JTD did an excellent job of getting some valuable points across.
Yes, that there are two general categories of fanbois here at AI.
Ones which admit the mini (and iMac) has it's limitations but can serve useful purposes even for Pros in a corporate environment.
And ones that belong to the xMac mafia and the mini can do nothing right...
The fact is that there are pros that are running CS3 just fine on macbooks and minis despite the limitations of integrated graphics. You certainly DON'T want them to be the only machines in your studio but it complements the high end fairly well for some segments of the workflow. You certainly DO want to wait for a refresh IF you can. But if the machine will only be running CS3 during it's useful life and you need it NOW then it is still suitable.
Still, I'd rather remove one Mac Pro from the list and upgrade 3 minis to refurb 24" iMac (white) while they last (total 4 iMac 24" white vs 1 MP + 3 minis).
If that's the course of action, I'd probably move sooner rather than later. Transition to the refurb units first. The Mac Pro and Mini will only get better with time. Get the Mac Pros purchase order done next and then fill in mini's when they get a refresh.
If there are folks that need to use windows anyway, let them transition last.
Yes, that there are two general categories of fanbois here at AI.
Ones which admit the mini (and iMac) has it's limitations but can serve useful purposes even for Pros in a corporate environment.
And ones that belong to the xMac mafia and the mini can do nothing right...
The fact is that there are pros that are running CS3 just fine on macbooks and minis despite the limitations of integrated graphics.
The mini is way out of date and it's price for it's hardware is the big Issue the older g4 mini cost less and had a real video card in it.
The iMac screen is not that good for pro work the rest of the hardware is.
The mac book has a better cpu and more base ram in the $1,299.00 with better on board video, The bad part is the small 13" screen. Also at $1,500 it should have a bigger screen and / or some from of a real video card.
Also it's not on board video is bad it's then Intel on board video sucks next Nvidia and ATI on board video.
When I read the original post, the comment that jumped straight out was the expected lifespan of the computer. In this day and age, if you truly expect to be running professional grade software on a given machine for four or five years, then you really should be strongly considering professional grade hardware. In an evolving computer software and hardware world, it's too much to expect that a mini will remain an appropriate or even viable computer for that length of time. There's no question that a MacPro would be highly useful for at least that long. If we were talking about a computer needed for clerical tasks I'd answer differently but that's not what the stated needed is.
4-5 years out of the current mini may be stretching it, while a Mac Pro should comfortably last that period of time. However if the OP stcks with CS3 and doesn't upgrade to CS4 then they'd probably be ok. Seeing how the CS suite (PS in particular) is developing, they and many others may very well skip CS4 and wait for CS5.
While this is contrary to the OP's stated desire to keep their machines 4-5 years, by getting minis instead of MPs, one is able to replace machines at a faster pace. This is desirable when Intel is releasing faster and faster cpus on a regular schedule. I wouldn't want to be locked into Penryn machines now when Nehalem is right around the corner and looks so appealing. It's looking like dual core Nehalems will be as fast as quad core Penryns. Next years mini could be a real screamer.
Oh and if Apple achieve their goals with Snow Leopard that may breath a little life into older machines as well. Probably the best solution is a combination of machines as Vinea has suggested.
4-5 years out of the current mini may be stretching it, while a Mac Pro should comfortably last that period of time. However if the OP stcks with CS3 and doesn't upgrade to CS4 then they'd probably be ok. Seeing how the CS suite (PS in particular) is developing, they and many others may very well skip CS4 and wait for CS5.
While this is contrary to the OP's stated desire to keep their machines 4-5 years, by getting minis instead of MPs, one is able to replace machines at a faster pace. This is desirable when Intel is releasing faster and faster cpus on a regular schedule. I wouldn't want to be locked into Penryn machines now when Nehalem is right around the corner and looks so appealing. It's looking like dual core Nehalems will be as fast as quad core Penryns. Next years mini could be a real screamer.
Oh and if Apple achieve their goals with Snow Leopard that may breath a little life into older machines as well. Probably the best solution is a combination of machines as Vinea has suggested.
Is it realistic to think that the needed software will be static for four or five years? For starters, I really doubt that machine would still be running OS X 10.5 through that lifespan. Apple may no longer be even issuing 10.5 security patches while that mini is still in use. What if Adobe came out with some outstanding new feature that the mini couldn't handle? By all accounts Apple didn't intend for the mini to be at the core of someone's livelihood. In the big scheme of things, the extra cost in a professional environment for the MacPro isn't all that much. Seems like a wiser investment to me if someone truly expects to get four or five years of professional use out of it. For the receptionist, it's a great machine. BTW, I own a mini.
Is it realistic to think that the needed software will be static for four or five years? For starters, I really doubt that machine would still be running OS X 10.5 through that lifespan. Apple may no longer be even issuing 10.5 security patches while that mini is still in use. What if Adobe came out with some outstanding new feature that the mini couldn't handle? .
No I don't think SW will be static for 4-5 years. But I think that current minis will be supported for all OSX releases over the next 4-5 years.
As for Adobe, I think many Mac users will skip CS4. Many will wait for CS5 which will be 64 bit. CS4 will not be 64 bit on OSX but will be on Windows. While Adobe could introduce a feature that requires a faster processor than what the mini has, remember that most windows pcs sold have specs equal too or inferior to that of the mini. Requiring more cpu power would limit the market for Adobe and I'm sure they would want to avoid that as much as possible.
No I don't think SW will be static for 4-5 years. But I think that current minis will be supported for all OSX releases over the next 4-5 years.
That's good news.
The 4-5 year time frame for my workgroup is based upon the fact that we have worked on PC desktops and G4 desktops from 2002-03 until the present. Within that period we have added an iMac G5 with a matte screen, a 2.66 dual-core Mac Pro, and a 2.8GHz iMac with a glossy screen.
