I'm looking at getting one to free up space in my allready cluttery room, and maybe for a bit of music editing and suchlike *strokes logic*
... But do they have the raw power to do such things?
Athankyous.
Mac mini...
Moderator: Forum Moderators
-
Sol
- Ninja
- Posts: 1450
- Joined: December 9th, 2004, 19:27
- Location: Behind the sofa, Hertfordshire
- Contact:
Mac mini...
Yes, mac's make you faaabulous...
I'm looking at getting one to free up space in my allready cluttery room, and maybe for a bit of music editing and suchlike *strokes logic*
... But do they have the raw power to do such things?
Athankyous.
I'm looking at getting one to free up space in my allready cluttery room, and maybe for a bit of music editing and suchlike *strokes logic*
... But do they have the raw power to do such things?
Athankyous.
Re: Mac mini...
Since the new intel processors, they're very powerful. Aslong as the software you're using is Universal compatible, you get some noticeable shit-ups using Rosetta really. But my 2GHz core duo MacBook stands up to all the raw power much better than my PC did.Soloman wrote:
... But do they have the raw power to do such things?
Athankyous.
And Mac's look so pretty!! </faaabulous>
-
Joose
- Turret
- Posts: 8090
- Joined: October 13th, 2004, 14:13
- Location: The house of Un-Earthly horrors
Also something to take into acount in a "Holy War" poll such as this:
90% of the people who will yell "BAG O SHITE!" will never have actually used a mac, especially not to do anything usefull. People see an issue like this, feel they should form an opinion, even though they have no actual knowledge on the matter, and just feverishly support whatever they use most.
90% of the people who will yell "BAG O SHITE!" will never have actually used a mac, especially not to do anything usefull. People see an issue like this, feel they should form an opinion, even though they have no actual knowledge on the matter, and just feverishly support whatever they use most.
-
Woo Elephant Yeah
- Heavy
- Posts: 5433
- Joined: October 10th, 2004, 17:36
- Location: Bristol, UK
- Contact:
THISJoose wrote:90% of the people who will yell "BAG O SHITE!" will never have actually used a mac, especially not to do anything usefull. People see an issue like this, feel they should form an opinion, even though they have no actual knowledge on the matter, and just feverishly support whatever they use most.
hence my "Meh" vote
-
Sol
- Ninja
- Posts: 1450
- Joined: December 9th, 2004, 19:27
- Location: Behind the sofa, Hertfordshire
- Contact:
Well, thats okay then. Probs be getting the more expensive version with the 80Gb HD, and 1.66GHz Processor... It used to be lower than that i think they must have updated it or, something... 
Still, I will only be using this for brousing, music/music makering and coursework etcetc.
I will still have my noisy old shuttle for games
But will this mean i have to use....Itunes?
Seems just about okay performance-wise compared to other macs:
Xbench, which attempts to test all the major Mac hardware systems, shows several things clearly in a graph of test results:
1. The Energy Saver processor option makes a huge difference in performance
2. The inexpensive iBook G4, eMac G4 and Mac Mini are surprisingly fast - at least as fast as the iMac G5 in its normal mode.
The eMac G4 easily exceeds both iBooks and pushes the iMac G5 very hard, despite the iMac's fancier G5 processor, thanks to the eMac's superior disk performance.
The eMac vs. Mini comparison is especially interesting. The Mini is hampered by a slow disk drive (see below), yet the 1.25GHz Mini matches the eMac overall, thanks to better scores for Quartz graphics and "user interface" performance. The 1.42GHz Mini is a little faster than the 1.25GHz model for its small price premium.
The PowerBook G4/1.67GHz has an advantage over the slower Mini and eMac when set to "Highest" processor mode, but lags behind them in "Automatic" processor mode.
Comparing iMac G5 vs. PowerBook G4 is interesting. The PowerBook actually has higher CPU and Thread Xbench scores! However, the iMac G5 wins in memory speed (a major G5 design feature), graphics and internal disk performance, especially in "Highest" processor mode.
The only issue seems to be disk speed...
/Has done homework
Still, I will only be using this for brousing, music/music makering and coursework etcetc.
I will still have my noisy old shuttle for games
But will this mean i have to use....Itunes?
