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

[Philippine Mango]

Originally posted by: Dennis Travis

Originally posted by: Philippine Mango

You clearly didn't read the article because he DID experience it with less than 4GB of ram. Reread the article and THEN we can talk. IIRC the system he bought came with 512MB of ram.

I just posted that part of the article with quotes. He never said it needs 4Gigs RAM to run decently. Never. OCZ gave it to him to test in 2 pairs. Read the rest of it. I KNOW how to read.

And by the way, Most of my main computers are all PC's.
[/quote]

Lol, that was directed towards hopejr. Your right, he never said you NEED 4GB to run decently but he did say that if left more to be desired even at 1GB/2GB. It's quite sad really that I'm not the only one that believes this to be so.

 

[Dennis Travis]

Originally posted by: Philippine Mango

Originally posted by: Dennis Travis

Originally posted by: Philippine Mango

You clearly didn't read the article because he DID experience it with less than 4GB of ram. Reread the article and THEN we can talk. IIRC the system he bought came with 512MB of ram.

I just posted that part of the article with quotes. He never said it needs 4Gigs RAM to run decently. Never. OCZ gave it to him to test in 2 pairs. Read the rest of it. I KNOW how to read.

And by the way, Most of my main computers are all PC's.

Lol, that was directed towards hopejr. Your right, he never said you NEED 4GB to run decently but he did say that if left more to be desired even at 1GB/2GB. It's quite sad really that I'm not the only one that believes this to be so.[/quote]


I knew who it was directed at but it's wrong none the less. Show me where it said overall performance left a lot to be desired at 2GB Ram. He was talking about the GUI Scrolling speed due the use of Open GL and that it required a lot of Video RAM. Not system Ram. Video ram. I really don't find it that bad even with a Radeon 7000 with 32megs VRam but it's only the scrolling in windows that he was talking about and that I can see on my old 500Mhz Mac G4 with a 32Meg Radeon. It's not that bad even on this old mac but not as smooth when scrolling in a window as a P4 with the same video card but the rest of the GUI feels FASTER than the same P4 with even a Radeon 9600XT which amazes me.

What Macs have you used that felt so slow like a PII and what OS was on them? I have a PIII Non Coppermine 450 and an old G4 350 and compaired them side by side with the same amount of Ram and the PIII had a much better Video card. I had Windows 2k Pro on the PIII and OSX Jaguar on the Mac. The Mac in most ways feels faster overall except in HDD speed as it's an old Mac with ATA 66 Vs the PC with ATA 100 Hard drives and controlers. I installed Stuffit Expander on both systems,. Network coppied a 400Meg video to both machines and used a stop watch and made a Zip. The Mac won by 12 seconds which I was so shocked I did the test over and over to be sure I did not make a mistake.

I like both PC's and Macs but OSX is what makes me like the Mac for most of my work more. It's not the Mac itself so much but the smoothness and outstanding Multitasking and Stability of OSX. In that way it's like a good Nix but a much nicer interface and ease of use.

 

[imported_Lucifer]

Originally posted by: Philippine Mango

Originally posted by: Thin Lizzy

Originally posted by: Philippine Mango

Originally posted by: Thin Lizzy

Originally posted by: Philippine Mango

Originally posted by: Cerb

Originally posted by: Philippine Mango

Originally posted by: Cerb

Originally posted by: Thin Lizzy
I dont need to go through some kind of menu just to find the program I want. I just click the icon on the dock and it launches. Pretty organized to me.

Explorer users call that the quick launch bar.

Yea I mean imagine having like 50 different icons on your quicklaunch bar! Is THAT organized?

No more than 50 on the dock, I imagine. But who has 50 apps they use ALL THE TIME?
I've got:
Deepburner
EAC
FB2K
Firefox
Thunderbird
OpenOffice.org Text Document (I use it for all OOo stuff)
PSPad
PuTTY

Anything else I don't use enough, or don't need rapidly enough, to warrant being there, and that stuff is only in the programs menu.
BTW, I'm not an Explorer user, and have a popup for the job, too 🙂

Just because I don't use an application "all the time" doesn't mean I don't want "easy access" to it. I like the start menu because I am able to look for programs that I use but not necessarily all the time and be able to run it. I don't want to have to search through the HDD just to run a program, it also prevents accidental deletion when your clicking on the file (PC's, its the shortcut).