With the help of the many—and sometimes contentious—analyses on this post, we are tentatively planning to replace the PCs and G4s with a few of the current 24" iMacs and at least one octo-core Mac Pro. To make our budget work and have enough stations for everyone, we will also need to buy a handful of refurbished 2.1GHz iMacs (white) OR Mac minis. We are leaning toward the iMacs—despite troubling discussion threads like the following:
This grammar is so mangled I can't even understand the point of your post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe_the_dragon, translated
The Mini is way out of date and the price of its hardware is a big issue. The older G4 Mini cost less and had a real video card in it.
Also, on-board video itself is not bad; instead, the problem is that Intel's on-board video sucks when compared to both Nvidia's and ATI's on-board video.
Did you read the thread? Others corroborated Messiah's opinion that CS3 runs fine on the current mini. As well, I mentioned that my brother in law runs PS on his Macbook with a CORE DUO and integrated graphics. This is his 'work' machine provided by his employer. He gets along just fine.
Yes I read the thread which is the direct result of the posting I made. In a professional envi4ronment you just can't take somebody else's word that a piece of hardware will work well. As I've said there are to many variables as to what is acceptable, one should verify that a specific machine meets the users needs. The fact that your brother does fine means absolutely nothing to somebody purchasing hardware for a specific use that may have no relation at all with what your brother does.
Quote:
Oh, and what makes JTD's singular opinion more valuable than Messiah's? Does JTD even use CS3?
He didn't gloss over the real issues one would have to address or at least acknowledge on the Mini. Even if the Mini runs CS3 fine in this app doesn't imply that it is the best piece of hardware for the task at hand. In the corporate environment there is a bigger picture to consider.
Quote:
What valuable points did JTD bring to the table? Slow HDD? Integrated graphics? Again there are others who use CS3 daily who find that the mini gets the job done despite it's limitations.
Yes that may very well be the case, doesn't mean a lot though if the job environment varies greatly from the one the hardware is going into. More so such a response doesn't even address the stated desire to have a reasonable chance of using the hardware for 5 years.
Quote:
I'm not going to argue that it's the best machine for the job. And a product refresh would do a lot to enhance it's appeal. But from what I've seen and read it can get the job done.
That is entirely dependent on ones expectations as to what getting the job done means. I can install Linux on a 486 PC from ages ago and it will run Bash and many of the apps currently available, it just won't perform anywhere near what modern hardware would.
The question is, given the parameters that the original poster put forth, will the Mini be acceptable. That is something only the original poster can completely answer but I'm pretty sure that right now the Mini is a bad choice for a corporate purchase.
Quote:
Hell, I'm sure there are plenty of windows users running the windows version of CS3 on P4 boxes. I'm sure the mini compares quite favorably to such a machine.
Maybe but that doesn't make the purchase of such acceptable for corporate purchase. I noticed a tone in the response like I have some how trashed the Mini, nothing could be further from the truth. The problem with the Mini is pretty clear, the unit has age considerably and simply doesn't offer up the right feature set nor the right value. That shouldn't really surprise anybody.
Absolutely ridiculous statement. The mini is fine for *most* corporate environments. Only those that *require* a video card in their machine would find the performance of the mini unacceptable. It's small form factor is appealing for some users.
On the contrary I believe the statement is right on and frankly that has nothing to do with the video card.
Quote:
While the iMac is a better value, some have a dislike of all in one machines.( FWIW, I'm not one of those people). If users prefer a machine without an integrated display the mini is a fine machine and substantially less expensive than the Mac Pro.
From a corporate support standpoint the Mini isn't much better than the iMac. The problems are serviceability, performance and flexibility. The Mini might be OK in an environment where it could make up a good portion of the installed base of computing hardware. The problem is that is you need to support a mix where the Mini is a small percentage of your installed base it becomes a big hassle to deal with it. Everything about it will be odd with respect to the rest of the hardware one has to support.
In any event I just think the original poster is simply going down a path that will lead to lots of trouble in the future. His goal should be to minimize that number of machine variants he has to support. By the way the release of a Mini upgrade/replacement might very well change my mind, but right now I'm sticking to my guns.
Yes, that there are two general categories of fanbois here at AI.
Ones which admit the mini (and iMac) has it's limitations but can serve useful purposes even for Pros in a corporate environment.
And ones that belong to the xMac mafia and the mini can do nothing right...
A gross simplification if I ever saw one. In the context of this thread there are many good reasons to keep the Mini out of the equation.
Quote:
The fact is that there are pros that are running CS3 just fine on macbooks and minis despite the limitations of integrated graphics. You certainly DON'T want them to be the only machines in your studio but it complements the high end fairly well for some segments of the workflow. You certainly DO want to wait for a refresh IF you can. But if the machine will only be running CS3 during it's useful life and you need it NOW then it is still suitable.
I fully understand the need to complement the high end, I just don't see the Mini as the solution to that issue. As state previously it has very little to do with the integrated graphics. It is more a case of having to support an odd piece of hardware that ends up being a very small percentage of your installed base. In any event your focus on the refresh just reinforces that performance isn't a strong point of the Mini either.
Quote:
Still, I'd rather remove one Mac Pro from the list and upgrade 3 minis to refurb 24" iMac (white) while they last (total 4 iMac 24" white vs 1 MP + 3 minis).
If that's the course of action, I'd probably move sooner rather than later. Transition to the refurb units first. The Mac Pro and Mini will only get better with time. Get the Mac Pros purchase order done next and then fill in mini's when they get a refresh.
I'd certainly go with a Mac Pro or two first. Obviously this is a conversion project that needs to be handled well, what one want to avoid is buying to few machines for the first round of installations.
Quote:
If there are folks that need to use windows anyway, let them transition last.
Note that that is not news but what we hope to see from Apple. Many are already worried that support for PPC may end.