Seems just about okay performance-wise compared to other macs:
Xbench, which attempts to test all the major Mac hardware systems, shows several things clearly in a graph of test results:
1. The Energy Saver processor option makes a huge difference in performance
2. The inexpensive iBook G4, eMac G4 and Mac Mini are surprisingly fast - at least as fast as the iMac G5 in its normal mode.
The eMac G4 easily exceeds both iBooks and pushes the iMac G5 very hard, despite the iMac's fancier G5 processor, thanks to the eMac's superior disk performance.
The eMac vs. Mini comparison is especially interesting. The Mini is hampered by a slow disk drive (see below), yet the 1.25GHz Mini matches the eMac overall, thanks to better scores for Quartz graphics and "user interface" performance. The 1.42GHz Mini is a little faster than the 1.25GHz model for its small price premium.
The PowerBook G4/1.67GHz has an advantage over the slower Mini and eMac when set to "Highest" processor mode, but lags behind them in "Automatic" processor mode.
Comparing iMac G5 vs. PowerBook G4 is interesting. The PowerBook actually has higher CPU and Thread Xbench scores! However, the iMac G5 wins in memory speed (a major G5 design feature), graphics and internal disk performance, especially in "Highest" processor mode.
The only issue seems to be disk speed...
/Has done homework
-
FatherJack
- Site Owner
- Posts: 9597
- Joined: May 16th, 2005, 15:31
- Location: Coventry, UK
- Contact:
I thought you had a Sony MP3 player? - that won't connect to iTunes.
I suppose a mini mac would function adequately for what you want it for, but seems more expensive than building a similar sized PC. Paying extra for a rather bland design seems rather odd.
I have been stuck in offices and machine rooms with only Macs, and while browsing it quickly becomes obvious how PC-centric the internet is. Finding Mac versions of software to do servery-scanning type things and just pass the time was rather a frustration.
I don't think the machines are functionally poorer than PCs, it's just the image that their users have that they will pay a bit more, just to get something that looks a bit "nicer". I don't think any of their designs, expect maybe the first cube-shaped one were particularly clever or attractive, and their adverts seem aimed at simple-minded fools. This puts me completely off owning one.
I suppose a mini mac would function adequately for what you want it for, but seems more expensive than building a similar sized PC. Paying extra for a rather bland design seems rather odd.
I have been stuck in offices and machine rooms with only Macs, and while browsing it quickly becomes obvious how PC-centric the internet is. Finding Mac versions of software to do servery-scanning type things and just pass the time was rather a frustration.
I don't think the machines are functionally poorer than PCs, it's just the image that their users have that they will pay a bit more, just to get something that looks a bit "nicer". I don't think any of their designs, expect maybe the first cube-shaped one were particularly clever or attractive, and their adverts seem aimed at simple-minded fools. This puts me completely off owning one.
-
Joose
- Turret
- Posts: 8090
- Joined: October 13th, 2004, 14:13
- Location: The house of Un-Earthly horrors
Its really a right tool/right job scenario. As someone who has done many years proffesional level video work, *every* PC based video edit system is like pulling teeth compared to the equivilent priced Mac version. Although ive no direct experience in it myself, I know sever musicians who have said the same about music based stuff. My brother in law is a proffesional photographer, and swears by Macs for image editing.FatherJack wrote: I don't think the machines are functionally poorer than PCs, it's just the image that their users have that they will pay a bit more, just to get something that looks a bit "nicer". I don't think any of their designs, expect maybe the first cube-shaped one were particularly clever or attractive, and their adverts seem aimed at simple-minded fools. This puts me completely off owning one.
However, like you say, doing other things (such as technical servery type stuff, or playing games) is a lot better/cheaper on a PC.
Soloman wrote: /Has done homework
I'm not sure if you have done your homework so well..
Because I think all of that graph stuff is comparing the old Mac Minis which used powerPC processors, not the Intel ones. and it doesn't include the MacBook or MacbookPro, which suggest this moreso.
Unless you're planning on buying a Mac Mini 2nd hand?
http://www.apple.com/macmini/intelcore.html Heh no shit. Apple.com quotes 5x improvement in performance.. Also that's a 1.66Ghz, Dual core. So.. yeah.Soloman wrote:Well, i did it, but obviously very badly.
Yeah i'll probs be going for a brand new shiney intel one, wether this is a good choice i dunno, but 1.66GHz seems preferable to 1.42