(But no, I wouldn't expect the mini to be able to do that...it's a computer for kids and grandparents) [/B]
It's easy to be dismissive when someone claims "for kids and grandparents".
The fact is that almost no one plays either Doom OR Half life.
There are almost 300 million people in this country, about 220 million are old enough to play these types of games. But how many do they sell? About 5 to 7 million copies. That's a pretty small percentage.
Most of the gamers out there would laugh you silly for using a $600 PC to play games, and you know it.
That's why Alien, and other companies sell those $3,000+ machines.
This is a family machine. If that seems to be derogatory, that's sad. Most machines these days are bought for family use.
It was a 1080p Quicktime clip. It was choppy, like one or two frames every second. I think a core duo would be pushed to the limit as well. Better but not enough. It should be okay for 1080i MPEG2 or at least I hope so. Maybe someone here will do more involved testing when they get theirs.
It was a 1080p Quicktime clip. It was choppy, like one or two frames every second. I think a core duo would be pushed to the limit as well. Better but not enough. It should be okay for 1080i MPEG2 or at least I hope so. Maybe someone here will do more involved testing when they get theirs.
Well, we'll have to see. I'm optimistic.
A Digital Audio I have, that was upgraded to PL dual 7447a 1.8GHz chips runs 1080i perfectly. It drops some frames on 1080p, but it is watchable.
If this old machine can do that, with the slow memory, and bus, then I think there is hope for the dual Mini.
Even another DA machine with dual 533MHz chips runs 720p without a problem.
I almost forgot. Yes that is H.264, from Apple's website.
OK, so how will the performance of the Core DUO Mac Mini compare to a PowerMac G5 dual 1.8Ghz?
I am moving into a new office and space is at a premium. Most of my work is basic office stuff, MS Suite, Pages etc. Occasionally I do work in Final Cut for film editing. My biggest gripe with my G5 is my monitor, which is a boring 17" Viewsonic.
I'm thinking I could sell the G5 in favor of the Mac Mini and use the proceeds from the sale to buy a 20" Cinema Display?
OK, so how will the performance of the Core DUO Mac Mini compare to a PowerMac G5 dual 1.8Ghz?
I am moving into a new office and space is at a premium. Most of my work is basic office stuff, MS Suite, Pages etc. Occasionally I do work in Final Cut for film editing. My biggest gripe with my G5 is my monitor, which is a boring 17" Viewsonic.
I'm thinking I could sell the G5 in favor of the Mac Mini and use the proceeds from the sale to buy a 20" Cinema Display?
Opinions appreciated!
Unless you are only using Universal apps, the PM will certainly be better.
The Mini might be closer than we think for some Universal apps than the same apps on the PM, but the video card you possibly have, or can get, will certainly be better. The HD will be faster as well, as it should be a 3.5" drive running at 7,200 rpm, rather than the 2.5" one running at 5,400 the Mini has.
.......Are people supposed to be impressed with a 1.5 Ghz Intel Chip while PCs are at 3Ghz?.......I am baffled. Nice to see I'm not the only one.
Umm, one point. You need to go read up on WTF Pentium M is and WTF Core Solos and Core Duos are. Then read up on how lame Pentium 4s are despite the big 3+Ghz number. Un-baffle yourself first dude before coming in here and showing how little you know. I don't mean to sound like a dick but I thought most people following Apple news would get the hang of what this Core Solo and Core Duo thing is about.
I said are people supposed to be impressed meaning the average consumer. Noone on these forums are average consumers.
I personally couldnt give a rats ass about Ghz numbers.
The point is the move to Intel was partly to make PC users feel more comfortable buying Macs and to get higher power chips in the machines to match the numbers PC makers are throwing out there. Whether the new chip is better or not we are basically back to the "but the G4 is faster than the equivalent Pentium" argument. On top of that the Mini is now MORE expensive than the G4 Mini. We didn't expect that, did we?
No, I seriously doubt a DVD could use 2GB of memory.
I'm confused they both shouldn't be used?
Seems you have missed the Intel paradigm shift. Clock speeds don't matter so much anymore. Intel has admitted that just because you have more clock cycles does not necessarily mean your processor is outperforming another in calculations, nor is it working in the most efficient manner. Meaning a dual Core 1.5 processor can handily out perform a single 3 Ghz processor.