Quote:
The 4-5 year time frame for my workgroup is based upon the fact that we have worked on PC desktops and G4 desktops from 2002-03 until the present. Within that period we have added an iMac G5 with a matte screen, a 2.66 dual-core Mac Pro, and a 2.8GHz iMac with a glossy screen.
I'd be worried about the Power PC machines.
Quote:
With the help of the many?and sometimes contentious?analyses on this post, we are tentatively planning to replace the PCs and G4s with a few of the current 24" iMacs and at least one octo-core Mac Pro. To make our budget work and have enough stations for everyone, we will also need to buy a handful of refurbished 2.1GHz iMacs (white) OR Mac minis. We are leaning toward the iMacs?despite troubling discussion threads like the following:
Finding the right balance is always a challenge. I would be concerned if you end up with to many variants, but that is somewhat dependant on how much support you do internally.
Yes I read the thread which is the direct result of the posting I made. In a professional envi4ronment you just can't take somebody else's word that a piece of hardware will work well.
Dave
That begs the question: Why should we take your advice on the subject then? Oh and here is a link where some one uses minis and cs3 to help produce their newspaper. Scroll down and read the replies.
My response was to the OP's original question 'can the mini run cs3 with ease'. While it's hard to know exactly what the OP means by 'with ease', I've tried to show that their are people that can and do use cs3 on minis every day and find the performance acceptable. Messiah didn't state that the mini was ok in running cs3, he was impressed with how well cs3 performed on the mini. Marvin thinks the mini, while could be made better by Apple, is Apple's best desktop machine.
Only the OP knows what performance would be acceptable fro him/her. As I've said before, the mini isn't the best machine for the job. But it is Apple's least expensive machine and is capable of running cs3 IF the expectations are reasonable. Your criticism (And JTD as well) of the mini seems to centered around the specs of the mini and not its inability to 'get he job done'. If the mini is incapable or truly over matched for the job post then post some links from users that show that to be the case. It seems like we're to take your word for it that the mini sucks for cs3 and as you said your self 'one person's opinion does mean squat'.
I think your argument (applies to JTD as well) is more accurately summarized by stating ' the mini is Apple's poorest value, has a slow HDD, weak integrated graphics and is a good reason why Apple should make an xMac.' While some or all of that may be true (at least partially), it doesn't answer the OP's original question.
Here's my question. Will the mini run non-video programs in Adobe CS3 with ease?or will we need more horsepower? I'm talking about InDesign and Photoshop CS3 in particular. We expect to own these machines for 4 to 5 years, and we obviously will not be running Final Cut, Premiere, or After Effects on them.
You can actually run all those programs on a Mini. CS3 runs fine but Indesign struggles with the laptop hard drive. I'd really suggest upgrading the Minis with one of these:
the choice depending on storage requirements. Also get 2GB Ram minimum in all of them. Ram is dirt cheap. The HD space helps with Bootcamp too.
The video chipset and hard drive are the biggest let downs in the Mini. You can get round one of those limitations and the other isn't important if you don't do hardware accelerated tasks.
The white iMacs are ok as you can open them and get to the hard drive quite easily. This isn't the case with the aluminium ones. The difference in the display quality is staggering. Even standing on the other side of a room, the white iMac display is clear as day. The aluminium ones let you know if it's a clear day as you just see what's outside the window. You can't actually make out the screen at all beyond a certain viewing angle.
One thing I wish is that there was a way for multiple users to use the same machine at the same time. Basically have a single Mac Pro for say 4 users. A single Mac Pro can run 4 displays. That would be the most cost-effective solution as it's £1600/4 + £200 per 24" display = £600 per user vs 4 x 20" iMac = £800 per user
There are thin client solutions but they need you to use other low-end machines. Having a shared single machine should also mean lower software licensing costs, which could be why Apple would rather you didn't do it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sybaritic
I have read elsewhere that the mini could be updated tomorrow, in November, or ... never.
It can't be updated before July 14th that much we know. Hopefully it will be sometime this month though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Especially in an advertising department where you don't want to be slowing people down. Even for a clerk or secretary you would be better off with an iMac in my opinion.
They are pretty close performance-wise. A 10-20% longer rendering time is still better than hurting their eyes or making them spend ages getting the right print output.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
From a corporate support standpoint the Mini isn't much better than the iMac. The problems are serviceability, performance and flexibility.
Serviceability and flexibility are exactly why the Mini is better. You can't open the new iMac without taking out the display. If your display breaks, your whole machine has to go to Apple. The Mini isn't the easiest machine to open but once you get the lid off, you can access all the components much more easily than with an iMac. Replacing one entirely is half the price.
How do you reposition your iMac if you don't get a good wireless signal? You can move a Mini all over your desk but keep your display just where you like.
The Mini is by far a better business machine than the iMac. All it needs is a BTO for the 7200 rpm drives mentioned above, a better GPU and DVD burners throughout and displayport to get multiple display output or dual DVI. The graphics chipset should be enough with Montevina (6 times faster than GMA 950) but we'll have to see how the software support is.
The white iMacs are ok as you can open them and get to the hard drive quite easily. This isn't the case with the aluminium ones. The difference in the display quality is staggering. Even standing on the other side of a room, the white iMac display is clear as day. The aluminium ones let you know if it's a clear day as you just see what's outside the window. You can't actually make out the screen at all beyond a certain viewing angle.
The above would be the best reason to keep the iMac out of the main production stream. If Apple ever gets around to reading the forums and realize there is a demand for a better screen on the iMac, we might see an update that addresses that. A better screen would certainly go a long ways to making the iMac even more useful in a wider range of business applications.
Quote:
One thing I wish is that there was a way for multiple users to use the same machine at the same time. Basically have a single Mac Pro for say 4 users. A single Mac Pro can run 4 displays. That would be the most cost-effective solution as it's £1600/4 + £200 per 24" display = £600 per user vs 4 x 20" iMac = £800 per user
Sounds like you want to go back to the days of the heavily loaded minicomputer. I'm not sure that is the best approach going. Better would be apps that can distribute their compute needs across the network. To some extent these exist in certain fields but for the needs of an advertising department I think you are out of luck. I don't think that will change soon either due to the nature of the media production apps.