If you want easy access to an app, you leave it in the dock. You dont need to search through your HDD to run a program. You leave it in the dock. If you dont want to accidentally delete an app, make a shortcut. You can make shortcuts to apps on a Mac. The program icon in the dock is a shortcut. :roll:

Problem is your going around in circles, I tell you there is a problem with one thing and then you mention the solution to another but the point was that because 1+2 don't work, there is no solution but you then decide to refer to 1 agian... I told you, if you were to have a lot of applications on the Mac and you wanted quick access but wanted it to be organized at the SAME TIME it would not be possible. If I look at a clean desktop and see more then about 5-10 shortcuts, it is in my opinion UNORGANIZED. Putting a shortcut of the "applications" folder in the dock is stupid and would never want to to that.

And how would you keep Windows more organized? Because you have a start menu? Drag the applications folder in the dock, right click, and you got yourself a start menu. Instead of having the little green button that says "Start" you have an icon with a picture of an "A" on it.

I keep mine on classic because I don't like the "frills" of windows XP. When I refer to the start menu, I'm talking about the windows 95 type. I've used macs and frankly for the money, they run considerably slow. Infact they run slower than my Pentium II system, which I can say is a pretty sad thing. Windows is much more smooth because it doesn't have AS much junk cloging the computer up.

Then think of it this way. Instead of the little gray button that says "Start" you have an icon with an "A" on it in the dock. :roll:

Wow, you sure do like to over exaggerate a lot. You try so hard to make the Mac look bad. Honestly, if you would like, I can act the same way, but I would be talking about PC's. Would you like that.

Windows runs much more smooth? Lol. I am sitting right next to an Emachines 2000+ running at 1.6GHz running CONSIDERABLY slower than my 400mhz G4. In fact, the Emachines computer just froze, and hasnt done anything in the past 10 minutes. Even after a reboot, the thing just runs terribly and eventually crashes.

I dont like to make fun of PC's at all. But if someone is going to over exaggerate and try so hard to make the Mac look bad, (i.e Philippine Mango) I sure as hell will act the same.

 

[halfadder]

One of the reasons Mac OS X eats memory is because of it's heavily object oriented roots from NeXTSTEP. Most of the data structures are large for simplicity, clarity, and debugging ease. Most of the configuration files are in XML and use Unicode (2 bytes per character, not 1 like ASCII). This eats disk space and memory but again is more flexible in the long run. As for the graphics, most everything is stored as a high resolution bitmappted image (generally in TIFF format) or as a vector description in PDF format. When 10.4 Tiger comes out there will be even more resolution-independent vector components. This eats even more memory. Most of these decisions are performance and memory factors today, but will allow for a much more flexible future without a lot of deep overhauling. As I understand it, most of the "optimizations" in Mac OS X are done by way of elegent code, use of OpenGL hardware, and with improvements to the compiler. From what I have heard, Apple is aiming for better engineering rather than faster-but-hackish code. This sucks for 300 MHz G3 users, but is great for the future.

 

[halfadder]

My newest PC is a 3 GHz P4 with 1 GB RAM and a Radeon 9600 Pro, it runs Win XP SP2. My notebook is a 15" PowerBook with 1.25 GHz G4 and 512 MB RAM, it runs Mac OS X 10.3.7.

I love both of them. I like many things about Windows XP. I also like many things about Mac OS X. I enjoy using both machines. They each have their strengths and weaknesses. I am glad I have two very different systems and I will do the same in the future too.

Does this mean I have a brain defect? 😉

 

[Dennis Travis]

And to add to Halfadder's post above, OSX like Anand said in the Article CACHE's programs in Memory and that is another reason it gets better and better with more ram as there is more room for the OS to cache everything. Anand went on too say that was one of the things that made OSX so good was it uses all memory thrown at it if it's 512 megs or 8gigs. It keeps getting better and better unlike XP where if you go over a certain point you will get no farther improvement from more ram. I noticed that when I was helping a friend recently see how much ram we could get in his new Dual G5. It just kept getting better and apps loading faster as they were cached.

