini with a 20" LCD?
The 20" LCD shown in the pictures you mention does not support 1600x1200 resolution. Actually, it supports 1680 x 1050 at most, which is slightly wider but lower-res overall.
Because a 20" LCD is the lowest price monitor Apple offers?
Why must Apple make the monitor?
Better question: why does Apple only offer 32mb VRAM on their low-end machine when consumers clearly want to pair it with a 20" LCD?
What makes you think most consumers want this? Clearly you want it, but we've already established that you want high-end power without paying high-end prices. Why would your average consumer, particularly one on a budget, buy a low-end machine and then pair it with a monitor more expensive than the machine was?
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
elvis2000
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jan 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2005, 02:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by Millennium
Show me a $500 PC that can run that resolution at anything remotely resembling an acceptable speed.
Are you kidding? Define "acceptable" -- if you mean basic window resizing and interface manipulation at 1600x1200, anything on the market today is capable. Even a $500 Dell Dimension 3000 can be configured for 64MB VRAM, and the $599 (with monitor) 4700 comes with the Intel Graphics Media Accelerator 900TM (similar to that in the current Apple Intel developer systems). Or do you mean for gaming? In that case, neither are acceptable solutions (with the 9200 hindered by its 32megs VRAM -- no high-res texture caching in video memory!)

The 20" LCD shown in the pictures you mention does not support 1600x1200 resolution. Actually, it supports 1680 x 1050 at most, which is slightly wider but lower-res overall.
You are stretching. Hardly any difference.


Why must Apple make the monitor?
They don't! But you certainly can't "blame" the consumers for having high expectations, when Apple themselves feed those beliefs in their marketing.

What makes you think most consumers want this? Clearly you want it, but we've already established that you want high-end power without paying high-end prices. Why would your average consumer, particularly one on a budget, buy a low-end machine and then pair it with a monitor more expensive than the machine was?
You are a moderator on these forums. You tell me what people are doing and what they are screaming about.
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2005, 03:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by elvis2000
Are you kidding? Define "acceptable" -- if you mean basic window resizing and interface manipulation at 1600x1200, anything on the market today is capable.
Without being slow and laggy? For that matter, can you rotate the monitor on such displays?
Even a $500 Dell Dimension 3000 can be configured for 64MB VRAM...
Is it still $500 after you apply that configuration?
You are stretching. Hardly any difference.
Don't be so certain of that. Vertical resolution actually matters more than horizontal when it comes to displays, because of the way that displays tend to do their addressing. This is mostly a relic from the times of CRT monitors, which usually "painted" screens from left to right, then top to bottom. LCD monitors don't paint in quite the same way, but they do still address pixels in that way -blame this on the fact that English text is read in the same way, and so implementors found it convenient-
They don't! But you certainly can't "blame" the consumers for having high expectations, when Apple themselves feed those beliefs in their marketing.
I can't blame them for having high expectations, but most consumers have no idea of what the term "monitor resolution" even means, so that doesn't enter into their train of thought. Your expectations are pretty impressively over the top.
You are a moderator on these forums. You tell me what people are doing and what they are screaming about.
Actually, I'm not a moderator in the Mac Mini forum. I only moderate Developer Center and Web Developer.
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
mhuie  (op)
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Seattle
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 27, 2005, 05:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by Millennium
Without being slow and laggy? For that matter, can you rotate the monitor on such displays?

Is it still $500 after you apply that configuration?

Don't be so certain of that. Vertical resolution actually matters more than horizontal when it comes to displays, because of the way that displays tend to do their addressing. This is mostly a relic from the times of CRT monitors, which usually "painted" screens from left to right, then top to bottom. LCD monitors don't paint in quite the same way, but they do still address pixels in that way -blame this on the fact that English text is read in the same way, and so implementors found it convenient-

I can't blame them for having high expectations, but most consumers have no idea of what the term "monitor resolution" even means, so that doesn't enter into their train of thought. Your expectations are pretty impressively over the top.

Actually, I'm not a moderator in the Mac Mini forum. I only moderate Developer Center and Web Developer.
Have you not used a Windows box recently? Any motherboard with onboard video and shared VRAM will run 1600x1200 just fine. As will any cheapo Dell box (no VRAM upgrade required). As long as there is enough VRAM to display that resolution, it will run Windows.