In any event there was some effort some time ago to deliver exactly what you where asking for on a Linux system. Of course this isn't OS/X and I'm not sure if anything every came of it. The problem is the compute resources are not really that expensive.
Quote:
There are thin client solutions but they need you to use other low-end machines. Having a shared single machine should also mean lower software licensing costs, which could be why Apple would rather you didn't do it.
Software can be licensed any way the vendor wants. So that really can't be part of the problem. Rather the problem that always existed in the Mini computer world was that demand on the CPU always seemed to hit at the same time. The slow downs can be significant if everybody hits the machine with a rendering job all at once.
Quote:
It can't be updated before July 14th that much we know. Hopefully it will be sometime this month though.
Update? I hope it is slightly more than an update.
Quote:
They are pretty close performance-wise. A 10-20% longer rendering time is still better than hurting their eyes or making them spend ages getting the right print output.
The discussion about performance is most interesting here. Really the upgrade program ought to have realistic goals based on an economic payoff. In other words if a machine can cut production time in half how much would they be willing to pay for it. If a machine can do it in 1/4 or 1/8th the time how much would that be worth to them.
I'm bothered a bit by this whole program in that the goal seems to convert to Macs but not justify them in any other way. The cost of the hardware might look a lot different if they where to realize a production system that is 3 times faster.
Quote:
Serviceability and flexibility are exactly why the Mini is better. You can't open the new iMac without taking out the display. If your display breaks, your whole machine has to go to Apple. The Mini isn't the easiest machine to open but once you get the lid off, you can access all the components much more easily than with an iMac. Replacing one entirely is half the price.
I'm looking at it from the stand point of what I see happening locally. Standard desktop machines are very easy to service and the parts are common amongst the various machines. Nothing in a Mini is a standard desktop component. So even when you do get it open you have to have a separate stock of components to service it.
Quote:
How do you reposition your iMac if you don't get a good wireless signal? You can move a Mini all over your desk but keep your display just where you like.
First let me say this very clearly if you have desktop machines that are not hooked up to a wired network you are just crazy. Wireless is just such a huge risk in a static location that it just boggles my mind that anyone would consider it a reasonable alternative for an installation of desktop machines. That doesn't even include the speed loss considerations.
Quote:
The Mini is by far a better business machine than the iMac. All it needs is a BTO for the 7200 rpm drives mentioned above, a better GPU and DVD burners throughout and displayport to get multiple display output or dual DVI.
In other words it needs a complete redesign!
Now don't get me wrong many a desktop machine located in a business environment is way to power hungry for what it does. The Mini in a way is a very green machine with respect to that. It is just that the current configuration doesn't cut the mustard with respect to many business usages. By the way that doesn't imply that Apple should bloat the machine up either, but a redesign that uses parts commonly available and a layout that allows easy support in house is a must. Ideally the enclosure ought to open up on a hinge to facilitate maintenance.
Quote:
The graphics chipset should be enough with Montevina (6 times faster than GMA 950) but we'll have to see how the software support is.
If Apple goes with Montevina in a Mini follow on I don't see a big need to worry about software support. Considering how close the update likely is the original poster shouldn't lock himself into any one conversion path. The Mini might morph into something much more user friendly and business acceptable.
I would like to see a redesign of the mini so that it accomplished the following two things: incorporate that hideously large power brick. If they could incorporate that into the mini's design even if it means increasing the footprint a little. There also needs to be a way for the average user to get easy access inside. The Power Mac G4 Cube had easy access and Steve Jobs made that a marquee feature. Today everything's a bitch to access. From the hard drive on the mini, to the MacBook Pro and to the hard drive on the iMac, it's always a friggin adventure (worse - try getting quick access to a bad HD on an eMac). This is possibly one of the negative points for corporate adoption of Macs in enterprise.
And, oh it's been 333 days since the Mini was last refreshed. It's time. Way beyond time. Like the notebook lines, maybe it's waiting for Montevina (One can hope)...
Today everything's a bitch to access. From the hard drive on the mini, to the MacBook Pro and to the hard drive on the iMac, it's always a friggin adventure (worse - try getting quick access to a bad HD on an eMac). This is possibly one of the negative points for corporate adoption of Macs in enterprise.
I don't think it is a possibility but a huge reality, many of Apples Macs are very hard to service from the physical standpoint. Even when you over come that you still have the issue of having to maintain an odd assortment of parts. At least in the sense of comparison to what you have on hand for more normal hardware.
It would be one thing to outfit an entire organization with Minis, then you service and parts situation is no longer odd. The problem is if you have a Organization that has justified needs for higher performance platforms, a Mac Pro for example, then throwing a modest number of Mini's into the mix just leads to support problems.
By the way I'm not so negative on the Mini's external supply. AT least it is easy to replace. It is not standard off the shelf hardware but being plug in very convenient. The trouble is getting access to the high failure rate part, the drive, is a bit of a nightmare and even when you get to it your replacement options are extremely limited.
I would like to see a redesign of the mini so that it accomplished the following two things: incorporate that hideously large power brick. If they could incorporate that into the mini's design even if it means increasing the footprint a little. There also needs to be a way for the average user to get easy access inside. The Power Mac G4 Cube had easy access and Steve Jobs made that a marquee feature. Today everything's a bitch to access. From the hard drive on the mini, to the MacBook Pro and to the hard drive on the iMac, it's always a friggin adventure (worse - try getting quick access to a bad HD on an eMac). This is possibly one of the negative points for corporate adoption of Macs in enterprise.
I like the external power supply... it's the easiest part to replace! All kinds of electronic equipment have external power supplies so I don't see why a computer can't.
Comments
JTD did an excellent job of getting some valuable points across.
