Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

2006 Mac Mini Decent for web browsing?

Turnpike

Turnpike

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Oct 2, 2011
591
326
New York City!
I just started noticing the Mac Mini's, now that I have a 27" Cinema Display.... and I see 2006 models going for under $100. Are these decent for things such as web browsing, Youtube, and iTunes movies? Or is there a cut off that is worth stopping at before the performance drops dramatically...?

Also, is swapping in a SSD an easy possibility in these older ones, as is with a Windows computer, or is that all pretty complicated as well?
 
Awesome! Thank you! If I were to swap in a SSD that I have laying around here (and do it often to several older ones as I come across them) is that a pretty simple thing to figure out how to do? Or are they soldered in before/after a certain date?
 
All Mac minis use standard 2.5" drives. They're not really designed to be user serviceable and pre-unibody ones require a paint scraper as an opening tool. Have a look at iFixit for instructions.
 
Thanks again! The iFixIt site is new to me, even though I have the full iFixIt tool kit. I don't know how that happened, but what a discovery to see the site. Thanks so much everyone for the input!
 
Turnpike said:
I just started noticing the Mac Mini's, now that I have a 27" Cinema Display.... and I see 2006 models going for under $100. Are these decent for things such as web browsing, Youtube, and iTunes movies? Or is there a cut off that is worth stopping at before the performance drops dramatically...?

Also, is swapping in a SSD an easy possibility in these older ones, as is with a Windows computer, or is that all pretty complicated as well?
Click to expand...

Even a 2008 won't play most codecs smoothly with full frames at 1080p. A 2006 would be crippled. Not to mention web browsing might be incompatible and insecure--I doubt the 2006 is still getting Safari and security updates.

I had a 2006 and frankly it was kind of slow even when it was new in 2006.

I think the 2009 Mini had H.264 hardware acceleration, so (assuming that is correct) I'd start with that as a minimum.
 
ActionableMango said:
Even a 2008 won't play most codecs smoothly with full frames at 1080p. A 2006 would be crippled. Not to mention web browsing might be incompatible and insecure--I doubt the 2006 is still getting Safari and security updates.

I had a 2006 and frankly it was kind of slow even when it was new in 2006.

I think the 2009 Mini had H.264 hardware acceleration, so (assuming that is correct) I'd start with that as a minimum.
Click to expand...

There wasn't a 2008 model. The 2006 - March 2009 model essentially never changed, besides a Core Duo - Core 2 Upgrade in mid-2007. Same chipset and crappy Intel GMA 950 graphics.

The March 2009 onwards model has the nVidia 9400 which indeed has H.264 acceleration and it makes YouTube and multimedia playback a much more pleasurable experience on Snow Leopard and later. I used mine as an HTPC until very recently. It'll also run OS X 10.5 - OS X 10.11 officially. Stick an SSD in and they're a capable little machine.

I really can't stress enough that the Intel GMA 950 was garbage!
 
  • Like
Reactions: ActionableMango
An issue might be the version of the browser used with some websites. Until recently I was using my early 2009 Mac Mini with Mountain Lion, and the version of Safari that came wth that. I also used Opera because it was better with some websites, and Firefox with a VPN to get around the heavily restrictive powers that be in Thailand... Certain topics are very sensitive here, and some commentators are persona non grata.....

Some websites work better with more recent versions of browsers. For example, on MacRumors I could access the forums, but not other parts of the website. A work around was to use Opera.... until there was an update to Opera. Then it did not work at all with Mountain Lion. With the new version of Safari that came with OS update to El Capitan, I am now on a more recent version of Safari, and it works well with all the websites I have visited.

Opera functions again with El Capitan. There has also been an update to Firefox, which has not gone so well. The VPN is no longer secure from the ministrations of the Thai authorities, so sites I used to visit occasionally are now blocked.

With the 2006 Mac Mini you will be restricted to earlier versions of OS X and with that earlier versions of browsers, which will not work well with some websites. Also, with more modern operating systems and versions of browsers your security will be more up to date.

A 2006 Mac Mini will still have its potential uses, but for web browsing? My experience suggests you are likely to find it restrictive. Adding the cost of adding an SSD to a cheap 11 year-old computer may bring benefit to for some uses, but will do nothing to help the situation for web-browsing.
 
Last edited:
The 2006 Mini's are maxed out with Snow Leopard and browser support for them is limited. I am running an 09 Mini with 8GB of RAM and this one is usable. I would at least 2009 or newer. Even better get a 2012 Model.
 
  • Like
Reactions: eyoungren
You used to be able to install Linux to run a modern browser on core duo systems. But I thought I read that 32 bit Ubuntu is EOL’d. Sounds like you’d need Windows 10 to have a modern browser experience. Ironic.
 
dogslobber said:
You used to be able to install Linux to run a modern browser on core duo systems. But I thought I read that 32 bit Ubuntu is EOL’d. Sounds like you’d need Windows 10 to have a modern browser experience. Ironic.
Click to expand...

