How would Mac mini compare to Powermac g4 450MHz sawtooth?
I've got a powermac G4 sawtooth (single processor) with 1Gig ram and a Radeon 8500 with 64MB of video ram.
How much better would one of the new mac minis be (with 1Gig of ram) as compared to my G4 powermac?
And would the cheesy integrated graphics with 1Gig of ram on a mini be better than a Radeon 8500 with 64MB of ram?
I know I have expansion slots. I'm more interested if its worth it to just bite the bullet and get a dual core mini instead of waiting a little while longer for a macbook pro.
- Mark
How much better would one of the new mac minis be (with 1Gig of ram) as compared to my G4 powermac?
And would the cheesy integrated graphics with 1Gig of ram on a mini be better than a Radeon 8500 with 64MB of ram?
I know I have expansion slots. I'm more interested if its worth it to just bite the bullet and get a dual core mini instead of waiting a little while longer for a macbook pro.
- Mark
Comments
I've got a powermac G4 sawtooth (single processor) with 1Gig ram and a Radeon 8500 with 64MB of video ram.
How much better would one of the new mac minis be (with 1Gig of ram) as compared to my G4 powermac?
And would the cheesy integrated graphics with 1Gig of ram on a mini be better than a Radeon 8500 with 64MB of ram?
I know I have expansion slots. I'm more interested if its worth it to just bite the bullet and get a dual core mini instead of waiting a little while longer for a macbook pro.
- Mark
If you get a model with integrated video get 2 GB ram: ~60-120MB will be for video at any time so 1GB in the Mini<1GB in the PM
From my experiance, my G4 mini is faster than a G4 800MHZ PM with the same ram so with the core duo, SATA, really fast system bus and obviously the second core, you would be in for a real treat.
For the record, I would wager a large sum of money that the "cheezy integrated card" would smoke an 8500 and furthermore, there are some developments in the pipeline that will bring integrated graphics out of the shadows a little bit: IIRC in the next rev of the intel gpu, there is going to be many shaders and lots of pipelines putting it on a level playing field with a large swath of the stand-alone GPUs.
I've got a powermac G4 sawtooth (single processor) with 1Gig ram and a Radeon 8500 with 64MB of video ram.
How much better would one of the new mac minis be (with 1Gig of ram) as compared to my G4 powermac?
And would the cheesy integrated graphics with 1Gig of ram on a mini be better than a Radeon 8500 with 64MB of ram?
I know I have expansion slots. I'm more interested if its worth it to just bite the bullet and get a dual core mini instead of waiting a little while longer for a macbook pro.
I actually thought the integrated graphics would really suck but I managed to play Quake 4 on my Mac Mini Core Duo with 1 GB Ram with shadows on. The same wasn't true of my 1.5GHz powerbook with 64MB Geforce go 5200, which choked even without shadows. You can download the demo to try it for yourself on your G4.
It's certainly not a good gaming machine but it can play UT2004 very well at 1280x1024. Halo (UB) is not bad but it could be better.
If you wanted cheap but decent gaming, the iMac is best. It can play UT2004 with everything maxed out very smoothly.
I haven't used boot-camp but I've seen reports that it runs Half-Life 2 adequately on a Mini. Again, expect some jitter.
Overall, despite the integrated graphics, I'm very pleased with the performance. In CPU terms, it is on average a whole 4 times faster than the G4s I've used. In a way you'd expect it because it has to be at least double due to there being two processors and the chips have faster clock speeds and are more efficient.
With the Core Duos now as low as £400, I wouldn't even look at a G4 even if it was a tower. Being able to run Windows on the Intel machines opens up a whole new world of software. Parallels flies even on a Mini.
As for Ram, I'd say get 1GB at least. I've done a fair amount of testing to see if I need the 2GB and I don't think it's needed. Maybe for the likes of Photoshop at the moment but generally I don't see the need for it. 512MB definitely isn't enough and I think Apple should put 1GB in the Minis by default.
I would also just get the lowest Mini with the combo drive. My last Mini had a superdrive and I didn't think it was very good. For the extra money, you can buy a 16x firewire burner and you then get the benefit of two drives for copying discs and better media support.
