What is the comparison for the new mac mini speedwise compared to a PC?

[Ardan]

Excellent reply, RadiclDreamer...couldn't have said it better!

I also think we really shouldn't be comparing RISC chips and CISC chips as if they are the same. I point those of you unaware to this link, RISC vs. CISC, to learn more about it 😉. I've used the CPU before on a friend's Mac a while ago and it definitely wasn't slow and was more than fine for many tasks. That aside, a few of you saying that it isn't fast might not have even used it 😛. Plus, since none of us have used this new Mac Mini, I don't think we should be saying that it is just like a lower-end Dell computer. Until we actually know what we're talking about and have used it, I don't think we sould sit and tell it like it is without knowing how the Mac Mini is, performance-wise in the segment that it is in.

 

[Cerb]

Likely close to a PIII 800. Back In The Day?, benches showed dual G4 1.25GHz being about even w/ single Thunderbird 1.2s.

On the bright and dark side, it is aimed at being a desktop box, in which case performance is far more bottlenecked by the HDD than anything else--web and mail will really suffer from this.

LAstly, note that a P4 Celeron comparison is bad in general, and PIII boxes usually feel faster (response, not raw performance), largely due to being parts that were meant to be together, where P4 Celerons just feel sluggish, as they are really decent chips that have been maimed.

 

[biostud]

Apple need a good browser, browsing these forums on either IE, FF or Safari is noticable slower than on a PC.

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: Sunner

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
I owned a ibook and hated it. I'm a windows putz and don't want to learn anything else. It also seemed like for the average user osx ties your hands up. You really can't do anything and you don't defrag the harddrive. That always irked me.

Funny, I'd say the exact same thing about Windows.

Or Linux (Suse, Mepis, Xandros even, etc.). Let's face it, average users will feel that way no matter what, because what makes trhem average users is that they don't want to learn how to use the system.

 

[Ecgtheow]

Originally posted by: biostud
Apple need a good browser, browsing these forums on either IE, FF or Safari is noticable slower than on a PC.

IE is dead on the Mac. Firefox is fast, but has a lot of UI issues. Safari is a little slow, but is probably the best "all-around" browser on OS X IMHO.

 

[Dennis Travis]

I am being Deathkoba and Gurek,

Macs are so slow it's pathetic. There are no real applications nor any Games for the Mac. It just sits there and looks pretty but really does nothing. Any even Pentium 233 will blow down a Dual 2.5 G5 no matter what you do to it. Macs just stink and are slow with no apps, games not support. ANY PC even a old Emachines is a better buy. The Ipod also stinks, has no software, just looks pretty and has a way slower CPU than the Iriver. And StereopILE does not know what they are talking about. Check a real Audio Review site, Toms HardWare Guide, they have more Golden ears and they rate even the new Wal Mart brand MP3 player more accurate in sound than the best of the Ipods. Apple just stinks . It's just for show!


😀

 

[hopejr]

Originally posted by: Sunner

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
I owned a ibook and hated it. I'm a windows putz and don't want to learn anything else. It also seemed like for the average user osx ties your hands up. You really can't do anything and you don't defrag the harddrive. That always irked me.

Funny, I'd say the exact same thing about Windows.

Same.

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: Cerb

Originally posted by: Sunner

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
I owned a ibook and hated it. I'm a windows putz and don't want to learn anything else. It also seemed like for the average user osx ties your hands up. You really can't do anything and you don't defrag the harddrive. That always irked me.

Funny, I'd say the exact same thing about Windows.

Or Linux (Suse, Mepis, Xandros even, etc.). Let's face it, average users will feel that way no matter what, because what makes trhem average users is that they don't want to learn how to use the system.

Yeah, but I'd say it's an undisputable fact that any open OS will be inherently more resistant to "tying up" it's users.

 

[halfadder]

Originally posted by: biostud
Apple need a good browser, browsing these forums on either IE, FF or Safari is noticable slower than on a PC.