Yes, that there are two general categories of fanbois here at AI.
Ones which admit the mini (and iMac) has it's limitations but can serve useful purposes even for Pros in a corporate environment.
And ones that belong to the xMac mafia and the mini can do nothing right...
The fact is that there are pros that are running CS3 just fine on macbooks and minis despite the limitations of integrated graphics. You certainly DON'T want them to be the only machines in your studio but it complements the high end fairly well for some segments of the workflow. You certainly DO want to wait for a refresh IF you can. But if the machine will only be running CS3 during it's useful life and you need it NOW then it is still suitable.
Still, I'd rather remove one Mac Pro from the list and upgrade 3 minis to refurb 24" iMac (white) while they last (total 4 iMac 24" white vs 1 MP + 3 minis).
If that's the course of action, I'd probably move sooner rather than later. Transition to the refurb units first. The Mac Pro and Mini will only get better with time. Get the Mac Pros purchase order done next and then fill in mini's when they get a refresh.
If there are folks that need to use windows anyway, let them transition last.
Yes, that there are two general categories of fanbois here at AI.
Ones which admit the mini (and iMac) has it's limitations but can serve useful purposes even for Pros in a corporate environment.
And ones that belong to the xMac mafia and the mini can do nothing right...
The fact is that there are pros that are running CS3 just fine on macbooks and minis despite the limitations of integrated graphics.
The mini is way out of date and it's price for it's hardware is the big Issue the older g4 mini cost less and had a real video card in it.
The iMac screen is not that good for pro work the rest of the hardware is.
The mac book has a better cpu and more base ram in the $1,299.00 with better on board video, The bad part is the small 13" screen. Also at $1,500 it should have a bigger screen and / or some from of a real video card.
Also it's not on board video is bad it's then Intel on board video sucks next Nvidia and ATI on board video.
When I read the original post, the comment that jumped straight out was the expected lifespan of the computer. In this day and age, if you truly expect to be running professional grade software on a given machine for four or five years, then you really should be strongly considering professional grade hardware. In an evolving computer software and hardware world, it's too much to expect that a mini will remain an appropriate or even viable computer for that length of time. There's no question that a MacPro would be highly useful for at least that long. If we were talking about a computer needed for clerical tasks I'd answer differently but that's not what the stated needed is.
4-5 years out of the current mini may be stretching it, while a Mac Pro should comfortably last that period of time. However if the OP stcks with CS3 and doesn't upgrade to CS4 then they'd probably be ok. Seeing how the CS suite (PS in particular) is developing, they and many others may very well skip CS4 and wait for CS5.
While this is contrary to the OP's stated desire to keep their machines 4-5 years, by getting minis instead of MPs, one is able to replace machines at a faster pace. This is desirable when Intel is releasing faster and faster cpus on a regular schedule. I wouldn't want to be locked into Penryn machines now when Nehalem is right around the corner and looks so appealing. It's looking like dual core Nehalems will be as fast as quad core Penryns. Next years mini could be a real screamer.
Oh and if Apple achieve their goals with Snow Leopard that may breath a little life into older machines as well. Probably the best solution is a combination of machines as Vinea has suggested.
4-5 years out of the current mini may be stretching it, while a Mac Pro should comfortably last that period of time. However if the OP stcks with CS3 and doesn't upgrade to CS4 then they'd probably be ok. Seeing how the CS suite (PS in particular) is developing, they and many others may very well skip CS4 and wait for CS5.
While this is contrary to the OP's stated desire to keep their machines 4-5 years, by getting minis instead of MPs, one is able to replace machines at a faster pace. This is desirable when Intel is releasing faster and faster cpus on a regular schedule. I wouldn't want to be locked into Penryn machines now when Nehalem is right around the corner and looks so appealing. It's looking like dual core Nehalems will be as fast as quad core Penryns. Next years mini could be a real screamer.
Oh and if Apple achieve their goals with Snow Leopard that may breath a little life into older machines as well. Probably the best solution is a combination of machines as Vinea has suggested.
Is it realistic to think that the needed software will be static for four or five years? For starters, I really doubt that machine would still be running OS X 10.5 through that lifespan. Apple may no longer be even issuing 10.5 security patches while that mini is still in use. What if Adobe came out with some outstanding new feature that the mini couldn't handle? By all accounts Apple didn't intend for the mini to be at the core of someone's livelihood. In the big scheme of things, the extra cost in a professional environment for the MacPro isn't all that much. Seems like a wiser investment to me if someone truly expects to get four or five years of professional use out of it. For the receptionist, it's a great machine. BTW, I own a mini.
Is it realistic to think that the needed software will be static for four or five years? For starters, I really doubt that machine would still be running OS X 10.5 through that lifespan. Apple may no longer be even issuing 10.5 security patches while that mini is still in use. What if Adobe came out with some outstanding new feature that the mini couldn't handle? .
No I don't think SW will be static for 4-5 years. But I think that current minis will be supported for all OSX releases over the next 4-5 years.
As for Adobe, I think many Mac users will skip CS4. Many will wait for CS5 which will be 64 bit. CS4 will not be 64 bit on OSX but will be on Windows. While Adobe could introduce a feature that requires a faster processor than what the mini has, remember that most windows pcs sold have specs equal too or inferior to that of the mini. Requiring more cpu power would limit the market for Adobe and I'm sure they would want to avoid that as much as possible.
No I don't think SW will be static for 4-5 years. But I think that current minis will be supported for all OSX releases over the next 4-5 years.
That's good news.
The 4-5 year time frame for my workgroup is based upon the fact that we have worked on PC desktops and G4 desktops from 2002-03 until the present. Within that period we have added an iMac G5 with a matte screen, a 2.66 dual-core Mac Pro, and a 2.8GHz iMac with a glossy screen.