My friend with the Dual G5 is a LONG time PC user who built some FAST Intel and AMD 64 Gaming Rigs. He used some of the finest parts you can get too and they were Blazing fast in any game we threw at it but he got a Mac to try out OSX and likes it more than even his Amd 64 Rig for everything but games and even with Battle Field 1942 and Call of Duty they play very well on the mac. I do like them a bit better on the Maxxed out AMD 64 box though as it feels like you can do no wrong! Buttery smooth!

 

[Dennis Travis]

Originally posted by: halfadder
My newest PC is a 3 GHz P4 with 1 GB RAM and a Radeon 9600 Pro, it runs Win XP SP2. My notebook is a 15" PowerBook with 1.25 GHz G4 and 512 MB RAM, it runs Mac OS X 10.3.7.

I love both of them. I like many things about Windows XP. I also like many things about Mac OS X. I enjoy using both machines. They each have their strengths and weaknesses. I am glad I have two very different systems and I will do the same in the future too.

Does this mean I have a brain defect? 😉

No! You are an Open minded person that likes to try other things and not stick to one thing blindly bashing everything else. That to me makes you a very smart person. You have found they both have a lot to offer.

 

[Childs]

Originally posted by: Thin Lizzy

Originally posted by: hopejr
Thin Lizzy: Philippine Mango wants a menu, not a window that pops up, hence his stupid comments, and hence my last post which talks about how you can get a menu instead of a window popping up!!!!

Ok, I see. 🙂 I just put the Applications folder down into the dock, right clicked, and there you go. You have something similar to the start menu, just like hopejr said so. Works great too. I think I might just keep my Applications folder down there. Thanks for the tip. I never knew about it! 🙂

I didn't know about that either. And it doesnt just work for Applications, but any directory like your home dir or /Volumes.

Personally I like having all the aliases for my 50 most used programs in the dock. I just scale the icon size accordingly. I use quick launch in XP the same way.

CPU wise, the Mini should be fine. I can play Call of Duty just fine at 1280x1024 in a DP 867, so a 1.25 should be comparable. When it comes to Shake and Maya, everything works alright in the DP 867. Not as fast as a G5, but it chugs right along. You guys act as if something slower means it doesnt work. The Mini will have the "computing power" to do anything you want to do with it. It may be slower than some alternatives, but so its not as if it explodes when you call a floating point function.

 

[Philippine Mango]

Originally posted by: Dennis Travis
And to add to Halfadder's post above, OSX like Anand said in the Article CACHE's programs in Memory and that is another reason it gets better and better with more ram as there is more room for the OS to cache everything. Anand went on too say that was one of the things that made OSX so good was it uses all memory thrown at it if it's 512 megs or 8gigs. It keeps getting better and better unlike XP where if you go over a certain point you will get no farther improvement from more ram. I noticed that when I was helping a friend recently see how much ram we could get in his new Dual G5. It just kept getting better and apps loading faster as they were cached.

My friend with the Dual G5 is a LONG time PC user who built some FAST Intel and AMD 64 Gaming Rigs. He used some of the finest parts you can get too and they were Blazing fast in any game we threw at it but he got a Mac to try out OSX and likes it more than even his Amd 64 Rig for everything but games and even with Battle Field 1942 and Call of Duty they play very well on the mac. I do like them a bit better on the Maxxed out AMD 64 box though as it feels like you can do no wrong! Buttery smooth!

Sure yea, it's nice that programs didn't crunch on the HDD as much but the thing is it requires a lot of ram which means you need to spend more money for better speed. I would rather windows be as fast as it can be with 256MB of ram and when I add more ram, it's for another program and NOT the operating system. I like to know that my operating system wont necessarily run things faster meaning that I know I don't have to spend any more money to make things run faster. If I decided I don't want to play games on it any more, then I can take out the ram and make it have 256MB of ram and it will still be butter smooth.