My only Mac is this 1.25 GHz PowerBook G4 (512 MB) and it browses the web just as fast as my 3.0 GHz P4 PC (1 GB). But maybe the limitation is my ISP, I have a 1 mbit cable modem in this era of 5 mbit cable modems. My ISP has an old CRT iMac in their showroom and it seems to run Safari almost as fast as my PowerBook. Not bad for what I think they said is a 500 MHz G3 inside that thing. (CRT iMacs range from 233 MHz - 700 MHz G3 depending on the model).

I have noticed that the official Firefox does run slower on my Mac than on my PC. But downloading one from this site helped fix that:
http://homepage.mac.com/krmathis/
Be sure to download the right version. These are for G4 only, not for G3 or G5. Also there are two versions, one is for the original 350 MHz - 733 MHz PowerPC 7400 "G4" series. The other is for the newer 800 MHz - 1.7 GHz PowerPC 7450 "G4+" series. I am currently running the January 10 build for PPC 7450.

Another option I suggest you try is Camino:
http://www.mozilla.org/products/camino/
It uses the same Gekko engine as Mozilla and Firefox, but it has a fully native GUI. I have the newest version 0.8.2 installed and it works great too. 0.8.2 is based on the same Gekko code that's found in Firefox 1.0.

There could be other reasons why your Mac is surfing slowly. One of the first things to check is the CPU speed setting in Preferences -> Energy Saver -> Options -> Processor Performance. The "Highest" setting will be a bit faster than "Automatic".

Also check to see where the CPU cycles are going by using Utilities -> Activity Monitor.

If you have been doing incremental upgrades over the years, you may want to reinstall the OS. One of my coworkers had upgraded his machine through all of the 10.2 updates and now up to 10.3.7 over about a 3 year period. He recently reinstalled 10.3 and ran Software Update to upgrade it back to 10.3.7 and found that the machine now runs quite a bit faster. I have not tried this myself, my PowerBook is running the same install of Mac OS X that came with it 13 months ago. (Plus updates from Software Update of course, but I haven't yet reinstalled).

 

[imported_Lucifer]

I dont see much of a speed difference between my 400mhz G4 and my 1GHz emac in web surfing.

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: Sunner

Originally posted by: Cerb

Originally posted by: Sunner

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
I owned a ibook and hated it. I'm a windows putz and don't want to learn anything else. It also seemed like for the average user osx ties your hands up. You really can't do anything and you don't defrag the harddrive. That always irked me.

Funny, I'd say the exact same thing about Windows.

Or Linux (Suse, Mepis, Xandros even, etc.). Let's face it, average users will feel that way no matter what, because what makes trhem average users is that they don't want to learn how to use the system.

Yeah, but I'd say it's an undisputable fact that any open OS will be inherently more resistant to "tying up" it's users.

Economically, yes. However, for actual non-gaming use, Linux has just now gotten there with the recent Xandros and Suse releases. With a year or so, they should be between OS X and Windows, with tastes and habits making more of a difference than the actual quality of implementation.

OS X has it nice because everything is partly controlled by Apple, and integrates well. This has definitely helped them get an edge up on GUI features, like Expose (which, while I don't like, do see that it is great for people who use the mouse more than keyboard), being able to take advantage of 3d hardware and innovative desktop interaction quicker than others can. However, while they got a lot of little things right, they also sacrificed some good UI bits to make it look prettier for advertising. It has a more pleasing UI than Windows, but for real use, is about even, IMO. However, Apple is working on making useful additions.


Windows is stuck. MS needs to work on the little things, and get the OS at least to being as useable as Win2k. Their desktop decisions for Longhorn, such as removing the WinFS layer, and adding desktop clutter, are going backwards in the UI area, making the users work for the PC more than the PC works for the users. We don't need new skinning crap. We don't need a sidebar to force more data into our brains. We don't need more flashy bits or yellow balloons in our ways. We need more effective use of features between applications, and easier window management. Much of this is application-centric, but MS could be better about it.


