[MW Forums]

Like all of the new Intel-based Macs, these Mac minis perform admirably when running applications that have been updated to run on both Intel and PowerPC processors. Unfortunately, there is a hefty performance penalty when using Rosetta for non-native apps. more

[chewygoat]

The zip archive results are strange - why does even the Core Solo mac mini outperform the higher clock speed and Core Duo MacBook Pro?

[wesley96]

For that matter, why is Core Duo 1.66 on Mac mini doing better with zip archiving than Core Duo 1.83 on MBP? Hard disk? But aren't both machines using 5400rpm 2.5" drives? Strange indeed.
Good benchmarks, but I think Macworld should now go do a full-blown graphics benchmark showdown on the G4 and Core Mac minis. That's gotta be something.

[MacTel]

It will only get better as the OS is tweeked and the apps become native. At this stage those stats look good.

[pixelcruncher]

The only thing the mini is good for is as a media center PC. Cheap Windows boxes still have the Mac beat for the user that just needs internet, e-mail, and a little word processing. I brought this up in another thread, but I'll reiterate my argument that Apple needs to start selling this as a replacement for your stereo, DVD player and burner, etc. It needs some additional inputs and outputs (or some Apple accessory converter cables), but the system has what it takes. Apple just needs to commit to supporting it this way ("You only need to put a CD in once!", "Edit your home movies right on your TV!", "Supercool remote functions as a keyboard and mouse!", you get the idea). If they were one of the first in the market with a Blu-ray or HD-DVD player/recorder option, this little box could be huge. Analysts see early adoption of HD DVDs to be ten times faster than DVDs. This could be one of the hottest media appliances on the market. End-users require far too much knowledge, research, and third party software to give a solid out-of-box experience right now (as a media center hub). They need a Launcher app for the finder that groups apps that could be used on the TV like iTunes, iMovie, iDVD, Garageband (how cool would that be? TV room turned into recording studio for your kid?) Sell it in the electronics department of stores, not the PC department. Put it up against stereos and DVDs, and it looks pretty damn good, but I'll pass on putting it in the limited space I have for a home PC right now.

[mdawson]

No real surprises here. Until most mainstream software is Universal, we can expect applications like Office, Photoshop, etc. to not to have better performance on Intel-based Macs than on PowerPC Macs. The adoption of integrated graphics with shared memory makes the video performance a no-brainer also. With the CPU doing the graphics processing and main memory being drained, it makes sense that graphics performance will lag behind systems that have dedicated graphics systems.
While I am not in the market for a Mac mini, I am a power user and I have a new Power Mac G5, I find the integrated graphics path to be a less than ideal choice. Yes, bottom rung PCs have used integrated graphics for years, but they are not Macs. The idea of having CPU cycles and memory siphoned off of what is already an underpowered system is something that I see as an unnecessary performance hit. (By underpowered, I mean performance capability relative to the middle-of-the-road systems available from any given PC OEM; therefore all bargain basement systems are technically underpowered target market notwithstanding.) It would be bad enough to do this on a professional system, but I would think that this would have an even more detrimental effect on the performance potential of a system that is none-too-powerful to begin with.

[solipsism]

I agree with you, Pixelcruncher. Apple is not a computer company, not anymore; they are multimedia company and need to start presenting themselves as such more directly (read: less indirectly).
I plan on getting a new Mac Mini to connect to a HDTV. I'm pretty certain that is the purpose of the device so the graphics card willnot be an issue. I also plan to connect an iPod Hi-Fi to my HDTV (assuming the sound is of high quality and when it comes it black).

[mdawson]

In reply to:

---

Apple is not a computer company, not anymore; they are multimedia company and need to start presenting themselves as such more directly..

---

How is Apple not a computer company anymore? Most of Apples profit and R&D revenue is generated from computer sales regardless of the iPods popularity. The home theater capabilities of the Mac mini and the iMac are simply bucking a trend in the desktop industry. These Macs are still computers first and foremost and most of them will be used as such. Using a computer as a media center is not the reason most people currently buy a computer and the frequent participants on these boards, and their subsequent desires, are hardly representative of the average computer user.

[pixelcruncher]

Apple's market capitalization of 72 billion dollars due to their surge in stock price has very little to do with overall computer sales. The iPod and iTunes have made far more money for Apple (as they have factored in their stock's growth) than their computer sales over the last few years. My point was simply that Apple should market this product differently than their desktop PCs, they would stand out as the Mercedes of the market segment.