Sure if it was an option to make windows cache everything, I would try it out but it would probably suffer from the same problems apple does. I just don't see how having TIFF images INCREASE flexibility. Just seems like wasted space agian, apple seems to do that best!

This is practically the same thing as with Windows XP sucking up to 256MB of ram. People claim that "oh well it's to make windows faster" but the thing is, Windows 2000 was plenty fast and it only took 64MB of ram. I don't see why the need for more wasted ram. If things were faster then sure but it's not, it goes both ways with apple except apple is so much worse because it will constantly require more and more.

 

[Dennis Travis]

Windows 2k Was/IS a very nice OS that uses memory well but although it will run in 64 Megs I sure for what I do would never use it that way. 128 Still drags with all the work I do. 256 to me is the minimum for 2k Pro for me. I agree though it's a lot better with less ram than XP. XP if you turn all the graphics off is a lot snappier but it's still slower than 2K with a given amount of RAM as it takes more ram to make XP really work well.

 

[Philippine Mango]

Originally posted by: Dennis Travis
Windows 2k Was/IS a very nice OS that uses memory well but although it will run in 64 Megs I sure for what I do would never use it that way. 128 Still drags with all the work I do. 256 to me is the minimum for 2k Pro for me. I agree though it's a lot better with less ram than XP. XP if you turn all the graphics off is a lot snappier but it's still slower than XP with a given amount of RAM as it takes more ram to make XP really work well.

I have windows 2000 on a system with 64MB of ram and another system with 128MB both pentium based and I have to say the performance is quite good.

 

[Tom]

If Apple can make enough of these things I would guess they've finally created a computer for the masses and it will be the computer to have, much like they did with the ipod.

 

[Dennis Travis]

Originally posted by: Philippine Mango

Originally posted by: Dennis Travis
Windows 2k Was/IS a very nice OS that uses memory well but although it will run in 64 Megs I sure for what I do would never use it that way. 128 Still drags with all the work I do. 256 to me is the minimum for 2k Pro for me. I agree though it's a lot better with less ram than XP. XP if you turn all the graphics off is a lot snappier but it's still slower than XP with a given amount of RAM as it takes more ram to make XP really work well.

I have windows 2000 on a system with 64MB of ram and another system with 128MB both pentium based and I have to say the performance is quite good.

Opps I blew it but I think you figured out what I meant. I put XP where I should have put 2k! Opps. Anyway 2k is a lot faster with small amounts of RAM. I still use it for some of my systems but use XP for the Gaming systems as XP is a lot more PNP than 2k and better at finding all this new hardware out there.

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: hopejr
Who cares about the pretty interface? That's not the reason I like OS X. The pretty interface might be a performance hog if it was in Windows, but OS X depends on the GPU for it, and so doesn't tie up the CPU. You have no clue.

Nor do you. Use a PC w/ and old video card or a pure 2D card, then one with a 3D card. Notice how with the same settings, the GUI is faster? Windows is accelerated. Not to the extent of OS X, but that is largely because Apple can control the HW (if Apple had to deal with getting it all working on pre-EIG integrated video, it wouldn't be so nice).

The Apple Menu in OS 9 is like the start menu, no matter how much you want to dispute it. Your problem is that it doesn't have a Windows logo on it and the word "Start". And what's wrong with dragging a folder to the dock? There's an entire section of the dock devoted to folders! It's on the right hand side of the divider line. And it is just like the Programs/All programs menu.

Google. Seriously. The dock is an advertising tool with many issues in actual use. The good news is that many power users are keybaord-jockeys, and alt-tab works in OS X (even if it's not called alt).

ook if you hate Macs so much, then don't bother thinking about them and just forget they exist. We'll all be happier then.

I take it you're talking about P. Mango...if so, I agree.

Oh, and if I'm a moron, what does that make you? I maybe shouldn't say here because I might get banned.

I doubt it. Usually it's only a bannable offense if you single out another user and make threats.