I just stuck my Radeon 9200 32mb PCI into my PC, runs @ 1600x1200 without a hitch, as does my 5 year old Nvidia TNT2.

You may have to turn off "Show window contents while dragging", but Windows is still perfectly usable. In fact, I *always* turn that off, no matter how powerful my video card. In OS X, you're stuck with a laggy UI.
MBP 1.83
     
lagarto
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Sep 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 27, 2005, 06:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by mhuie
You may have to turn off "Show window contents while dragging", but Windows is still perfectly usable. In fact, I *always* turn that off, no matter how powerful my video card. In OS X, you're stuck with a laggy UI.
Perception is everything. My desktop at work is a dual 2.7 GHz 1 GB HP workstation with dual 1280 x 1024 LCDs. Window focus, repaint, maximising and extended tools bar are always playing up. Sometimes, event the wrong cursor icon gets stuck. It's a pain...

At home I run an ibook 800 G3 with 640 MB RAM and 16 MB VRAM, and the desktop split across a Dell 2005 FPW at 1680 x 1050. I run Panther, MySql, JBoss and tools like Eclipse (so a lot of Java). Sure, it's slowish compared to my work PC, and the fan comes on because of the GPU running well hot, but it's still usable !!!
     
mhuie  (op)
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Seattle
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 27, 2005, 05:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by lagarto
Perception is everything. My desktop at work is a dual 2.7 GHz 1 GB HP workstation with dual 1280 x 1024 LCDs. Window focus, repaint, maximising and extended tools bar are always playing up. Sometimes, event the wrong cursor icon gets stuck. It's a pain...

At home I run an ibook 800 G3 with 640 MB RAM and 16 MB VRAM, and the desktop split across a Dell 2005 FPW at 1680 x 1050. I run Panther, MySql, JBoss and tools like Eclipse (so a lot of Java). Sure, it's slowish compared to my work PC, and the fan comes on because of the GPU running well hot, but it's still usable !!!
Sure its usable, but your iBook is designed to be used with its own screen. I'm sure your iBook can handle its LCD at native resolution perfectly.

I'm sure it would drive you nuts if you iBook performed that way 100% of the time on its own LCD.
MBP 1.83
     
mhuie  (op)
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Seattle
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 27, 2005, 05:35 PM
 
Double Post
( Last edited by mhuie; Jul 27, 2005 at 05:40 PM. Reason: Duplicate)
MBP 1.83
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 27, 2005, 05:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by mhuie
Have you not used a Windows box recently? Any motherboard with onboard video and shared VRAM will run 1600x1200 just fine. As will any cheapo Dell box (no VRAM upgrade required). As long as there is enough VRAM to display that resolution, it will run Windows.

I just stuck my Radeon 9200 32mb PCI into my PC, runs @ 1600x1200 without a hitch, as does my 5 year old Nvidia TNT2.
Apples-to-oranges comparison, if you'll pardon the expression. Windows still runs on a bitmap-based graphics subsystem, as OS9 did; that won't change until Avalon. It's accelerated in a completely different manner from OSX, and it requires less VRAM, but it's also much less powerful than a vector-based graphics subsystem. You can use older, cheaper hardware. Do you remember the early days of 3dfx, when people still often bought two graphics cards, one for 2d and one for 3d? That's what we're dealing with here.
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
mhuie  (op)
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Seattle
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 27, 2005, 06:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by Millennium
Apples-to-oranges comparison, if you'll pardon the expression. Windows still runs on a bitmap-based graphics subsystem, as OS9 did; that won't change until Avalon. It's accelerated in a completely different manner from OSX, and it requires less VRAM, but it's also much less powerful than a vector-based graphics subsystem. You can use older, cheaper hardware. Do you remember the early days of 3dfx, when people still often bought two graphics cards, one for 2d and one for 3d? That's what we're dealing with here.
Of course, but why does Apple put insufficient VRAM in the Mini if their OS requires more? Especially in an desktop machine where you are not locked into a certain LCD size and resolution.
MBP 1.83
     
Squozen
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 27, 2005, 08:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by mhuie
Of course, but why does Apple put insufficient VRAM in the Mini if their OS requires more? Especially in an desktop machine where you are not locked into a certain LCD size and resolution.
Because they were aiming for a $499 price point.

