[Mac Hammer Fan]

Which Mac Mini 1 GB RAM would be a better choice? Core Solo 1.5 or Core Duo 1.66

The Mac Mini would be used for:
- Converting LPs to CD.
- Office 2004 especially Word (large documents with illustrations and formulas)
- Surfing the internet
- Making a website with Freeway Pro
- AppleWorks, Pages, Keynote, Graphic Converter, MathType
(no need of Photoshop and no games)

and would replace an older G3 beige with G4 ZIF500

I know OS9 classic doesn't work, but perhaps there exist a OS 7 emulator?

TIA for any advice.

[mduell]

Sounds like Core Solo should be fine for now... after your warranty expires you can always drop a faster CPU in (2+ Ghz Core Duo).

[AppleJockey]

solo should be enough
like duell said if you ever need more you can speed it up later on

[Mac Hammer Fan]

The only thing that worries me a bit is the speed of M$ Word 2004 under Rosetta emulation, especially because of my large docs with illustrations...
Hopefully I will still notice a speed improvement compared to my old G4 500 (with PCI 64 MB ATI Radeon card and 768 MB RAM)

[Mac Hammer Fan]

The only thing that worries me a bit is the speed of M$ Word 2004 under Rosetta emulation, especially because of my large docs with illustrations...
Hopefully I will still notice a speed improvement compared to my old G4 500 (with PCI 64 MB ATI Radeon card and 768 MB RAM)
In this case, I would be satisfied.

[quangdiggity]

for those needs then Solo should do....... i think the Solo wid 1GB RAM should be able to go as fast if not faser thn ur G4 500.........

as long as it aint for games n media (foto/video editing) then the Solo will do ya fine

[Chuckit]

If it's for games, you'd be making a mistake looking at a Mini with any kind of processor.

[quangdiggity]

depends on what games......
i mean i can tell u Halo 1, Civ 3, Jedi Knight 2 work fine on my PPC eMac with only 256 RAM...
then again those are old games..... Doom 3 would give u good prestanda on the Mini

[harrisjamieh]

Originally Posted by Gio-mania

depends on what games......
i mean i can tell u Halo 1, Civ 3, Jedi Knight 2 work fine on my PPC eMac with only 256 RAM...
then again those are old games..... Doom 3 would give u good prestanda on the Mini

Yes but your eMac, if it is the latest one, has an ATI Radeon 9600 w/64 MB RAM, whereas the mini has poor intel integrated graphics w/64MB shared memory

[Mac Hammer Fan]

Originally Posted by harrisjamieh

Yes but your eMac, if it is the latest one, has an ATI Radeon 9600 w/64 MB RAM, whereas the mini has poor intel integrated graphics w/64MB shared memory

I don't play Games. So if Word 2004 would be zippier on the Mac Mini than on my old G4 500 I would be happy.
Without any speed improvement? I would be disappointed.

[quangdiggity]

it will go faster........ just make sure to have 1 GB Ram

[harrisjamieh]

Even with 512 RAM, the mini should wipe the floor with your G4 in universal apps, and be at least twice as fast in rosetta apps (maybe more with more RAM). I use Office on my Intel iMac, and its definatly faster than it is on my iBook G4 1.2 Ghz w/512 RAM

[Mac Hammer Fan]

Originally Posted by harrisjamieh

Even with 512 RAM, the mini should wipe the floor with your G4 in universal apps, and be at least twice as fast in rosetta apps (maybe more with more RAM). I use Office on my Intel iMac, and its definatly faster than it is on my iBook G4 1.2 Ghz w/512 RAM

But I guess that the better video card and the faster hard drive of your Imac are also reasons why it is a lot faster. Unfortunately, the mac Mini doesn't have a fast 7200 PRM drive and a fast graphics card...

[Mac Hammer Fan]

Originally Posted by harrisjamieh

Even with 512 RAM, the mini should wipe the floor with your G4 in universal apps, and be at least twice as fast in rosetta apps (maybe more with more RAM). I use Office on my Intel iMac, and its definatly faster than it is on my iBook G4 1.2 Ghz w/512 RAM

But I guess that the better video card and the faster hard drive of your Imac are also reasons why it is a lot faster. Unfortunately, the mac Mini doesn't have a fast 7200 PRM drive and a fast graphics card...
I have seen some bench mark tests of Office 2004 on Intel Macs (Imac & MacBook Pro).
The slower harddrive of the MacBook seems to be a bottleneck...