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: Thin Lizzy

Originally posted by: Philippine Mango

Originally posted by: Thin Lizzy

Originally posted by: hopejr

Originally posted by: hopejr
However, adding extra RAM will increase the performance, allowing OS X to use physical memory instead continuously swapping virtual memory.

I didn't realise the truth behind my statement here! I just added an extra 256MB RAM to my iBook and it flies now! It reacts instantly. It has a slower chip than the Mac mini, so I'm sure the performance increase in one of those would be even more. I can now compare the performance of my iBook to that of my old P4-M 2.2GHz notebook with the same amount of memory (I'm not just saying that. It's true! For normal use, this thing kicks the P4's butt!).

😀 Thats awesome! I remember when my emac only had 128mb of RAM! It ran ok, but it was slow. Adding an extra 128 actually made me see a huge difference in performance. Removing the 128 and putting a 512 stick, I saw an even more performance boost! My emac now flies through many of the apps I use. 🙂

Yes and there is a reason WHY it ran faster. It's because the mac os uses tons of ram just so you can have a "pretty interface". Just check anand's article and all your questions will be answered. He discusses his first mac which was a fairly expensive machine and that to get a smooth ride, he needed 4GB of ram just for simple tasks. Windows XP will run on 128MB of ram smoothly but when you start using more than 4 programs, you will notice it starting to page to the HDD. 256MB of ram for windows XP is also smooth, just as much as 128MB of ram. The only reason to get more ram on an XP machine (more then 128) is because your running either multiple instances of applications or applications that require more ram. On a mac your constantly getting more and more ram just for a smooth experience.

Who said you needed 4 gigs of RAM for a smooth ride? Anand purchased the G5 with 4 gigs of RAM. He didnt experience the G5 with less than that. So if he did say he needed 4 gigs of RAM to experience a "smooth ride" he doesnt know what he is talking about because he only experienced the G5 with 4 gigs, no less, so its not possible to say "I needed 4 gigs of RAM for a smooth ride."

His article says otherwise.
Bought with 512MB, then went to 2GB, then 4GB.

However, for a heavy office and graphics user, 512MB is *just* enough in Windows. Between PPC being less memory efficient, the purty GUI w/ app integration (imagine having 90% of the apps work like Office, but designed better), piece-meal kernel (forget the proper term), and real apps, 1GB would be a necessity. 512MB is only used all the time now for PCs because us PC users tend to be short-term-upgrading penny pinchers.

 

[hopejr]

Originally posted by: Cerb
Nor do you. Use a PC w/ and old video card or a pure 2D card, then one with a 3D card. Notice how with the same settings, the GUI is faster? Windows is accelerated. Not to the extent of OS X, but that is largely because Apple can control the HW (if Apple had to deal with getting it all working on pre-EIG integrated video, it wouldn't be so nice).

Actually, I have done that and have noticed a major difference. OK, Windows does use the GPU, but not as much as OS X. My main argument here was it seemed that Philippine Mango had no clue what OS X was using the memory for with the comment about the pretty GUI.

Google. Seriously. The dock is an advertising tool with many issues in actual use. The good news is that many power users are keybaord-jockeys, and alt-tab works in OS X (even if it's not called alt).

I use the keyboard a hell of a lot, including cmd+tab, and I hardly use exposé. I really only use the dock to launch programs. I agree that there are issues with the dock (including the icons being too close together, making it easy to click the wrong one). Again, my point for this is that Philippine Mango kept on insisting that the Start menu is the be all and end all. BTW, Philippine Mango, I prefer the Windows 95 style of Start menu too and the classic theme. That's how I have my profile configured on Windows.

ook if you hate Macs so much, then don't bother thinking about them and just forget they exist. We'll all be happier then.

I take it you're talking about P. Mango...if so, I agree..

Yes, that was for Philippine Mango.

Philippine Mango: Your comments about a Mac running slower than a P2 are ridiculous. I have a P2 350MHz and it is no way faster than my Mac. My mac kills it! Also, I'm not the one that made the comment about the 4GB RAM that Anand was using. Get your facts right mate.
I can justify my purchase as much as I like, especially if I think it was worth it and that other ppl (i.e. you Philippine Mango) say otherwise. It was worth it and the only thing I regret about it is having to put up with idiots like you.