The Mac mini seems to be suiting a lot of people with lower requirements than you, and that's great. In your situation, not so great. If you weren't willing to spend more than $499 (and I know that's not the case for you), then you're out of luck, but you aren't really any worse off than you were before the mini was released.

Other people are better off, and it seems a bit unfair to call the Mac mini rubbish just because it doesn't suit you. For example, I don't complain about small cars because I can't fit in them (I'm 6'4"), I simply select a bigger car. These bigger cars cost more. I deal with that.
     
uicandrew
Senior User
Join Date: Jul 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 28, 2005, 03:44 AM
 
Originally Posted by mhuie
Of course, but why does Apple put insufficient VRAM in the Mini if their OS requires more? Especially in an desktop machine where you are not locked into a certain LCD size and resolution.
i mentioned this in another thread, but....

i went back and watched the macworld where the mini was introduced. when steve jobs introduced the mac mini, he prefaced it by saying that a lot of people have asked him "why isnt there a cheaper stripped down mac?"

i went back to the first page of this thread and a couple things jumped out at me.

mhuie, you said that it was your fault for not doing research.

i think the thread should have ended right there.

steve jobs was aiming the mac mini to be a "3rd or 4th mac" in a household, or for a switcher who wanted to spend a minimal amount (which is why it is without any monitor. keyboard, mouse)

i really disagree with the thread title. the mac mini is not a joke.

perhaps you didn't know what the mac mini was made for and/or as you said youself, you're bitter about having to go back to the apple store for the 4th time, especially with the gas prices these days.

i'm sorry you misunderstood the apple product lines. at least you got what you wanted in the end (G5 power mac, according to the original post) but you had to spend 3-4x more.
     
Link
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Hyrule
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 28, 2005, 09:59 PM
 
The mac mini is not a joke. Consider this:

The machine is 6.5x6.5x2" ... it has a 1.42ghz processor in the top end, a G4 -- not a Celeron or funky VIA chip, has a DEDICATED VIDEO CHIPSET -- not integrated graphics..

The hard drive is a laptop drive yet the ram is desktop ram.. IMHO I'll take the desktop ram and the laptop HD...

It's quiet, tiny.. and sucks 12-20w in normal usage -- plus it's cheaper and smaller than any mini ITX machine on the market... and has more features...

Howabout that.
Aloha
     
mhuie  (op)
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Seattle
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2005, 12:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by uicandrew
i mentioned this in another thread, but....

i went back to the first page of this thread and a couple things jumped out at me.

mhuie, you said that it was your fault for not doing research.

i think the thread should have ended right there.

steve jobs was aiming the mac mini to be a "3rd or 4th mac" in a household, or for a switcher who wanted to spend a minimal amount (which is why it is without any monitor. keyboard, mouse)

i really disagree with the thread title. the mac mini is not a joke.

perhaps you didn't know what the mac mini was made for and/or as you said youself, you're bitter about having to go back to the apple store for the 4th time, especially with the gas prices these days.

i'm sorry you misunderstood the apple product lines. at least you got what you wanted in the end (G5 power mac, according to the original post) but you had to spend 3-4x more.

Actually I did not want a PowerMac G5. If you read my posts, I wanted a basic Mac that would browse the internet, read mail and listen to some music. I already had a display, mouse and keyboard. The Mini performs these tasks on MY setup at an unusable speed.

The joke is that the Mini cannot run high resolution displays at reasonable speeds. 1600x1200 is in no way a resolution that should require a high end machine to run.
MBP 1.83
     
WOPR
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NORAD (England branch)
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2005, 10:21 AM
 
For heaven's sake typical 'man in the street' is probably running a 15" or 17" monitor at a maximum resolution of 1024 x 768. 1600 x 1200 is not the norm. Apple only show the mini with their displays attached because it's preferable to showing a 3rd party display.

The mystery to me is why Apple don't do a 17" widescreen display as the base model, 20" is too big and too expensive for most people.