Linux is getting great help by the corporations. Much of its quality coems from the openness, and that there are many people advancing it in many ways to many different ends. However, this does not make for a good desktop. With Caldera folks (Xandros), Novell (Suse), and IBM (mostly application integration and server work work) helping get things streamlined, it is making amazing progress. In a year or so, it will truly be ready for mainstream use, as streamlining of the setup process after installation is what is missing.

Right now it has hardware support, applications, decent average desktop environments (KDE and Gnome don't try very hard to be good at usefulness, but most people don't care), security, and stability. Better management of installations, uninstallations, and customizations is all that are needed, and most such kinks are being worked out well (for example, if setting hardware settings via GUI, you may need to go between multiple control panel type apps to get it all done--these sorts of things are being worked on).

Desktop Linux is not really any better is use than Windows, aside from often having better hardware support (usually by using chipset instead of vendor for drivers). However, it is better overall, as there is less in your way, distros come with many useful apps already, and you have options, allowing you to get the desktop environment out of the way easier than Windows.

 

[Philippine Mango]

Originally posted by: Rand
Not particularly fast at all, but it's decent enough given the price point their targeted at.
You could probably build a slightly faster PC for roughly the same cost as the Mac Mini, but nothing that would be dramatically different. Relative to most Mac's it's price/performance ratio is quite nice.

I have to disagree, for $600 you could build a way faster PC that could do circles all around this thing. I Built a friend a new computer for around $400 that is way faster than this system. For $600 I could have built him an EVEN better system then what apple has listed.. Because apple knows they have their own little monopoly, they know they can jack up the prices on things because people are willing to pay for it (not all but some). I bet dell would build a comparable computer (roughly the same performance wise) for about at least $100 less..

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: Philippine Mango

Originally posted by: Rand
Not particularly fast at all, but it's decent enough given the price point their targeted at.
You could probably build a slightly faster PC for roughly the same cost as the Mac Mini, but nothing that would be dramatically different. Relative to most Mac's it's price/performance ratio is quite nice.

I have to disagree, for $600 you could build a way faster PC that could do circles all around this thing. I Built a friend a new computer for around $400 that is way faster than this system. For $600 I could have built him an EVEN better system then what apple has listed.. Because apple knows they have their own little monopoly, they know they can jack up the prices on things because people are willing to pay for it (not all but some). I bet dell would build a comparable computer (roughly the same performance wise) for about at least $100 less..

But when will Dell build a SFF for $500 or less? The key here is that you get a real PC, with software, that is smaller than a gamecube, for about the cost of a cheap Dell.

 

[helpme]

I've got a powerbook G4 17" @ 1.5Ghz.

I think it performs about the same as an equally clocked Athlon XP(Clock rate, not PR rating, so a 1.5 Ghz Athlon XP is rated at 1800+ or so?) or perhaps a theoretical P3 at the same clock speed.

I guess you could argue that more performance is squeezed out of it with the liberal use of SIMD (Altivec, same as SSE/3DNOW) throughout Apple applications.

 

[Ardan]

Originally posted by: Philippine Mango

Originally posted by: Rand
Not particularly fast at all, but it's decent enough given the price point their targeted at.
You could probably build a slightly faster PC for roughly the same cost as the Mac Mini, but nothing that would be dramatically different. Relative to most Mac's it's price/performance ratio is quite nice.

I have to disagree, for $600 you could build a way faster PC that could do circles all around this thing. I Built a friend a new computer for around $400 that is way faster than this system. For $600 I could have built him an EVEN better system then what apple has listed.. Because apple knows they have their own little monopoly, they know they can jack up the prices on things because people are willing to pay for it (not all but some). I bet dell would build a comparable computer (roughly the same performance wise) for about at least $100 less..