[heisetax]

Since Apple changed to the Intel processor faster than expected, most software companies were not & still are not ready for the change. Apple has pushed the iPod & its associated products so to many Apple is not a coputer company anymore.
With the new Macs having a processor that has little native software available, I am not recommending the purchase of any new Macs to my clients now or probably at least a year. If they purchase a new Intel Mac they will probably see the Mac as a very slow computer. Selling the new Intel Macs early will speed up the hardware transition, but the lack of native software will make the Intels systems be dogs.
Because of this earlier than expected change of the complete Mac product line to the Intel cpus, I do not expect a new G5 PowerMac to come out. So many of those that were waiting for a PPC replacement for the 2.5 duo-duo-core G5 PowerMac, will likely be disapointed. They all wanted something faster than the existing line-up to carry them over for a few years more with the superior PPC sytem in their fields. With a lack of AltiVec as well as native IntelMac applications means that for the next couple of years at least the PPC Mac will be faster at the Pro level than any dual dual dual core Intel processor.
The Mac Mini with its ahared video in a step or more backwards backwards for the Mac. When I sold the lower end computers I would almost always reccomend an AMD processor with their separate video card over this share memory vedeo. This seems to be mainly an Intel idea & problem. I hoped that Apple would show that for a premium price tha the Mac Mini sells for that they would include the better idea separate video card. Shared video memory is what I would expect from Dell, not from Apple.
Everybody needs to tell Apple with their pocketbooks that they will not accept the much poorer idea ofshared video memory. They need to refuse to purchase any Mac Minis. Software will change & the Mini may be worth more in a year or two, but then there will be faster processors available.
Buty no Mac Minis until Apple updates the video to a separe video with its own memory. Don't accept second class for a premium price.
Bill the TaxMan

[pixelcruncher]

I have been waiting for optimizations for my Macs for the past ten years. PowerPC, G3, G4, and G5. Promises were made, but very few software makers bothered to really include those optimizations in their software (except Maxon, who are just outstanding). I'm going to wait and see with the Intel Macs. I'm hoping the Mac OS really makes a difference on the Intel hardware, but then there are the tens of thousands of developers who have been coding for Windows on Intel for a long time now. Going to be very interesting.

[MacTel]

Well let's hope this is the last major transition. If Apple uses AMD as well as Intel there shouldn't be any major hiccups. The transition to PPC and to OSX have been rough and this one is no different.

[mdawson]

In reply to:

---

Apple has pushed the iPod & its associated products so to many Apple is not a coputer company anymore. [sic]

---

That is akin to stating that because children see McDonalds as gourmet cuisine it must be so. Apple is a computer company regardless of how some people may see it.

In reply to:

---

Because of this earlier than expected change of the complete Mac product line to the Intel cpus, I do not expect a new G5 PowerMac to come out. So many of those that were waiting for a PPC replacement for the 2.5 duo-duo-core G5 PowerMac, will likely be disapointed. They all wanted something faster than the existing line-up to carry them over for a few years more with the superior PPC sytem in their fields. [sic]

---

The complete Mac product line has not changed over to Intel processors. There is still no replacement for the iBook and the Power Mac line is still PowerPC. Intels Conroe line of processors is not due until the third or fourth quarter of this year and until then, the Power Macs will remain PowerPC. Considering the last Power Mac upgrades were in October, we could very well see one last iteration of PowerPC-based professional Macs before the Power Macs go Intel; perhaps in the next month or two. The dearth of pro-level software that is Universal could cause Apple to delay the release of Intel-based Power Macs or, more likely, continue to produce PowerPC systems instead of letting the inventory wither on the vine, as was the case with the iMac G5.
Non-pro users will have fewer issues with upgrading to the current crop of Intel-based Macs because of what they are upgrading from. The reviewers compare the new systems to the previous generation, most people do not upgrade so frequently. People in the market for a new iMac or Mac mini are not people migrating from the last iteration of these machines, but will be replacing systems that are years old. Therefore, they will generally see some performance gains in application performance across-the-board, Universal or not, based on what they had. Once they can get Universal versions of apps like Office:Mac it will be as if they upgraded their computer for the price of software.
Professional users are less likely to be so forgiving despite the age of the machines they are replacing and it would be nave to think that Apple does not recognize this. While Apple could very well stumble here, it would be unwise for them to completely cease production of PowerPC Macs for the pro market before the mainstream pro apps are ready to run natively on Intel-based systems.

In reply to:

---

Buty no Mac Minis until Apple updates the video to a separe video with its own memory. [sic]

---

To a point I would agree with this. For the switcher, there is no real difference between the Mac mini having a crippled graphics system as many bargain basement Wintel PCs are much the same in this area. For the long time consumer-level Mac user, this is an insult to their sensibilities. As I stated in my original post, draining resources from the CPU and RAM on a system that is already (relatively) underpowered is not good design.

[Tau_Myx]

I find it very unlikely that Apple will ever release another PPC mac. First, is IBM still improving them? Second, does Apple tell people it is faster, or slower then, an intel iMac? - Either way they set themselves up for big problems. It is conceivable that they might ship a high end mac with both PPC and intel chips in it. From a marketing perspective this makes sense, but I bet it would be tough on the designers. Or maybe dual core duos (four chips total) would run Rosetta fast enough.
Also pros are often one-program centric. Once Final Cut is native, editors won't care that Photoshop isn't - video people don't work with ultra-high resolution images anyway.