I can't believe this thread is still going!

 iMac Core 2 Duo 17" 2ghz 3gb/250gb ||  iBook G4 12" 1.33ghz 1gb/40gb
     
climber
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Pacific NW
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2005, 01:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by mhuie
Of course, but why does Apple put insufficient VRAM in the Mini if their OS requires more? Especially in an desktop machine where you are not locked into a certain LCD size and resolution.
Let me introduce a novel concept for you to understand why Apple, or for that matter any company would do that.

The point of any company in any market is to provide a product or service at the LOWEST cost that the customer is willing to pay the MOST for. In the case of the mac mini, Apple could put in a top of the line video card, a faster hard drive, more RAM slots, and a list of other things to get a few more people including you to buy that computer. But would they make more money? probably not. As a computer company Apple is one of the best at maintaining high profit margins. Most stockholders like that.

I personally think it is retarded to take a new LCD and hook it up to any computer with a VGA cable. But that is how almost every $500.00 PC owner does it. Is it better than a DVI cable? of course not. But it is cheaper and most of the buyers could care less. How much do you have to spend on a PC today to even get a DVI output?
     
WOPR
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NORAD (England branch)
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2005, 02:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by climber
Let me introduce a novel concept for you to understand why Apple, or for that matter any company would do that.

The point of any company in any market is to provide a product or service at the LOWEST cost that the customer is willing to pay the MOST for. In the case of the mac mini, Apple could put in a top of the line video card, a faster hard drive, more RAM slots, and a list of other things to get a few more people including you to buy that computer. But would they make more money? probably not. As a computer company Apple is one of the best at maintaining high profit margins. Most stockholders like that.

I personally think it is retarded to take a new LCD and hook it up to any computer with a VGA cable. But that is how almost every $500.00 PC owner does it. Is it better than a DVI cable? of course not. But it is cheaper and most of the buyers could care less. How much do you have to spend on a PC today to even get a DVI output?
I agree. Technology is wasted on most people. I guarantee that a vast majority of DVD players will be connected to TVs with RGB disabled. And millions of console owners are playing with a fuzzy screen because you get a crappy composite cable with it instead of RGB.

 iMac Core 2 Duo 17" 2ghz 3gb/250gb ||  iBook G4 12" 1.33ghz 1gb/40gb
     
buggsuperstar
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: May 2005
Location: chillin with Billy, James, D'Arcy and Jimmy
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2005, 02:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by climber
The point of any company in any market is to provide a product or service at the LOWEST cost that the customer is willing to pay the MOST for. In the case of the mac mini, Apple could put in a top of the line video card, a faster hard drive, more RAM slots, and a list of other things to get a few more people including you to buy that computer. But would they make more money? probably not. As a computer company Apple is one of the best at maintaining high profit margins. Most stockholders like that.


Well said.
     
WOPR
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NORAD (England branch)
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2005, 02:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by climber
Let me introduce a novel concept for you to understand why Apple, or for that matter any company would do that.

The point of any company in any market is to provide a product or service at the LOWEST cost that the customer is willing to pay the MOST for. In the case of the mac mini, Apple could put in a top of the line video card, a faster hard drive, more RAM slots, and a list of other things to get a few more people including you to buy that computer. But would they make more money? probably not. As a computer company Apple is one of the best at maintaining high profit margins. Most stockholders like that.

I personally think it is retarded to take a new LCD and hook it up to any computer with a VGA cable. But that is how almost every $500.00 PC owner does it. Is it better than a DVI cable? of course not. But it is cheaper and most of the buyers could care less. How much do you have to spend on a PC today to even get a DVI output?
I agree. Technology is wasted on most people. I guarantee that a vast majority of DVD players will be connected to TVs with RGB disabled. And millions of console owners are playing with a fuzzy screen because you get a useless composite cable with it instead of RGB.

 iMac Core 2 Duo 17" 2ghz 3gb/250gb ||  iBook G4 12" 1.33ghz 1gb/40gb
     
mhuie  (op)
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Seattle
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2005, 03:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by climber
Let me introduce a novel concept for you to understand why Apple, or for that matter any company would do that.

The point of any company in any market is to provide a product or service at the LOWEST cost that the customer is willing to pay the MOST for. In the case of the mac mini, Apple could put in a top of the line video card, a faster hard drive, more RAM slots, and a list of other things to get a few more people including you to buy that computer. But would they make more money? probably not. As a computer company Apple is one of the best at maintaining high profit margins. Most stockholders like that.