I have to disagree with that too. Factor in a purchase of XP Pro or XP Home, a comparable jack-of-all-trades software suite (one that is actually good, that is) along with the spectacular CPU, Motherboard and video/ram you got going on. Oh yeah, and put it in a sleek, small case that makes a minimal amount of noise and can be easily portable. Comparable performance for $500-$600? Perhaps, but better in every facet? No, because YES, some people do want a small box for their computer and don't mind sacrificing some performance for it. Of course, this is not the same crowd that wants some mammoth graphics card, 2GB RAM, a 550W Power Supply and other parts with super-ultra-mega-atomic edition on their box too.

"Way faster" sounds like something that probably would come near $400 for just the CPU and the motherboard.

 

[Philippine Mango]

I wouldn't be surprised if dell tried to copy these guys and if they do, hats off to them. But I really can't see a typical consumer NEEDING the so called "portability" of the mac mini because looking at all the connections, it just feels too awkward to have to move around. There is no situation where you will need and the consumer will see the need for a SFF computer because the monitor (in a situation where space "could" be a problem) would take up the whole space. And if you were to put it under the desk then it just looks stupid. You would have to disconnect tons of cables, lug that "psu" around and then re-connect everything.

Now some people would say, "hey, I do that all the time when I go to lan party's" but "hey" your not going to lan partys with this thing are you? There is no included monitor,keyboard etc.. like a laptop has so portability is NOT an advantage to this thing. Unless you have a whole computer setup at home and office but with no computer then sure, this would be an OK thing to lug around but still would be difficult. In practical use this thing is anything BUT practical, I'm sure steve jobs did NOT have portability in mind when he or his "team" came up with this thing. I bet it's very delicate and would not want to be moved around making this thing entirely useless from transporting point of view. Lack of space? Your still going to have a lack of space if in your case where you have a very tiny desk with 1 monitor keyboard etc because you will have no idea where to put the little thing.

 

[Ardan]

Wow, you have to be joking. Have you even bothered to actually read that page? It obviously was designed for the space-conscious that don't need some full-tower with fans that rev up like a V8 engine when you turn the computer on. Go and look behind it and see how many places for cables there are. "Tons" of cables needed? I think not. Also, I think it is an obvious one that someone isn't taking it to a lan party, LOL. Also, you don't just simply buy that and nothing else either. You can buy a monitor, keyboard and mouse as accessories on the store for it, but perhaps people will buy their own two button mouse with an LCD screen instead (or they will already have them).

Also, when you move that little thing that weighs a little under 3 lbs, it really isn't "lugging" it around. Is someone going to use an LCD screen, keyboard, mouse and this thing while on the go? Obviously, they aren't. It does give people the freedom to place their things anywhere they want, and that is what makes them portable. To be portable doesn't mean you can be used in the most bizarre of places, like in a car. How about people that may switch apartments sometimes to get the right one, or move things around after a while? Having a box that small sure does help. Sure, they'll need to move the monitor but its one less 20+ pound (if not an LCD) device to find a place for. Also, your last sentence is the opposite of a logical advantage of the Mac mini. Say you have a small workspace: once you have the keyboard, mouse and monitor down, you won't have any troubles placing the box somewhere because it is so small that it doesn't need a huge spot for it. There are SFF PCs around that are bigger but still fairly small...are those impractical and unportable? I'd have to venture a guess that you probably don't think so, and that is probably expected. Just because Apple producted a REALLY small box that is affordable doesn't mean it is immediately (and without reason) bad.

 

[Philippine Mango]

Your talking about a 1 or 2 time thing when it comes to portability. How often does one move around there desk because their room needs to change "every six months"? Sure it's quiet but any regular sized tower can be quiet as well, I just don't see what advantage you have with the mac mini. I've see desks that are only as wide as the monitor that sits on it and thats it, so in this case where would you put this little thing? There is no point of something being light if it's going to be used as a desktop. People have SFF PC's because they have a reason for it like a lan party, I just can't see what other reason you would have a SFF pc other than a lan party. If moving things around is such a hassel, I would just get a desktop replacement laptop because your going to get much more power then from something like this.