[harrisjamieh]

The graphics in the iMac would barely help speed when it comes to office - its not a graphics intensive program. If the imac had an 8 MB graphics card, it would probably perform very similar to if it had a 128 MB graphics card. Yes, I can see the HD being a bottleneck, but more RAM will help this, as it will mean less will have to be off loaded to the hard drive.

[MacOS-Fan]

I agree with the above, the iMac's graphic card would play no role in how fast it runs MS Office.

I run Office 2004 through Rosetta and it runs much faster than it did on my Dual 1 GHz G4 tower with 1.5 GB or RAM.

Don't worry, you will be pleased!

[Mac Hammer Fan]

I guess at least the Core Duo will be better for the Rosetta emulation than the Core Solo...
So therefore, I expect Office to run at least a bit faster on a Core Duo. Or am I wrong?

[harrisjamieh]

Possibly, it depends if Rosetta can utilise both cores or not. Even if it can't, one core can be dedicated to rosetta, and one core to the running of the system, so you will see a pretty big increase if rosetta is dual core aware, and a fair increase if not.

[MacOS-Fan]

Even running on one core it SHOULD be faster than your G3/G4.

[Tuoder]

Fast now or fast later, what to do? If you wouldn'y mind taking a Mini apart, you could probably save a buck now and upgrade later. But the new Mini isn't the easiest thing in the world to work on. It ain't a Sawtooth or anything. Look up a guide for taking apart a Mini, and see if that isn't too much for you.

[Mac Hammer Fan]

I had bad experiences in the past with revisions 1 models of a G3 Beige and B&W. Sometimes the first releases of a new Mac have some problems... But I guess that won't be the case with this new Intel Mac Mini?

[t500]

I have a Mac mini duo wit 2 gb of ram. Word takes a long time to get started (15 20 seconds), after it loads its fine....

[Tuoder]

Originally Posted by Mac Hammer Fan

I had bad experiences in the past with revisions 1 models of a G3 Beige and B&W. Sometimes the first releases of a new Mac have some problems... But I guess that won't be the case with this new Intel Mac Mini?

I, for one, forgive Apple for any little problems they have before the second revision.


I mean seriously, Apple has never made a PC before....

[Mac Hammer Fan]

Originally Posted by t500

I have a Mac mini duo wit 2 gb of ram. Word takes a long time to get started (15 20 seconds), after it loads its fine....

On my old G4 Beige it takes only 5 seconds. If this is also the case when using OLE objects, that would be unacceptable. It seems that scrolling is also slower under Rosetta with a Mac Mini vs an Imac, especially with a document that contains illustrations.
I was planning to buy a Mac Mini with only 1 GB RAM...

[XPrincessaBonitaX]

Originally Posted by Mac Hammer Fan

Which Mac Mini 1 GB RAM would be a better choice? Core Solo 1.5 or Core Duo 1.66

The Mac Mini would be used for:
- Converting LPs to CD.
- Office 2004 especially Word (large documents with illustrations and formulas)
- Surfing the internet
- Making a website with Freeway Pro
- AppleWorks, Pages, Keynote, Graphic Converter, MathType
(no need of Photoshop and no games)

and would replace an older G3 beige with G4 ZIF500

I know OS9 classic doesn't work, but perhaps there exist a OS 7 emulator?

TIA for any advice.

According to the website for Freeway:

Freeway 4.1.1 and above are Universal - they will run natively on Intel Macs, and so you will benefit from the full speed and power of these processors.

Office won't be universal for sometime, more then likely another version of office next year. It runs just fine in Rosetta, It takes a bit longer to load then on a G4 I had but once running it is much faster images included.

The solo will do you fine, the important note is to get 1GB or ram or more. It runs a little slow if you open mor ethen one application with 512mb.

[Mac Hammer Fan]

Originally Posted by Boondocks

According to the website for Freeway:

Freeway 4.1.1 and above are Universal - they will run natively on Intel Macs, and so you will benefit from the full speed and power of these processors.