I personally think it is retarded to take a new LCD and hook it up to any computer with a VGA cable. But that is how almost every $500.00 PC owner does it. Is it better than a DVI cable? of course not. But it is cheaper and most of the buyers could care less. How much do you have to spend on a PC today to even get a DVI output?
So Apple expects a consumer to spend 4X the to price just to run web/email @ 1600x1200. Makes a lot of sense.

So what if it's retarted to hook up a LCD to a PC running VGA? Thats their decision. The PC maker didn't require them to do so. ~$30 would net you a DVI video card that would easily run 1600x1200 and above. It's not required to buy a $2000 PC just to run that resolution.
MBP 1.83
     
hudson1
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Aug 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2005, 03:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by WOPR
For heaven's sake typical 'man in the street' is probably running a 15" or 17" monitor at a maximum resolution of 1024 x 768. 1600 x 1200 is not the norm. Apple only show the mini with their displays attached because it's preferable to showing a 3rd party display.

The mystery to me is why Apple don't do a 17" widescreen display as the base model, 20" is too big and too expensive for most people.

I can't believe this thread is still going!
Actually, I'd say that 1280 X 1024 is the norm for most people. That's the native resolution on virtually every 17" and 19" LCD monitor that you can find.

Agree about the widescreen 17". Long rumored that Apple would sell one (essentially the iMac monitor) but still not seen. It's surprising that no else sells one, either, because they are showing up on a number of PC notebooks now. Of course you can buy one of those 1280 X 768 monitors but those are really TV screens.
     
climber
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Pacific NW
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2005, 11:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by mhuie
So Apple expects a consumer to spend 4X the to price just to run web/email @ 1600x1200. Makes a lot of sense.

So what if it's retarted to hook up a LCD to a PC running VGA? Thats their decision. The PC maker didn't require them to do so. ~$30 would net you a DVI video card that would easily run 1600x1200 and above. It's not required to buy a $2000 PC just to run that resolution.
I do not think you are listening to anyone here. You just want to spout about what they do not have. For you it is a better graphics card for someone else it was a faster and bigger HD, then its the RAM slots, etc..

Try and listen this time, It is not that Apple could not make the computer of your dreams, they certainly are capable. But that probably means offering twice as many models as they have now, with even more build to order options. It does not take a masters in business to figure out that the unit costs would escalate substantially. That means the Apple would make LESS money. Can you understand that?

Personally I think you a full of it. I would much rather have the slow frame rates of the mini with the apple 20" then the same setup on a $500 Dell connected via a crappy VGA cable. The Dell would be fuzzy all the time and the mini would only struggle part of the time. The mini is quite capable of displaying video for both web and email even on a 20" monitor. It is just not lightening fast.

If you want a faster computer with a top notch video card apple does make one. As someone else has said, you just are not willing to pay for it.
     
foo2
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 30, 2005, 10:52 AM
 
Originally Posted by climber
Personally I think you a full of it. I would much rather have the slow frame rates of the mini with the apple 20" then the same setup on a $500 Dell connected via a crappy VGA cable. The Dell would be fuzzy all the time and the mini would only struggle part of the time. The mini is quite capable of displaying video for both web and email even on a 20" monitor. It is just not lightening fast.

If you want a faster computer with a top notch video card apple does make one. As someone else has said, you just are not willing to pay for it.
Apple charges a lot for basic levels of quality, and they're selling last-generation hardware at next-generation pricing.

http://www.gotapex.com/ shows that $829 buys a Dell 9100 with dual-core P4 CPU, 20" wide LCD monitor, and Radeon x300 PCI-E graphics card (and 7.1 audio, basic CD drive, 40GB hard drive; add more $ for more stuff). That card, obviously, is more than capable of running the 20" screen.

Same site shows for $399 you get a Dell 3100 with 17" LCD screen, P4/2.8, integrated graphics. Obviously, that computer can run the screen at 1280x1024 ... or 1600x1200, based on my own experiences and the comments here.

The mini is significantly overpriced and underpowered. Sure, it's a neat way to get a first, entry level Mac, or a Mac to put in the back room for simple tasks, but compared to more modern hardware, it's just not competitive. Even the Radeon 9200 graphics with a G4 powering them pale next to integrated Intel graphics with a significantly faster Intel CPU powering them.