Nah, all that means is that the big distributions are moving away from supporting 32-bit systems. After all, most of them now sport large, user-friendly interfaces, and a expect to install a fairly large suite of default applications; and the effort involved in maintaining a cut-down version for older, low-end machines probably isn't seen as worth it.

But that doesn't mean Linux itself will stop supporting those machines. Heck, Linux is one of the premier options for single-board computers (e.g., Raspberry Pi) and IoT devices. You'll just need to use a distribution more focused towards lower end hardware.
 
jpietrzak8 said:
Nah, all that means is that the big distributions are moving away from supporting 32-bit systems. After all, most of them now sport large, user-friendly interfaces, and a expect to install a fairly large suite of default applications; and the effort involved in maintaining a cut-down version for older, low-end machines probably isn't seen as worth it.

But that doesn't mean Linux itself will stop supporting those machines. Heck, Linux is one of the premier options for single-board computers (e.g., Raspberry Pi) and IoT devices. You'll just need to use a distribution more focused towards lower end hardware.
Click to expand...
Recent ARM chips are all 64-bit, especially the recent RPis. I don't think most people deviate from the mainstream Linux distros as they don't have the longevity of others.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MysticCow and jpietrzak8
dogslobber said:
Recent ARM chips are all 64-bit, especially the recent RPis. I don't think most people deviate from the mainstream Linux distros as they don't have the longevity of others.
Click to expand...

Well, but if you're not interested in doing even a minimal amount of effort to find a distribution that works with your hardware, why are you even trying to support an old machine in the first place? :)

But yeah, I think the real problem is that even application developers are moving on from supporting 32 bit processors. Producing and maintaining a satisfactory 32 bit distro for average users is going to be harder and harder as time goes by... So folks who want to keep older machines running are going to have to put in a little effort themselves to find (and understand) the distros that do continue to support them.
 
jpietrzak8 said:
Well, but if you're not interested in doing even a minimal amount of effort to find a distribution that works with your hardware, why are you even trying to support an old machine in the first place? :)
Click to expand...
Majority want it to just work. I know that from my own case having spent decades fiddling with PCs running Linux. Modern distros like Mint and Ubuntu are zero hassle nowadays. Those lesser known distributions usually have issues lurking.
 
dogslobber said:
Majority want it to just work. I know that from my own case having spent decades fiddling with PCs running Linux. Modern distros like Mint and Ubuntu are zero hassle nowadays. Those lesser known distributions usually have issues lurking.
Click to expand...

Well, I don't think there will be any "just want it to work" solutions for old machines. :) After all, even on Windows there are now many apps that will no longer support 32 bit processors.

In any case, I think people who truly fear getting their hands dirty dealing with specialized operating systems should also truly fear getting their hands dirty with machines that feature older I/O ports, older monitor standards, older RAM slots, older hard drive interfaces, etc. It can be a lot simpler just plunking down the cash for a modern machine instead. ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Boyd01
For a system which is going to be online, don't forget security. With obsolete OS versions, and of course web browsers, come security risks. No more patches for any remaining (or newly found) security holes. Have that in mind when deciding what machine to use for web browsing and other online things.
 
Trusteft said:
For a system which is going to be online, don't forget security. With obsolete OS versions, and of course web browsers, come security risks. No more patches for any remaining (or newly found) security holes. Have that in mind when deciding what machine to use for web browsing and other online things.
Click to expand...
If you’re just doing web browsing then who cares about security. It only matters if you put sensitive info into the browser.
 
dogslobber said:
If you’re just doing web browsing then who cares about security. It only matters if you put sensitive info into the browser.
Click to expand...

That, and becoming a zombie for some hacker's botnet. They don't always want your private info; access to your computer and your network account can be enough for some serious mayhem.
 
jpietrzak8 said:
That, and becoming a zombie for some hacker's botnet. They don't always want your private info; access to your computer and your network account can be enough for some serious mayhem.
Click to expand...
Those cases are so remote, so is it even remotely worth being concerned about it? And even if your system is being used for nefarious actions, do you really care? There's more utility for a computer terrorist from a zero-day exploit than cobbling together a hack for an old vulnerability which has small market share nowadays. Computer terrorists are more interested in quantity for their illicit activities and ancient OSs don't provide the rich pickings. That suggests newer OSs that are more used are more threatening.
 
Wow. Well you obviously don't care, you made that clear. Perhaps the OP cares though.
 
I wouldn't get one except as a collector's item, you can upgrade the CPU to a Core 2 Duo on the early 2006 models but the graphics hardware is what'll get you. The GMA950 was pretty lousy even back then and now it just struggles to do even basic stuff sometimes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back