Most new PC's will be using Intel Core chips, while the 3GHz is the old Pentium technology that Intel will no longer use any more.
Why do you still use a modem?
Don't over 50% os users still use dial-up? I don't right now but I may have to when I move for a little while. The modem should be inside the computer. Broadband is not universal yet, and certainly isn't cheap.
Don't over 50% os users still use dial-up? I don't right now but I may have to when I move for a little while. The modem should be inside the computer. Broadband is not universal yet, and certainly isn't cheap.
Slightly under 50%.
But, Apple has likely done surveys of their own customers. It's very possible that most Mac users ARE on broadband.
This is always a tough decision for a company to make. Have most of your customers that don't use a feature, pay for it, or not include it, so that the smaller percentage that DO use it, pay for it.
Don't over 50% os users still use dial-up? I don't right now but I may have to when I move for a little while. The modem should be inside the computer. Broadband is not universal yet, and certainly isn't cheap.
Really? Broadband users passed dialup users in May this year in the UK and it's been cheaper than dialup for best part of two years here. I can vaguely see the point of a modem in a laptop but in a dinky desktop?
Especially when you have over 2K posts here. Seems to me you'd have to be trying awfully hard not to have noticed such a recently hot topic and remain under-informed about it. Sometimes it's wise to read more and pay attention before participating in ignorance.
Consumers look at the ghz rating, thats all they know. This was the same argument going on for the G4 and G5.
It's faster. It appears you have to have matched pairs of RAM though in the two slots. With Intel's integrated Graphics, if you've two matched DIMMs of the same size and type then the bandwidth to the graphics processor and indeed the rest of the system doubles to 10.6GB/s. If you've 1 1GB and 1 512MB it'll run at 5.3GB/s.
Hmm, so that means I would probably need about 2x1GB DIMMs for worthwhile performance. I usually just get 1GB Ram and that does me fine. 2GB would be about $170 unneeded expense for me. Crazy considering Apple could have put a Radeon X800 in there with 128MB dedicated VRam for that price and that would run HL2 at 1600x1200, 4xAA, 8xAF @ 50fps or so.
Of course they have to crapify the Mini a bit so that people don't just buy it and forget about their far more expensive options .
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Make sure you load it up with RAM for Rosetta emulation. Personally, I'd rather have a G4 Mac Mini if I was running Photoshop though I'd have to be on a serious budget restraint not to consider buying a G5 iMac instead which can be picked up for £799 new.
Yeah in terms of price/performance, the Intel iMac would probably be the best deal considering it comes with a built in LCD. I just can't stand the imacs. I went off machines with integrated displays a couple of years ago and the only Mac Apple have produced that is in my price range for what I want is the Mini. I also think the imacs are ugly - the old G4 imac was a far nicer design IMO, though harder to carry.
Maybe if they designed a Mini with the spec of the Intel imac and then had a bit you could attach an LCD monitor. This way, you get the performance of the Intel imac, the price of the Mini (if you choose to use your own monitor), the style of the old G4 imac and the portability of both.
I think this has been said but what Apple should probably do for the next model is take out bluetooth and airport and take the $100 saving and put in a $107 video card so we can save on the Ram and get good graphics. At the very least give consumers some more build-to-order options.
Even though the Mini looks like an ok upgrade, with the Photoshop thing and paying for the added extras I don't need, I reckon I'll stick with my good old G4 for another year.
Hmm, so that means I would probably need about 2x1GB DIMMs for worthwhile performance. I usually just get 1GB Ram and that does me fine. 2GB would be about $170 unneeded expense for me. Crazy considering Apple could have put a Radeon X800 in there with 128MB dedicated VRam for that price and that would run HL2 at 1600x1200, 4xAA, 8xAF @ 50fps or so.
Of course they have to crapify the Mini a bit so that people don't just buy it and forget about their far more expensive options .
Yeah in terms of price/performance, the Intel iMac would probably be the best deal considering it comes with a built in LCD. I just can't stand the imacs. I went off machines with integrated displays a couple of years ago and the only Mac Apple have produced that is in my price range for what I want is the Mini. I also think the imacs are ugly - the old G4 imac was a far nicer design IMO, though harder to carry.