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: hopejr

Originally posted by: Cerb
Nor do you. Use a PC w/ and old video card or a pure 2D card, then one with a 3D card. Notice how with the same settings, the GUI is faster? Windows is accelerated. Not to the extent of OS X, but that is largely because Apple can control the HW (if Apple had to deal with getting it all working on pre-EIG integrated video, it wouldn't be so nice).

Actually, I have done that and have noticed a major difference. OK, Windows does use the GPU, but not as much as OS X. My main argument here was it seemed that Philippine Mango had no clue what OS X was using the memory for with the comment about the pretty GUI.

I won't argue that, but I imagine the pretty GUI with hardware acceleration actually takes more RAM than a plain CPU-powered GUI. However, you know they don't have a Radeon 9200 with its own RAM in the Mac Mini for Apple's health. Obviously it needs it, else they could have saved a few bucks and integrated it completely.

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: RussianSensation
Last time I checked, even a Dual 2.5ghz Apple couldnt keep up with 3.0ghz P4 for gaming not even mentioning an A64 or FX processor.

Also my friend's 1.8ghz G5 takes about 3.5 hours to do 1 calculation of SETI while I can do 2 in 3 hours and 10 min with a P4 3.0ghz. It seems that per clock cycle, A64 is better than Apple too. I am sure as a single processor for most apps nothign beats FX55 right now. Dual opterons? ehhee

Are P4s not better at SETI anyway? And of course an A64 will beat a G4. G5 on the other hand..not so easy. Id say a G4 is about equal per-clock to Athlon XPs. It's obvious you need to read up a bit...

 

[hopejr]

I heard that SETI was optimised for P4 because many people have them.

 

[hopejr]

Originally posted by: Cerb

Originally posted by: hopejr

Originally posted by: Cerb
Nor do you. Use a PC w/ and old video card or a pure 2D card, then one with a 3D card. Notice how with the same settings, the GUI is faster? Windows is accelerated. Not to the extent of OS X, but that is largely because Apple can control the HW (if Apple had to deal with getting it all working on pre-EIG integrated video, it wouldn't be so nice).

Actually, I have done that and have noticed a major difference. OK, Windows does use the GPU, but not as much as OS X. My main argument here was it seemed that Philippine Mango had no clue what OS X was using the memory for with the comment about the pretty GUI.

I won't argue that, but I imagine the pretty GUI with hardware acceleration actually takes more RAM than a plain CPU-powered GUI. However, you know they don't have a Radeon 9200 with its own RAM in the Mac Mini for Apple's health. Obviously it needs it, else they could have saved a few bucks and integrated it completely.

I agree, but I don't think it's as much RAM as was implied by Philippine Mango.

 

[halfadder]

Originally posted by: Cerb
However, you know they don't have a Radeon 9200 with its own RAM in the Mac Mini for Apple's health. Obviously it needs it, else they could have saved a few bucks and integrated it completely.

All Apples in the past 10 years have had a dedicated GPU with dedicated gfx RAM. No integrated / shared graphics.

 

[helpme]

Why hasn't anybody mentioned Quicksliver for the startmenu/dock argument?

 

[Ecgtheow]

Originally posted by: helpme
Why hasn't anybody mentioned Quicksliver for the startmenu/dock argument?

Because then the argument would be over. I would say Quicksilver is the best piece of software I have ever used.

 

[miniMUNCH]

For Safari and Firefox you have to disable the page display delay. There are a variety of freeware programs to do this for Safari...'Safari Speed' can be downloaded/used from MacUpdate for free.

In Firefox type about:config and scroll down a ways to 'network.http.pipelining' and set the boolean value to true...page loads will be faster.

 

[mrudd]

As has been said before, Mac hardware and software are optimized for certain tasks (publishing - video - audio). With the velocity engine architecture, they accomplish these tasks very well. As a gaming platform :-( I do the above mentioned tasks on my Macs, and game on my PC.
So the question really centers around ones usage.

Good luck...

🙂