Office won't be universal for sometime, more then likely another version of office next year. It runs just fine in Rosetta, It takes a bit longer to load then on a G4 I had but once running it is much faster images included.

The solo will do you fine, the important note is to get 1GB or ram or more. It runs a little slow if you open mor ethen one application with 512mb.

I noticed that the universal version is still buggy:
http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/1753

But I guess it will be much better after some updates....

To be honest, although I have the 4 Pro version, I still use 3.5 more.

Perhaps I will wait a couple of months before buyiing the Mac Mini. If a faster revision 2 of the Mac Mini comes out in july, it would be definitely worth waiting. But I can't wait longer than 10 weeks...
At this moment Freeway Pro 4.1.2 sounds more like a beta release for Universal...

[Mac Hammer Fan]

PS:
I have found a scrolling test of a 500 pages Word doc on an Imac
G5 Imac : approx 1 min
Intel Imac Rosetta: approx 2 min
(my G4 Beige 5 min (text only) 5 min)

Microsoft Word Scroll: Scroll
dual core 2 Ghz 1:58
dual core 2:05
Imac G5 2.1 Ghz 0:57

Although it's not from a Mac Mini, it gives us an idea how much Rosetta slows down...

Anyway, I just visited a Mac shop and saw such a Mac mini working. And indeed, it performed significantly better than my G4 Beige,
even under Rosetta with Word.

[MacOS-Fan]

I figured that it would.

[cornwallstone]

Mac Hammer Fan, keep in mind the Core Duo is only $100 more than a Core Solo with the Superdrive option and same size hard drive. I've never regretted buying more processor, more memory or more drive capacity, especially years down the road after OS and application upgrades.
--
Moe
1.66 Core-Duo Mini, 2GB/120GB, Apple 23" Cinema HD Display
Apple Wireless Keyboard & Mouse, Apple iSight Camera
Apple USB Modem (for faxing), Bose Companion 2 Speakers

[Mac Hammer Fan]

Originally Posted by miniMoe

Mac Hammer Fan, keep in mind the Core Duo is only $100 more than a Core Solo with the Superdrive option and same size hard drive. I've never regretted buying more processor, more memory or more drive capacity, especially years down the road after OS and application upgrades.
--
Moe
1.66 Core-Duo Mini, 2GB/120GB, Apple 23" Cinema HD Display
Apple Wireless Keyboard & Mouse, Apple iSight Camera
Apple USB Modem (for faxing), Bose Companion 2 Speakers

In our country (Belgium), due to VAT and taxes the difference is 150 EUR or approx 200 dollars, (when we use a superdrive and 80 GB HD), but still worth the money. I'll go for the Duo.
But I can wait until july. You'll never know that there will be a revision 2 then, even with a bit faster processor. (perhaps I am too optimistic)


I am looking forward to a Dual Core. I saw the that cineBench marks of this machine even outperformed my Dual G5 1.8 that I bought
in august 2004 for nearly 2500 dollars...

[Dark Helmet]

I looked at the price differences between the core and the dual and it didn't make much sense for me to get the solo for the small amount of money I would save.

[Tuoder]

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

I looked at the price differences between the core and the dual and it didn't make much sense for me to get the solo for the small amount of money I would save.

I think that you are correct.

[Dark Helmet]

Originally Posted by Tuoder

I think that you are correct.

I know I was

For a mere $200 you get another 20 gigs of hard drive, more than twice as fast processor and and DVD burner!

That is the best $200 anyone can ever spend.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

I know I was

For a mere $200 you get another 20 gigs of hard drive, more than twice as fast processor and and DVD burner!

That is the best $200 anyone can ever spend.

Actually, it's quite a ripoff IMO.

Retail price difference between 60 and 80GB 5400RPM 2.5" SATA disks: $20 ($100 - $80)
Retail price difference between slot loading ComboDrive and SuperDrive: $20 ($80 - $60)

That leaves over $160 to cover the price difference in CPUs... Intel doesn't list the price for the 1.5Ghz part, but 1.66Ghz Core Solo is $209 and 1.66Ghz Core Duo is $241, so I really doubt 1.5Ghz Core Solo is under $100.

[Dark Helmet]

Originally Posted by mduell

Actually, it's quite a ripoff IMO.