Maybe if they designed a Mini with the spec of the Intel imac and then had a bit you could attach an LCD monitor. This way, you get the performance of the Intel imac, the price of the Mini (if you choose to use your own monitor), the style of the old G4 imac and the portability of both.
I think this has been said but what Apple should probably do for the next model is take out bluetooth and airport and take the $100 saving and put in a $107 video card so we can save on the Ram and get good graphics. At the very least give consumers some more build-to-order options.
Even though the Mini looks like an ok upgrade, with the Photoshop thing and paying for the added extras I don't need, I reckon I'll stick with my good old G4 for another year.
1GB should be fine.
Look at the ads for the CE and computer chains in the newspapers. You will be hard pressed to find networking equipment that ISN'T wireless.
I expect that the two together add $50 to the price. They aren't packaged modules, but raw chips on the boards.
I'm pretty sure he was referring to the average low-end consumer/potential low-end switcher's mindset. Remember, supposedly the people that the mini is aimed at? These people don't know the difference between a Core Duo and a first generation Celeron. They'll be thinking exactly like he said "I can get 3Ghz for $1-200 less. Come on Apple."
Thank you, you are correct.
Sometimes the Apple suck-ups see a complaint and they become rabid.
If they had bothered to read what I wrote they would have seen that I was referring to the average consumer.
I love the OS, I don't love the Hardware. Apple is always leaving something out or putting in something we don't want and charging too much.
Comments
Originally posted by iPoster
(But no, I wouldn't expect the mini to be able to do that...it's a computer for kids and grandparents) [/B]
It's easy to be dismissive when someone claims "for kids and grandparents".
The fact is that almost no one plays either Doom OR Half life.
There are almost 300 million people in this country, about 220 million are old enough to play these types of games. But how many do they sell? About 5 to 7 million copies. That's a pretty small percentage.
Most of the gamers out there would laugh you silly for using a $600 PC to play games, and you know it.
That's why Alien, and other companies sell those $3,000+ machines.
This is a family machine. If that seems to be derogatory, that's sad. Most machines these days are bought for family use.
Originally posted by iPoster
I don't have Doom3 yet, but Half Life 2 runs at ~50 FPS on the $600 PC I built.
Next...
The operative phrase being "I built". You're not the target market for the Mac Mini.
Next
Originally posted by 1984
Someone over at the MacNN forums just got their Mac mini core solo and tested it. 720p plays okay but 1080p barely plays at all.
Apple's stated that 1080P requires a ICD 2Ghz so he's about 400 cycles short.
720P should be a go.
Originally posted by 1984
So then even the core duo version of the Mac mini isn't going be enough.
That depends. Did he try 1080i?
720p has 921,600 pixels per frame. 1080i has 1,036,800 per field. 1080p has 2,073,600.
Being simplistic here, twice 921,600 is 1,843,200. not that far away. So, a Core Duo should be able to handle that with ease.
If 1080i worked on the Solo, then 1080p should work on the Duo.
If it didn't, then it's up in the air.
Originally posted by 1984
It was a 1080p Quicktime clip. It was choppy, like one or two frames every second. I think a core duo would be pushed to the limit as well. Better but not enough. It should be okay for 1080i MPEG2 or at least I hope so. Maybe someone here will do more involved testing when they get theirs.
Well, we'll have to see. I'm optimistic.
A Digital Audio I have, that was upgraded to PL dual 7447a 1.8GHz chips runs 1080i perfectly. It drops some frames on 1080p, but it is watchable.
If this old machine can do that, with the slow memory, and bus, then I think there is hope for the dual Mini.
Even another DA machine with dual 533MHz chips runs 720p without a problem.
I almost forgot. Yes that is H.264, from Apple's website.
I am moving into a new office and space is at a premium. Most of my work is basic office stuff, MS Suite, Pages etc. Occasionally I do work in Final Cut for film editing. My biggest gripe with my G5 is my monitor, which is a boring 17" Viewsonic.
I'm thinking I could sell the G5 in favor of the Mac Mini and use the proceeds from the sale to buy a 20" Cinema Display?
Opinions appreciated!
Originally posted by Sport73
OK, so how will the performance of the Core DUO Mac Mini compare to a PowerMac G5 dual 1.8Ghz?