With the help of the many—and sometimes contentious—analyses on this post, we are tentatively planning to replace the PCs and G4s with a few of the current 24" iMacs and at least one octo-core Mac Pro. To make our budget work and have enough stations for everyone, we will also need to buy a handful of refurbished 2.1GHz iMacs (white) OR Mac minis. We are leaning toward the iMacs—despite troubling discussion threads like the following:
http://discussions.apple.com/thread....readID=1467276
Portables are not an option, though I appreciate those posters who have noted the possibility.
Thanks to all.
The mini is way out of date and it's price for it's hardware is the big Issue the older g4 mini cost less and had a real video card in it.....
Also it's not on board video is bad it's then Intel on board video sucks next Nvidia and ATI on board video.
This grammar is so mangled I can't even understand the point of your post.
The word *it's* means IT IS, or IT HAS.
The word *its* is the possessive form.
This grammar is so mangled I can't even understand the point of your post.
The Mini is way out of date and the price of its hardware is a big issue. The older G4 Mini cost less and had a real video card in it.
Also, on-board video itself is not bad; instead, the problem is that Intel's on-board video sucks when compared to both Nvidia's and ATI's on-board video.
Fixed.
Did you read the thread? Others corroborated Messiah's opinion that CS3 runs fine on the current mini. As well, I mentioned that my brother in law runs PS on his Macbook with a CORE DUO and integrated graphics. This is his 'work' machine provided by his employer. He gets along just fine.
Yes I read the thread which is the direct result of the posting I made. In a professional envi4ronment you just can't take somebody else's word that a piece of hardware will work well. As I've said there are to many variables as to what is acceptable, one should verify that a specific machine meets the users needs. The fact that your brother does fine means absolutely nothing to somebody purchasing hardware for a specific use that may have no relation at all with what your brother does.
Oh, and what makes JTD's singular opinion more valuable than Messiah's? Does JTD even use CS3?
He didn't gloss over the real issues one would have to address or at least acknowledge on the Mini. Even if the Mini runs CS3 fine in this app doesn't imply that it is the best piece of hardware for the task at hand. In the corporate environment there is a bigger picture to consider.
What valuable points did JTD bring to the table? Slow HDD? Integrated graphics? Again there are others who use CS3 daily who find that the mini gets the job done despite it's limitations.
Yes that may very well be the case, doesn't mean a lot though if the job environment varies greatly from the one the hardware is going into. More so such a response doesn't even address the stated desire to have a reasonable chance of using the hardware for 5 years.
I'm not going to argue that it's the best machine for the job. And a product refresh would do a lot to enhance it's appeal. But from what I've seen and read it can get the job done.
That is entirely dependent on ones expectations as to what getting the job done means. I can install Linux on a 486 PC from ages ago and it will run Bash and many of the apps currently available, it just won't perform anywhere near what modern hardware would.
The question is, given the parameters that the original poster put forth, will the Mini be acceptable. That is something only the original poster can completely answer but I'm pretty sure that right now the Mini is a bad choice for a corporate purchase.
Hell, I'm sure there are plenty of windows users running the windows version of CS3 on P4 boxes. I'm sure the mini compares quite favorably to such a machine.
Maybe but that doesn't make the purchase of such acceptable for corporate purchase. I noticed a tone in the response like I have some how trashed the Mini, nothing could be further from the truth. The problem with the Mini is pretty clear, the unit has age considerably and simply doesn't offer up the right feature set nor the right value. That shouldn't really surprise anybody.
Dave
Absolutely ridiculous statement. The mini is fine for *most* corporate environments. Only those that *require* a video card in their machine would find the performance of the mini unacceptable. It's small form factor is appealing for some users.
On the contrary I believe the statement is right on and frankly that has nothing to do with the video card.
While the iMac is a better value, some have a dislike of all in one machines.( FWIW, I'm not one of those people). If users prefer a machine without an integrated display the mini is a fine machine and substantially less expensive than the Mac Pro.
From a corporate support standpoint the Mini isn't much better than the iMac. The problems are serviceability, performance and flexibility. The Mini might be OK in an environment where it could make up a good portion of the installed base of computing hardware. The problem is that is you need to support a mix where the Mini is a small percentage of your installed base it becomes a big hassle to deal with it. Everything about it will be odd with respect to the rest of the hardware one has to support.
In any event I just think the original poster is simply going down a path that will lead to lots of trouble in the future. His goal should be to minimize that number of machine variants he has to support. By the way the release of a Mini upgrade/replacement might very well change my mind, but right now I'm sticking to my guns.
Dave
Yes, that there are two general categories of fanbois here at AI.
Ones which admit the mini (and iMac) has it's limitations but can serve useful purposes even for Pros in a corporate environment.
And ones that belong to the xMac mafia and the mini can do nothing right...
A gross simplification if I ever saw one. In the context of this thread there are many good reasons to keep the Mini out of the equation.
The fact is that there are pros that are running CS3 just fine on macbooks and minis despite the limitations of integrated graphics. You certainly DON'T want them to be the only machines in your studio but it complements the high end fairly well for some segments of the workflow. You certainly DO want to wait for a refresh IF you can. But if the machine will only be running CS3 during it's useful life and you need it NOW then it is still suitable.
I fully understand the need to complement the high end, I just don't see the Mini as the solution to that issue. As state previously it has very little to do with the integrated graphics. It is more a case of having to support an odd piece of hardware that ends up being a very small percentage of your installed base. In any event your focus on the refresh just reinforces that performance isn't a strong point of the Mini either.
Still, I'd rather remove one Mac Pro from the list and upgrade 3 minis to refurb 24" iMac (white) while they last (total 4 iMac 24" white vs 1 MP + 3 minis).
If that's the course of action, I'd probably move sooner rather than later. Transition to the refurb units first. The Mac Pro and Mini will only get better with time. Get the Mac Pros purchase order done next and then fill in mini's when they get a refresh.
I'd certainly go with a Mac Pro or two first. Obviously this is a conversion project that needs to be handled well, what one want to avoid is buying to few machines for the first round of installations.