So Marvin, what didn't you like about the mini's superdrive? And do you have an external model that you recommend?
Thanks,
Mark
So Marvin, what didn't you like about the mini's superdrive? And do you have an external model that you recommend?
The superdrive doesn't support the burn speeds on a lot of discs. Most of the time I tried to burn discs, I got a maximum of 2x, which takes half an hour per disc. I'm also not a fan of slot loading drives because if you ever come across a miniature CD like some peripherals have, you can't use it.
The superdrive also doesn't have an eject button, you have to press the keyboard to eject a disc. This is more of a problem for the Mac towers that have tray drives than the slot-loaders though.
Slot loading drives don't always hold discs very well either. Some discs I've used slide around inside and it's not good if you are burning discs.
If a burn fails with an internal drive, it can hang up the system because it is a low level process. Hardware processes are outside the kernel protection so the system just has to wait. With an external drive, you can pull out the firewire cable to free up the system.
With an external drive, they come with standard IDE drives. This means that they can be upgraded very easily. So, when Blu-Ray becomes cheap enough, I can whip out the DVD burner and get a cheap Blu-ray IDE drive and use it with my Mini.
I actually started with an external Lacie CD burner a few years ago, which I got for £100. I then decided to upgrade to DVD and I bought an IDE LG GSA-4120B burner from a local PC shop. It said it was Windows-only but it worked fine and cost about £80. You can get them much cheaper online of course.
This drive has been absolutely excellent. Probably 2 coasters out of more than 100 DVDs burned and as many CDs. It even does DVD-Ram (which would work with my DVD video recorder if Apple supported VRO files). One reason I like Lacie is they give you an extra firewire port on the devices so you can daisy chain them. I have an external HD chained to the DVD burner.
One thing you have to watch is that some drives aren't compatible with burning from things like itunes. I never burn direct from those programs so I can't remember if mine supports that or not but usually you can get round it easily. You can drag tunes from itunes straight into Toast and you can save stuff from idvd as disk images and burn in Disk Utility.
One major advantage as I said is that you have two drives. Even if one goes bad, you have a backup. Plus, you can copy discs much more easily.
I got a superdrive in my old Mini because I figured it would be good having two burners just in case. Also if I took my Mini with me, I could still burn DVDs. But because it almost always burned at 2x, I ended up waiting until I got home. I only ever burned about 3 discs with it.
There's even a petition about it:
http://superdrive.crc.id.au/
But then again I'm sure there are petitions about most things these days. I have had some good experiences with superdrives and I've managed to get 8x out of them at times but it's not consistent between machines and media brands so I've given up with them. The advantages above of having an external drive don't make the superdrive worthwhile for me.
The enclosure I have is the same as the top two on this page:
http://www.lacie.com/products/range.htm?id=10014
They are very easy to open and replace the drive, though they are quite big (about 1.5 times the size of a mini).
I think a superdrive is about $100 and the second on that list is $119. The superdrive is 8x as opposed to Lacie's 16x. I don't know how good lightscribe is for printing discs but it's an extra feature.
Thanks for all the superdrive information! Its very helpful.
- Mark
I've got a powermac G4 sawtooth (single processor) with 1Gig ram and a Radeon 8500 with 64MB of video ram.
How much better would one of the new mac minis be (with 1Gig of ram) as compared to my G4 powermac?
And would the cheesy integrated graphics with 1Gig of ram on a mini be better than a Radeon 8500 with 64MB of ram?
I think a CD mini with 1-2gig ram would smoke an old 400mhz machine
I know I have expansion slots. I'm more interested if its worth it to just bite the bullet and get a dual core mini instead of waiting a little while longer for a macbook pro.
Well if you're looking at it like that then no it's no worth it. While a mini will rape your sawtooth a new memron(I assume your waiting longer for the new ones) macbook pro which will have at least a 128gb vid card will soundly trounce the mini in games.
If games aren't an issue, go for the the mini. Look at it like this:
A mini is essentially a low end macbook in desktp form while a macbook pro is essentially an imac in laptop form.