I am moving into a new office and space is at a premium. Most of my work is basic office stuff, MS Suite, Pages etc. Occasionally I do work in Final Cut for film editing. My biggest gripe with my G5 is my monitor, which is a boring 17" Viewsonic.
I'm thinking I could sell the G5 in favor of the Mac Mini and use the proceeds from the sale to buy a 20" Cinema Display?
Opinions appreciated!
Unless you are only using Universal apps, the PM will certainly be better.
The Mini might be closer than we think for some Universal apps than the same apps on the PM, but the video card you possibly have, or can get, will certainly be better. The HD will be faster as well, as it should be a 3.5" drive running at 7,200 rpm, rather than the 2.5" one running at 5,400 the Mini has.
Originally posted by sunilraman
Originally posted by steve666
.......Are people supposed to be impressed with a 1.5 Ghz Intel Chip while PCs are at 3Ghz?.......I am baffled. Nice to see I'm not the only one.
Umm, one point. You need to go read up on WTF Pentium M is and WTF Core Solos and Core Duos are. Then read up on how lame Pentium 4s are despite the big 3+Ghz number. Un-baffle yourself first dude before coming in here and showing how little you know. I don't mean to sound like a dick but I thought most people following Apple news would get the hang of what this Core Solo and Core Duo thing is about.
I said are people supposed to be impressed meaning the average consumer. Noone on these forums are average consumers.
I personally couldnt give a rats ass about Ghz numbers.
The point is the move to Intel was partly to make PC users feel more comfortable buying Macs and to get higher power chips in the machines to match the numbers PC makers are throwing out there. Whether the new chip is better or not we are basically back to the "but the G4 is faster than the equivalent Pentium" argument. On top of that the Mini is now MORE expensive than the G4 Mini. We didn't expect that, did we?
Originally posted by TenoBell
No, I seriously doubt a DVD could use 2GB of memory.
I'm confused they both shouldn't be used?
Seems you have missed the Intel paradigm shift. Clock speeds don't matter so much anymore. Intel has admitted that just because you have more clock cycles does not necessarily mean your processor is outperforming another in calculations, nor is it working in the most efficient manner. Meaning a dual Core 1.5 processor can handily out perform a single 3 Ghz processor.
Most new PC's will be using Intel Core chips, while the 3GHz is the old Pentium technology that Intel will no longer use any more.
Why do you still use a modem?
Don't over 50% os users still use dial-up? I don't right now but I may have to when I move for a little while. The modem should be inside the computer. Broadband is not universal yet, and certainly isn't cheap.
Originally posted by ecking
Wow I find it amazing that someone with that many posts doesn't know jack shit.
Try pointing out what I don't know instead of just being a jerk
Originally posted by steve666
Don't over 50% os users still use dial-up? I don't right now but I may have to when I move for a little while. The modem should be inside the computer. Broadband is not universal yet, and certainly isn't cheap.
Slightly under 50%.
But, Apple has likely done surveys of their own customers. It's very possible that most Mac users ARE on broadband.
This is always a tough decision for a company to make. Have most of your customers that don't use a feature, pay for it, or not include it, so that the smaller percentage that DO use it, pay for it.
Originally posted by steve666
Don't over 50% os users still use dial-up? I don't right now but I may have to when I move for a little while. The modem should be inside the computer. Broadband is not universal yet, and certainly isn't cheap.
Really? Broadband users passed dialup users in May this year in the UK and it's been cheaper than dialup for best part of two years here. I can vaguely see the point of a modem in a laptop but in a dinky desktop?
CINEBENCH 9.5
************************************************** **
Tester : breadiu
Processor : Apple Mac mini
MHz : 1500
Number of CPUs : 1
Operating System : 10.4.5
Graphics Card : Intel GMA950 64MB
Resolution : 1280 x 1024 @ 75 Hertz
Color Depth : Millions (32-bit)
************************************************** **
Rendering (Single CPU): 213 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): --- CB-CPU
Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 259 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 885 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 441 CB-GFX
OpenGL Speedup: 3.41
************************************************** **
Originally posted by sjk
Especially when you have over 2K posts here. Seems to me you'd have to be trying awfully hard not to have noticed such a recently hot topic and remain under-informed about it. Sometimes it's wise to read more and pay attention before participating in ignorance.
Consumers look at the ghz rating, thats all they know. This was the same argument going on for the G4 and G5.