If there are folks that need to use windows anyway, let them transition last.
Dave
That's good news.
Note that that is not news but what we hope to see from Apple. Many are already worried that support for PPC may end.
The 4-5 year time frame for my workgroup is based upon the fact that we have worked on PC desktops and G4 desktops from 2002-03 until the present. Within that period we have added an iMac G5 with a matte screen, a 2.66 dual-core Mac Pro, and a 2.8GHz iMac with a glossy screen.
I'd be worried about the Power PC machines.
With the help of the many?and sometimes contentious?analyses on this post, we are tentatively planning to replace the PCs and G4s with a few of the current 24" iMacs and at least one octo-core Mac Pro. To make our budget work and have enough stations for everyone, we will also need to buy a handful of refurbished 2.1GHz iMacs (white) OR Mac minis. We are leaning toward the iMacs?despite troubling discussion threads like the following:
Finding the right balance is always a challenge. I would be concerned if you end up with to many variants, but that is somewhat dependant on how much support you do internally.
http://discussions.apple.com/thread....readID=1467276
Portables are not an option, though I appreciate those posters who have noted the possibility.
That is actually to bad as some of Apple's best values are had in the portable lines.
Thanks to all.
Best of luck and post back about how it goes.
Dave
Yes I read the thread which is the direct result of the posting I made. In a professional envi4ronment you just can't take somebody else's word that a piece of hardware will work well.
Dave
That begs the question: Why should we take your advice on the subject then? Oh and here is a link where some one uses minis and cs3 to help produce their newspaper. Scroll down and read the replies.
My response was to the OP's original question 'can the mini run cs3 with ease'. While it's hard to know exactly what the OP means by 'with ease', I've tried to show that their are people that can and do use cs3 on minis every day and find the performance acceptable. Messiah didn't state that the mini was ok in running cs3, he was impressed with how well cs3 performed on the mini. Marvin thinks the mini, while could be made better by Apple, is Apple's best desktop machine.
Only the OP knows what performance would be acceptable fro him/her. As I've said before, the mini isn't the best machine for the job. But it is Apple's least expensive machine and is capable of running cs3 IF the expectations are reasonable. Your criticism (And JTD as well) of the mini seems to centered around the specs of the mini and not its inability to 'get he job done'. If the mini is incapable or truly over matched for the job post then post some links from users that show that to be the case. It seems like we're to take your word for it that the mini sucks for cs3 and as you said your self 'one person's opinion does mean squat'.
I think your argument (applies to JTD as well) is more accurately summarized by stating ' the mini is Apple's poorest value, has a slow HDD, weak integrated graphics and is a good reason why Apple should make an xMac.' While some or all of that may be true (at least partially), it doesn't answer the OP's original question.
On the contrary I believe the statement is right on and frankly that has nothing to do with the video card.
Dave
Quick, tell these people they have no idea what they're doing.
Here's my question. Will the mini run non-video programs in Adobe CS3 with ease?or will we need more horsepower? I'm talking about InDesign and Photoshop CS3 in particular. We expect to own these machines for 4 to 5 years, and we obviously will not be running Final Cut, Premiere, or After Effects on them.
You can actually run all those programs on a Mini. CS3 runs fine but Indesign struggles with the laptop hard drive. I'd really suggest upgrading the Minis with one of these:
http://www.dabs.com/productview.aspx?Quicklinx=4N3Q
http://www.dabs.com/productview.aspx?Quicklinx=4RVT
the choice depending on storage requirements. Also get 2GB Ram minimum in all of them. Ram is dirt cheap. The HD space helps with Bootcamp too.
The video chipset and hard drive are the biggest let downs in the Mini. You can get round one of those limitations and the other isn't important if you don't do hardware accelerated tasks.
The white iMacs are ok as you can open them and get to the hard drive quite easily. This isn't the case with the aluminium ones. The difference in the display quality is staggering. Even standing on the other side of a room, the white iMac display is clear as day. The aluminium ones let you know if it's a clear day as you just see what's outside the window. You can't actually make out the screen at all beyond a certain viewing angle.
One thing I wish is that there was a way for multiple users to use the same machine at the same time. Basically have a single Mac Pro for say 4 users. A single Mac Pro can run 4 displays. That would be the most cost-effective solution as it's £1600/4 + £200 per 24" display = £600 per user vs 4 x 20" iMac = £800 per user
There are thin client solutions but they need you to use other low-end machines. Having a shared single machine should also mean lower software licensing costs, which could be why Apple would rather you didn't do it.
I have read elsewhere that the mini could be updated tomorrow, in November, or ... never.
It can't be updated before July 14th that much we know. Hopefully it will be sometime this month though.
Especially in an advertising department where you don't want to be slowing people down. Even for a clerk or secretary you would be better off with an iMac in my opinion.
They are pretty close performance-wise. A 10-20% longer rendering time is still better than hurting their eyes or making them spend ages getting the right print output.
From a corporate support standpoint the Mini isn't much better than the iMac. The problems are serviceability, performance and flexibility.
Serviceability and flexibility are exactly why the Mini is better. You can't open the new iMac without taking out the display. If your display breaks, your whole machine has to go to Apple. The Mini isn't the easiest machine to open but once you get the lid off, you can access all the components much more easily than with an iMac. Replacing one entirely is half the price.
How do you reposition your iMac if you don't get a good wireless signal? You can move a Mini all over your desk but keep your display just where you like.
The Mini is by far a better business machine than the iMac. All it needs is a BTO for the 7200 rpm drives mentioned above, a better GPU and DVD burners throughout and displayport to get multiple display output or dual DVI. The graphics chipset should be enough with Montevina (6 times faster than GMA 950) but we'll have to see how the software support is.