For your needs do you need macbook power or macbook pro power is the question you need to be asking yourself.
I think a CD mini with 1-2gig ram would smoke an old 400mhz machine
Well if you're looking at it like that then no it's no worth it. While a mini will rape your sawtooth a new memron(I assume your waiting longer for the new ones) macbook pro which will have at least a 128gb vid card will soundly trounce the mini in games.
If games aren't an issue, go for the the mini. Look at it like this:
A mini is essentially a low end macbook in desktp form while a macbook pro is essentially an imac in laptop form.
For your needs do you need macbook power or macbook pro power is the question you need to be asking yourself.
Thanks ecking. The only game I care about is X-Plane. I bought a copy for my powermac but it doesn't play very well but it is tolerable. I would like a machine to be able to handle it with ease (once I get the universal version). I haven't heard how the new mini's handle X-plane and if they didn't do very well, I'd much rather get a more powerful machine. I really wish the mini had a dedicated graphics card OR, it was about $150.00 dollars cheaper with the integrated graphics.
I've been pricing the mini's against some of Apple's other computers and it seems like it almost makes far more sense to spend a little more and get the $1199.00 iMac. Anybody else feel this way about mini's vs the iMac? For example, on the low end mini, if you add in the keyboard, extra ram to get it to 1 gig, and a HD to match the iMac, your almost spending enough money to get an iMac. It comes out to $1002,00 dollars. If you spend another $200.00, you get almost 400MHz more speed/processor AND better processors, a superior graphics solution, a superdrive, 4MB cache, an iSight camera, and a 17inch LCD screen. I'm not sure but I probably missed some other things that you get when you get an iMac vs a mini.
I think I just talked myself out of buying a mini...
- Mark
I haven't heard how the new mini's handle X-plane and if they didn't do very well, I'd much rather get a more powerful machine.
I can probably test it out on my Mini. I see there's a universal demo:
http://www.apple.com/downloads/macos...es/xplane.html
I really wish the mini had a dedicated graphics card OR, it was about $150.00 dollars cheaper with the integrated graphics.
I agree. I'd like to have had the option of a nice GPU. Overall, I'm quite content with the price though. When the Solos were out, it was unreasonable but when they dropped the Duo by £150, I thought it was a decent price given the performance of the CPUs.
I've been pricing the mini's against some of Apple's other computers and it seems like it almost makes far more sense to spend a little more and get the $1199.00 iMac. Anybody else feel this way about mini's vs the iMac? For example, on the low end mini, if you add in the keyboard, extra ram to get it to 1 gig, and a HD to match the iMac, your almost spending enough money to get an iMac. It comes out to $1002,00 dollars. If you spend another $200.00, you get almost 400MHz more speed/processor AND better processors, a superior graphics solution, a superdrive, 4MB cache, an iSight camera, and a 17inch LCD screen. I'm not sure but I probably missed some other things that you get when you get an iMac vs a mini.
You're absolutely right. When you increase the spec of the Mini, you quickly see that the iMac is better value. I wouldn't advise getting a Mini if you intend on getting lots of upgrades. I happened to have a monitor, keyboard and mouse so all I needed was a Mini with 1GB Ram and I got it for £400. I wouldn't have been able to match that with an iMac given that the lowest one is £679.
I don't like having built-in displays because if you're not happy with the quality, you don't have to sell the whole machine. If you want decent gaming and a machine with a decent spec, the iMac is better value than the Mini.
It's the same the further you go up. If you increase the spec of the 24" iMac, you can sometimes exceed the cost of a Mac Pro.
I can probably test it out on my Mini. I see there's a universal demo:
http://www.apple.com/downloads/macos...es/xplane.html
Marvin, you don't have to go through with a demo. I'm sure someone here has X-plane on an intel mini. And I appreciate the kind offer. Thanks.
I agree. I'd like to have had the option of a nice GPU. Overall, I'm quite content with the price though. When the Solos were out, it was unreasonable but when they dropped the Duo by £150, I thought it was a decent price given the performance of the CPUs.