And that, in a nutshell, is why Apple is moving to Intel architecture.
iMac 3.3/i5 (2015) 24GB 2TB 10.13.1
MBP 15/2.5 (2014) 16GB 500GB 10.13.1
MBP 15/2.3 (2012) 16GB 250GB 10.13.1
MB 13/2.4 (2010) 9GB 120GB 10.13.1
MB 13/2.0 (E-2009) 4GB 120GB 10.13
     
WOPR
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NORAD (England branch)
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 30, 2005, 01:16 PM
 
I do wonder how many of the people whining about the mini have actually used one.

 iMac Core 2 Duo 17" 2ghz 3gb/250gb ||  iBook G4 12" 1.33ghz 1gb/40gb
     
TomR
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Hudson Valley of N.Y.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 30, 2005, 01:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by WOPR
I do wonder how many of the people whining about the mini have actually used one.

I don't know and I don't care. It's not supposed to be a high end machine to begin with, some of us don't NEED a mega screaming,top of the line machine.

Plus, I don't care if the Dells are 1/4 of the price of the mini - I don't have to worry the least bit about all the crap that infects and causes havoc in the Windows world. I don't have to run and keep updated all those extra programs to "protect" me from all that garbage. Ever see the list of stuff people run to guard against all that crap???! It's a RIOT!

My mini is plenty enough for me.

Tiger blows Windows away, period.

Tom
     
climber
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Pacific NW
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 30, 2005, 01:43 PM
 
I just configured a Dell Demension 3000 on Dell's website. After you subtract the monitor add memory and a combo CD drive, plus 1 yr warranty it would cost $522.00. (after rebate). You should also add for XP pro and a software suite and virus software, but that would almost double the cost.

And that Dell still could not drive the Apple 20" monitor because it does not have a DVI output. All this in a big ugly box that takes up 10 times the space of a mini.
     
smoke-tetsu
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: New Mexico
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 30, 2005, 01:52 PM
 
At this point I think this should be considered a non issue. Ok it does suck that they weren't even able to upgrade the GPU one bit this year but come next year there will be one that is a whole lot better.

The Mini might be ok now but not forever and this is coming from someone who owns and loves his mini since it first came out. Next year I'll definitely more than be ready for an upgrade and Intel will be able to help provide where freescale or IBM couldn't. And it will be a hell of a lot better than the piddly update we where hoping for now.

We who wanted an update will just have to be patient. I waited longer than that previously before I got my mini so waiting the time it will take isn't as bad compared. I just kind of got my hopes up a little and was let down this time.

P.S. If cost was the issue I would have instead of going for the 512mb which some like me would just immediatly replace with 1GB update would have gone for the GPU bump instead as a tradeoff option. But I guess that availabillty is more of the issue plus the fact that they are making a whole new line for next year.
( Last edited by smoke-tetsu; Jul 30, 2005 at 03:47 PM. )
     
foo2
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 30, 2005, 02:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by climber
I just configured a Dell Demension 3000 on Dell's website. After you subtract the monitor add memory and a combo CD drive, plus 1 yr warranty it would cost $522.00. (after rebate). You should also add for XP pro and a software suite and virus software, but that would almost double the cost.

And that Dell still could not drive the Apple 20" monitor because it does not have a DVI output. All this in a big ugly box that takes up 10 times the space of a mini.
The Dell 3000 is in fact $399 - the link you need to follow is found on www.gotapex.com, just as I posted. I'll grant most would add $30 for a 1 year warranty, so it's $429. If we need to add things, let's add $59 to the Mac for a mouse and keyboard, and let's add $260 or so for the monitor.... the Mac mini's overpricing is obvious.

Why do I need XP Pro? No Mac can fully participate in an XP domain as it is, nor do they ship with anything like Remote Desktop, so why would one need XP Pro?

AV software can be legally downloaded for free (avast), and malware software can be downloaded for free too (MS antispyware); it comes with a simple software suite already.