The white iMacs are ok as you can open them and get to the hard drive quite easily. This isn't the case with the aluminium ones. The difference in the display quality is staggering. Even standing on the other side of a room, the white iMac display is clear as day. The aluminium ones let you know if it's a clear day as you just see what's outside the window. You can't actually make out the screen at all beyond a certain viewing angle.
The above would be the best reason to keep the iMac out of the main production stream. If Apple ever gets around to reading the forums and realize there is a demand for a better screen on the iMac, we might see an update that addresses that. A better screen would certainly go a long ways to making the iMac even more useful in a wider range of business applications.
One thing I wish is that there was a way for multiple users to use the same machine at the same time. Basically have a single Mac Pro for say 4 users. A single Mac Pro can run 4 displays. That would be the most cost-effective solution as it's £1600/4 + £200 per 24" display = £600 per user vs 4 x 20" iMac = £800 per user
Sounds like you want to go back to the days of the heavily loaded minicomputer. I'm not sure that is the best approach going. Better would be apps that can distribute their compute needs across the network. To some extent these exist in certain fields but for the needs of an advertising department I think you are out of luck. I don't think that will change soon either due to the nature of the media production apps.
In any event there was some effort some time ago to deliver exactly what you where asking for on a Linux system. Of course this isn't OS/X and I'm not sure if anything every came of it. The problem is the compute resources are not really that expensive.
There are thin client solutions but they need you to use other low-end machines. Having a shared single machine should also mean lower software licensing costs, which could be why Apple would rather you didn't do it.
Software can be licensed any way the vendor wants. So that really can't be part of the problem. Rather the problem that always existed in the Mini computer world was that demand on the CPU always seemed to hit at the same time. The slow downs can be significant if everybody hits the machine with a rendering job all at once.
It can't be updated before July 14th that much we know. Hopefully it will be sometime this month though.
Update? I hope it is slightly more than an update.
They are pretty close performance-wise. A 10-20% longer rendering time is still better than hurting their eyes or making them spend ages getting the right print output.
The discussion about performance is most interesting here. Really the upgrade program ought to have realistic goals based on an economic payoff. In other words if a machine can cut production time in half how much would they be willing to pay for it. If a machine can do it in 1/4 or 1/8th the time how much would that be worth to them.
I'm bothered a bit by this whole program in that the goal seems to convert to Macs but not justify them in any other way. The cost of the hardware might look a lot different if they where to realize a production system that is 3 times faster.
Serviceability and flexibility are exactly why the Mini is better. You can't open the new iMac without taking out the display. If your display breaks, your whole machine has to go to Apple. The Mini isn't the easiest machine to open but once you get the lid off, you can access all the components much more easily than with an iMac. Replacing one entirely is half the price.
I'm looking at it from the stand point of what I see happening locally. Standard desktop machines are very easy to service and the parts are common amongst the various machines. Nothing in a Mini is a standard desktop component. So even when you do get it open you have to have a separate stock of components to service it.
How do you reposition your iMac if you don't get a good wireless signal? You can move a Mini all over your desk but keep your display just where you like.
First let me say this very clearly if you have desktop machines that are not hooked up to a wired network you are just crazy. Wireless is just such a huge risk in a static location that it just boggles my mind that anyone would consider it a reasonable alternative for an installation of desktop machines. That doesn't even include the speed loss considerations.
The Mini is by far a better business machine than the iMac. All it needs is a BTO for the 7200 rpm drives mentioned above, a better GPU and DVD burners throughout and displayport to get multiple display output or dual DVI.
In other words it needs a complete redesign!
Now don't get me wrong many a desktop machine located in a business environment is way to power hungry for what it does. The Mini in a way is a very green machine with respect to that. It is just that the current configuration doesn't cut the mustard with respect to many business usages. By the way that doesn't imply that Apple should bloat the machine up either, but a redesign that uses parts commonly available and a layout that allows easy support in house is a must. Ideally the enclosure ought to open up on a hinge to facilitate maintenance.
The graphics chipset should be enough with Montevina (6 times faster than GMA 950) but we'll have to see how the software support is.
If Apple goes with Montevina in a Mini follow on I don't see a big need to worry about software support. Considering how close the update likely is the original poster shouldn't lock himself into any one conversion path. The Mini might morph into something much more user friendly and business acceptable.
Dave
Today everything's a bitch to access. From the hard drive on the mini, to the MacBook Pro and to the hard drive on the iMac, it's always a friggin adventure (worse - try getting quick access to a bad HD on an eMac). This is possibly one of the negative points for corporate adoption of Macs in enterprise.
I don't think it is a possibility but a huge reality, many of Apples Macs are very hard to service from the physical standpoint. Even when you over come that you still have the issue of having to maintain an odd assortment of parts. At least in the sense of comparison to what you have on hand for more normal hardware.
It would be one thing to outfit an entire organization with Minis, then you service and parts situation is no longer odd. The problem is if you have a Organization that has justified needs for higher performance platforms, a Mac Pro for example, then throwing a modest number of Mini's into the mix just leads to support problems.
By the way I'm not so negative on the Mini's external supply. AT least it is easy to replace. It is not standard off the shelf hardware but being plug in very convenient. The trouble is getting access to the high failure rate part, the drive, is a bit of a nightmare and even when you get to it your replacement options are extremely limited.
Dave
I would like to see a redesign of the mini so that it accomplished the following two things: incorporate that hideously large power brick. If they could incorporate that into the mini's design even if it means increasing the footprint a little. There also needs to be a way for the average user to get easy access inside. The Power Mac G4 Cube had easy access and Steve Jobs made that a marquee feature. Today everything's a bitch to access. From the hard drive on the mini, to the MacBook Pro and to the hard drive on the iMac, it's always a friggin adventure (worse - try getting quick access to a bad HD on an eMac). This is possibly one of the negative points for corporate adoption of Macs in enterprise.
I like the external power supply... it's the easiest part to replace! All kinds of electronic equipment have external power supplies so I don't see why a computer can't.