Agian if you were to use it like I mentioned before where you lug it between office and home, you still have to disconnect a TON of cables, maybe not a lot for you but I would consider it a lot. Laptops have the advantage of docking stations and are truely portable. There is no reason why someone would require a 3LB computer because the monitor is going to weigh so much more. If the thing was at least a mini tower and was 10LBs then your argument would make sense. Not too big but not too small device with plenty of room for upgrades, light enough to move around and doesn't look out of place.

 

[hopejr]

Ardan, I would just ignore Philippine Mango's ranting if I were you. I have learnt to. He's clearly against mac (because he hasn't really used them much - I know, he told me in another thread), and so knows nothing about what he's talking about. He also thinks that everyone else should think like him, and that if they don't that they're some sort of low class. Not everyone wants an ultra fast computer just for email, word, etc. A small computer that can go anywhere in the room that will let them do that would be sufficient for many people.
Oh, and look at that link in Philippine Mango's sig. It's full of crap. Actually, Apple could sue for libel with that too because their logo is all over it and it's defaming them.

 

[imported_Lucifer]

Originally posted by: hopejr
Ardan, I would just ignore Philippine Mango's ranting if I were you. I have learnt to. He's clearly against mac (because he hasn't really used them much - I know, he told me in another thread), and so knows nothing about what he's talking about. He also thinks that everyone else should think like him, and that if they don't that they're some sort of low class. Not everyone wants an ultra fast computer just for email, word, etc. A small computer that can go anywhere in the room that will let them do that would be sufficient for many people.
Oh, and look at that link in Philippine Mango's sig. It's full of crap. Actually, Apple could sue for libel with that too because their logo is all over it and it's defaming them.

Agreed. I still remember that one thread when Philippine Mango kept saying that the Mac desktop will eventually get cluttered with aliases. We tried telling him there is a dock, and if you want quick access to the applications folder without going through the HD, just drag the Applications folder down to the dock and have access to your apps in one click. His reply was:

Thats the thing, I have to open a whole 'nother folder just to run some applications. In windows AND in linux all I got to do is click start (forgot for linux) programs and look for your program.

hopejr's reply:

What's different from clicking the start menu, and then All Programs, from clicking a folder in the dock and having a window pop up with all the apps? Looks like less clicks to me if you don't count the list of recently used programs on the start menu. Just on that, I open lots of programs on OS X similar to on windows: just open the Apple menu, go to Recent Items, and open the app I want.

 

[DanDaMan315]

When considering buying any Mac including this new Mini, ask yourself first, do I really need a $600 desktop ornament. Macs are out there to look pretty and be stylish, not to actually function.

If Mac is serious about business why wouldn't they let any other company make computers with there OS. You either take what Mac has or leave it, because no one else can offer something different.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by: DanDaMan315
When considering buying any Mac including this new Mini, ask yourself first, do I really need a $600 desktop ornament. Macs are out there to look pretty and be stylish, not to actually function.

Yes, no one ever uses a Mac for anything serious... :roll:

If Mac is serious about business why wouldn't they let any other company make computers with there OS. You either take what Mac has or leave it, because no one else can offer something different.

Because, smart guy, when Apple DID license the OS to 3rd parties they were able to sell mac-compatible machines cheaper than Apple and Apple almost went out of business. Apple is a hardware company that happens to make its own software. Apple makes it's money selling hardware, not software. Apple cannot survive on software sales/licensing alone.