The mini is $820 or so for just the most basic (slowest) mini with k/m and with a 17" monitor (if we go with the 17" number above); the Dell is up to $429. Is it really worth wondering why Dell does so well? Half the price! For that, I suspect most folks can put up with having an expandable (3 PCI slots, IIRC, plus easy access to RAM & hard drive & such) box that's vastly faster than the G4-based mini.
iMac 3.3/i5 (2015) 24GB 2TB 10.13.1
MBP 15/2.5 (2014) 16GB 500GB 10.13.1
MBP 15/2.3 (2012) 16GB 250GB 10.13.1
MB 13/2.4 (2010) 9GB 120GB 10.13.1
MB 13/2.0 (E-2009) 4GB 120GB 10.13
     
andgarden
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 30, 2005, 02:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by smoke-tetsu
When I compare I do it purely from a hardware standpoint. You could put on Linux or BSD for all I care.
Herein lies a large part of the problem with this discussion. For many of us, the value of the Mac OS is simply immeasurable. Any attempt to compare a Mac with a Dell simply misses the point.
     
smoke-tetsu
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: New Mexico
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 30, 2005, 03:25 PM
 
I expected that to happen. A person just grabs one bit of what I said and takes it out of context. *shakes head* That's weak, just weak. Did you stop reading there or what? One major reason why I chose to get my Mini 6-8 months ago was OS X. You are preaching to the quoir. At least attempt to undestand the whole post before you reply please.
     
andgarden
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 30, 2005, 03:36 PM
 
Then you aknowledge a fundamental flaw in your arguement. Part of the premium you pay for the advantage of having the Mac OS is having to use Apple hardware. Since, at the moment, you can't use OS X on any other equipment, comparisons to Dell, or any other PC manufacturer, are nonstaters. If you don't like the whole widget as it exists, or can be reasonably upgraded by an end user, then don't buy it.


Originally Posted by smoke-tetsu
I expected that to happen. A person just grabs one bit of what I said and takes it out of context. *shakes head* That's weak, just weak. Did you stop reading there or what? One major reason why I chose to get my Mini 6-8 months ago was OS X. You are preaching to the quoir. At least attempt to undestand the whole post before you reply please.
     
smoke-tetsu
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: New Mexico
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 30, 2005, 03:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by andgarden
Then you aknowledge a fundamental flaw in your arguement. Part of the premium you pay for the advantage of having the Mac OS is having to use Apple hardware. Since, at the moment, you can't use OS X on any other equipment, comparisons to Dell, or any other PC manufacturer, are nonstaters. If you don't like the whole widget as it exists, or can be reasonably upgraded by an end user, then don't buy it.
You STILL didn't do what I suggested, Am I that complicated? That's not I repeat NOT the crux of what I said. Not even remotely. In fact, I'll try to make it easier for you by removing the first sentence because anyway it doesn't need to be said anymore.

GEESH!
( Last edited by smoke-tetsu; Jul 30, 2005 at 03:54 PM. )
     
mhuie  (op)
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Seattle
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 30, 2005, 03:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by climber
I do not think you are listening to anyone here. You just want to spout about what they do not have. For you it is a better graphics card for someone else it was a faster and bigger HD, then its the RAM slots, etc..

Try and listen this time, It is not that Apple could not make the computer of your dreams, they certainly are capable. But that probably means offering twice as many models as they have now, with even more build to order options. It does not take a masters in business to figure out that the unit costs would escalate substantially. That means the Apple would make LESS money. Can you understand that?

Personally I think you a full of it. I would much rather have the slow frame rates of the mini with the apple 20" then the same setup on a $500 Dell connected via a crappy VGA cable. The Dell would be fuzzy all the time and the mini would only struggle part of the time. The mini is quite capable of displaying video for both web and email even on a 20" monitor. It is just not lightening fast.

If you want a faster computer with a top notch video card apple does make one. As someone else has said, you just are not willing to pay for it.
I'm not spouting anything, but my own experience. RAM and hard drive are upgradable. I'm not complaining about those because I can fix any issues with those.

The situation you posted makes no sense. The $500 dell may have crappy video but you are able to spend a marginal amount to fix any issue that you may have. (read my previous post). The Mini, you are stuck in your situation. That is the difference. How are you expected to spend $2000 on the cheapest G5 to get basic performance?

Why does everyone think that I expect the Mini to run at blazing speeds? Never once have I said the mini sucked because the performance was slow.
MBP 1.83
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:06 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,