We may know better, but most folks don't.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
It's faster. It appears you have to have matched pairs of RAM though in the two slots. With Intel's integrated Graphics, if you've two matched DIMMs of the same size and type then the bandwidth to the graphics processor and indeed the rest of the system doubles to 10.6GB/s. If you've 1 1GB and 1 512MB it'll run at 5.3GB/s.
Hmm, so that means I would probably need about 2x1GB DIMMs for worthwhile performance. I usually just get 1GB Ram and that does me fine. 2GB would be about $170 unneeded expense for me. Crazy considering Apple could have put a Radeon X800 in there with 128MB dedicated VRam for that price and that would run HL2 at 1600x1200, 4xAA, 8xAF @ 50fps or so.
Of course they have to crapify the Mini a bit so that people don't just buy it and forget about their far more expensive options
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Make sure you load it up with RAM for Rosetta emulation. Personally, I'd rather have a G4 Mac Mini if I was running Photoshop though I'd have to be on a serious budget restraint not to consider buying a G5 iMac instead which can be picked up for £799 new.
Yeah in terms of price/performance, the Intel iMac would probably be the best deal considering it comes with a built in LCD. I just can't stand the imacs. I went off machines with integrated displays a couple of years ago and the only Mac Apple have produced that is in my price range for what I want is the Mini. I also think the imacs are ugly - the old G4 imac was a far nicer design IMO, though harder to carry.
Maybe if they designed a Mini with the spec of the Intel imac and then had a bit you could attach an LCD monitor. This way, you get the performance of the Intel imac, the price of the Mini (if you choose to use your own monitor), the style of the old G4 imac and the portability of both.
I think this has been said but what Apple should probably do for the next model is take out bluetooth and airport and take the $100 saving and put in a $107 video card so we can save on the Ram and get good graphics. At the very least give consumers some more build-to-order options.
Even though the Mini looks like an ok upgrade, with the Photoshop thing and paying for the added extras I don't need, I reckon I'll stick with my good old G4 for another year.
Originally posted by Marvin
Hmm, so that means I would probably need about 2x1GB DIMMs for worthwhile performance. I usually just get 1GB Ram and that does me fine. 2GB would be about $170 unneeded expense for me. Crazy considering Apple could have put a Radeon X800 in there with 128MB dedicated VRam for that price and that would run HL2 at 1600x1200, 4xAA, 8xAF @ 50fps or so.
Of course they have to crapify the Mini a bit so that people don't just buy it and forget about their far more expensive options
Yeah in terms of price/performance, the Intel iMac would probably be the best deal considering it comes with a built in LCD. I just can't stand the imacs. I went off machines with integrated displays a couple of years ago and the only Mac Apple have produced that is in my price range for what I want is the Mini. I also think the imacs are ugly - the old G4 imac was a far nicer design IMO, though harder to carry.
Maybe if they designed a Mini with the spec of the Intel imac and then had a bit you could attach an LCD monitor. This way, you get the performance of the Intel imac, the price of the Mini (if you choose to use your own monitor), the style of the old G4 imac and the portability of both.
I think this has been said but what Apple should probably do for the next model is take out bluetooth and airport and take the $100 saving and put in a $107 video card so we can save on the Ram and get good graphics. At the very least give consumers some more build-to-order options.
Even though the Mini looks like an ok upgrade, with the Photoshop thing and paying for the added extras I don't need, I reckon I'll stick with my good old G4 for another year.
1GB should be fine.
Look at the ads for the CE and computer chains in the newspapers. You will be hard pressed to find networking equipment that ISN'T wireless.
I expect that the two together add $50 to the price. They aren't packaged modules, but raw chips on the boards.
Originally posted by Guartho
I'm pretty sure he was referring to the average low-end consumer/potential low-end switcher's mindset. Remember, supposedly the people that the mini is aimed at? These people don't know the difference between a Core Duo and a first generation Celeron. They'll be thinking exactly like he said "I can get 3Ghz for $1-200 less. Come on Apple."
Thank you, you are correct.
Sometimes the Apple suck-ups see a complaint and they become rabid.
If they had bothered to read what I wrote they would have seen that I was referring to the average consumer.
I love the OS, I don't love the Hardware. Apple is always leaving something out or putting in something we don't want and charging too much.