Retail price difference between 60 and 80GB 5400RPM 2.5" SATA disks: $20 ($100 - $80)
Retail price difference between slot loading ComboDrive and SuperDrive: $20 ($80 - $60)

Ya nice try but you would have to take out the drive in there and buy another drive at full price.

The cost of just a hard drive on it's own is $100.

[Eug Wanker]

I echo the sentiment that you should go for the higher end model, not just because of the CPU, but also because you get a DVD burner.

That said, the Core Solo would be fine, especially given the machine it's replacing.

Actually, if you want to run OS 9 Classic, you might be better off just getting an old G4 Mac mini.

[G5man]

Intel will be better for future use, universal binary for Office will be expected in a few years but I am keeping my mini until Conroe comes out. PPC is still an option and may end up being cheaper as long as you upgrade it. Graphics will be better on the PPC mini cause of dedicated graphics. What display you have and resolution? One thing I have notcied is that white pixels appear all over my Dell display when looking at black.

[Mac Hammer Fan]

Originally Posted by G5man

Intel will be better for future use, universal binary for Office will be expected in a few years but I am keeping my mini until Conroe comes out. PPC is still an option and may end up being cheaper as long as you upgrade it. Graphics will be better on the PPC mini cause of dedicated graphics. What display you have and resolution? One thing I have notcied is that white pixels appear all over my Dell display when looking at black.

Viewsonic 22 inch CRT 1344 x 1008 @ 100 Hz
AppleVision 17 inch CRT 1152 x 864 @ 75 Hz
(Perhaps I will buy a TFT next year 19 inch. 4:3)
I also will connect this Mac Mini to my B&O TV

[harrisjamieh]

Originally Posted by Mac Hammer Fan

Viewsonic 22 inch CRT 1344 x 1008 @ 100 Hz
AppleVision 17 inch CRT 1152 x 864 @ 75 Hz
(Perhaps I will buy a TFT next year 19 inch. 4:3)
I also will connect this Mac Mini to my B&O TV

Which B&O TV do you have, out of interest?

[Mac Hammer Fan]

Originally Posted by harrisjamieh

Which B&O TV do you have, out of interest?

Bang&Olufsen Beovision MX 7000, nine years old, but still very usefull and the picture quality is still excellent. (4:3)

back on topic:
Is Rosetta more stable with 2 GB RAM? I heard that e.g. opening large HTML docs can cause a crash.

[Dark Helmet]

Originally Posted by G5man

Graphics will be better on the PPC mini cause of dedicated graphics.

Actually I believe MacCentral had a story showing that the PPC was actually worse at video.

[hldan]

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

Actually I believe MacCentral had a story showing that the PPC was actually worse at video.

Speaking of video does anyone have confirmation how well the Intel Mac mini's are at playing HD?

[Mac Hammer Fan]

Originally Posted by hldan

Speaking of video does anyone have confirmation how well the Intel Mac mini's are at playing HD?

Mini Core Duo plays the HD much better than the Mini Core Solo, especially the high resolutions.
http://arstechnica.com/reviews/hardware/macmini.ars/3

[Dark Helmet]

Originally Posted by hldan

Speaking of video does anyone have confirmation how well the Intel Mac mini's are at playing HD?

My Dual Mini plays HD trailers as good or better than my dual G5.

[eddiecatflap]

the dual core is an amazing chip

[Mac Hammer Fan]

I have read in a review at Amazon that the audio input ona a Mac Mini Dual Core is noisy.
"The Mac mini audio input jack is highly susceptible to picking up 60-cycle hum and other audio noise. Not acceptable."
Can anyone confirm this is true ?
Or is this source not reliable?

TIA

[EFFENDI]

I've had no problems with my Mac Mini's input.....mind you I keep every other component of my system on a separate circuit - monitor, external drives, etc..I also live close to a transformer station, but I've never had problems with ths input picking up any 60HZ hum or any other electrical noise. The source does seem a bit unreliable...
An AC power noise filter could remedy the situation.

[Mac Hammer Fan]

With the the 16 may 2006 releases of the attractive MacBooks, I expect a price drop or an update of the MacMini within 2 months, otherwise Apple will sell much more MacBooks than Mac Mini's.
They have the same features, but additional a screen, a faster processor, keyboard, trackpad, iSight, etc ..