Same here. Since the Duo's were put in the low end mini, I have been continually contemplating the thought of getting one.
I don't like having built-in displays because if you're not happy with the quality, you don't have to sell the whole machine. If you want decent gaming and a machine with a decent spec, the iMac is better value than the Mini.
I agree and this is one thing I never liked about the iMac. That said, I running a 15 inch Sony Multiscan100SXC monitor that is probably 6 years old. A 17inch flat screen would be a huge improvement.
- Mark
Marvin, you don't have to go through with a demo. I'm sure someone here has X-plane on an intel mini. And I appreciate the kind offer. Thanks.
I just tried it out. I'm always interested to see how the integrated graphics perform. In this case, the game was playable but it wasn't very good. I had it on high texture quality where there are two settings above this and a message came up saying the machine wasn't fast enough so it had to reduce some settings. With no FSAA, the models don't look very good and were noticeably jagged. The GMA 950 supports FSAA but it didn't recognise it and it would've killed the performance anyway. The particle effects looked ok but if you played X-Plane a lot, I think you might get frustrated with the game overall.
If it was for an occasional fly around then it would be ok but for a good experience, the 17" iMac with an X1600 would be the best deal for performance on a budget.
I just tried it out. I'm always interested to see how the integrated graphics perform. In this case, the game was playable but it wasn't very good. I had it on high texture quality where there are two settings above this and a message came up saying the machine wasn't fast enough so it had to reduce some settings. With no FSAA, the models don't look very good and were noticeably jagged. The GMA 950 supports FSAA but it didn't recognise it and it would've killed the performance anyway. The particle effects looked ok but if you played X-Plane a lot, I think you might get frustrated with the game overall.
If it was for an occasional fly around then it would be ok but for a good experience, the 17" iMac with an X1600 would be the best deal for performance on a budget.
Ok Marvin, this review of yours was the final blow in my quest to get a mini. The iMac is a much better deal even though I'll have to spend more.
I really appreciate your suggestions and comments on your experience with the mini and also the review of x-plane.
Thanks again!
- Mark
I've been pricing the mini's against some of Apple's other computers and it seems like it almost makes far more sense to spend a little more and get the $1199.00 iMac.
Marketing 101. That is exactly how they want you to think. But it's true, so nobody is getting fooled.
That's also why there isn't an xMac. There is no price point at which to put it.
- at $899, the mini sales go to zero and the xMac won't sell, as the iMac for $300 more gets you an LCD. Also, the gamers wouldn't buy it as at that price it would not have a "decent", as they say, video card.
- at $1000-$1500, the iMac beats the xMac with its LCD.
- at $2000, the iMac is cheaper and has an LCD, and the quad MacPro is only $500 more. And gamers/tinkerers/builders won't pay $2K anyway, and the general buyer doesn't care about video cards or slots or upgrades.
Marketing 101. That is exactly how they want you to think. But it's true, so nobody is getting fooled.
That's also why there isn't an xMac. There is no price point at which to put it.
- at $899, the mini sales go to zero and the xMac won't sell, as the iMac for $300 more gets you an LCD. Also, the gamers wouldn't buy it as at that price it would not have a "decent", as they say, video card.
- at $1000-$1500, the iMac beats the xMac with its LCD.
- at $2000, the iMac is cheaper and has an LCD, and the quad MacPro is only $500 more. And gamers/tinkerers/builders won't pay $2K anyway, and the general buyer doesn't care about video cards or slots or upgrades.
I don't buy that. At $899 it would sell like crazy and many people would rather save the $300 than get an included LCD. I certainly would.
Even at $1000-1500 it would still sell well - the assumption that it is competing with the iMac is a wrong one since many people won't even consider an iMac. Also, having some expansion would be a big selling point and an advantage over the iMac.
A headless mac could be priced the same as an iMac, and both would still sell well (and could have similar profit margins). Same as apple selling notebooks and iMac at the same price poitns. They are simply two different products with different features.
Flee, lesser topics! Flee before the relentless xMac brain eating zombie!