Apple's software has pretty low margins on it. Just look at the prices for Apple software compared to to other companies' software (PC or Mac). Compare iLife ($79) w/other similar software and see how prices line up. Compare Apple's pro products (FCP, DVD Studio Pro, Logic, Shake, Motion) and you'll see that they are significantly cheaper than products of the same quality. High quality software at low prices is the incentive to purchase the hardware. Just like w/iTunes and the iPod. Apple started the iTunes Music Store as another way to motivate people to purchase an iPod.


Lethal

 

[halfadder]

Originally posted by: DanDaMan315
When considering buying any Mac including this new Mini, ask yourself first, do I really need a $600 desktop ornament. Macs are out there to look pretty and be stylish, not to actually function.

If Mac is serious about business why wouldn't they let any other company make computers with there OS. You either take what Mac has or leave it, because no one else can offer something different.

I thought about those same issues a lot when I was first considering buying a PowerBook. I suppose it was easier with a notebook though beause with most thin notebook you're pretty much locked in no matter who you buy from. Very few of the 1" notebooks have upgradable graphics cards. Plus my portable needs were really basic: word processing, email, web surfing, and presentations. Anything beyond that was a bonus. So when I decided to buy a PowerBook out of curiosity I also took a chance and bought a nicely equipped 15" model so I could try to do more with it. I have been very happy with all that I've been able to do with the PowerBook. It's been more than functional, it's been a pleasure to use too.

As for a desktop, I still wish Apple would make a $750 mini tower with a G5 processor and a 6600GT. I don't need a monster dual G5 and I sure don't need an eMac with its built-in CRT. The Mac Mini is neat, but it's not exactly what I want, but it's cheap enough to add to my desktop collection. Plus it's small enough that I can just put it on top of one of my existing PCs and it won't take up any additional room.

I spent about half of my time now with my PowerBook, and the other half with my aging PC, a 3.0 GHz P4. I will soon be building another PC but I also ordered a Mac Mini to plug into my KVM switch (DVI and USB goodness). I think I will swap a 512 MB DIMM from my PC with the stock 256 MB DIMM from the Mac Mini. That will give me 512 MB in the Mac and 768 MB on the PC and all should be good.

As far as Apple and business, I remember when they allowed cloning when I was in college. We had some DayStar and PowerComputing Mac clones in some of the labs. They were just as good as the Apple models but a few dollars cheaper. I suppose they were good for people that needed to collect bids before buying equipment but beyond that I don't think the savings were anything special. It would certainly be interesting if Apple were to fire their hardware people and just become a software company. Time will tell I suppose.

I've been happy with my PowerBook and look forward to the Mini. For at least the next few years I know I will still be a PC user as well. Who knows, maybe WalMart will design their own hardware and OS some day and will wipe Microsoft, Intel, and Dell out of the market. Time will tell, but I'm glad we have the variety today. I like working with both Macs and PCs.

 

[Dennis Travis]

Originally posted by: halfadder

I have noticed that the official Firefox does run slower on my Mac than on my PC. But downloading one from this site helped fix that:
http://homepage.mac.com/krmathis/
Be sure to download the right version. These are for G4 only, not for G3 or G5. Also there are two versions, one is for the original 350 MHz - 733 MHz PowerPC 7400 "G4" series. The other is for the newer 800 MHz - 1.7 GHz PowerPC 7450 "G4+" series. I am currently running the January 10 build for PPC 7450.

Halfadder, thanks so much for that link to the Optimized Firefox. I got the one for my 500Mhz G4 and it flys. After the first run now it bounces just one bounce and it's there! Very fast and page loads seem a bit faster also. Thanks again!! 😀

...Dennis

:wine:

 

[halfadder]

Originally posted by: Dennis Travis
Halfadder, thanks so much for that link to the Optimized Firefox. I got the one for my 500Mhz G4 and it flys. After the first run now it bounces just one bounce and it's there! Very fast and page loads seem a bit faster also. Thanks again!! 😀

Grab the optimized Camino too:
http://mbencher.ilnm.com/camino/

(Props to OoTLink for posting the Camino link in another thread!)