How well does the 2.23 mini cope with Aperture 2?

[Whackintosh]

And is there a major difference in speed and ease of use when compared with say, a 2.53 MBP running the 9400?

 

[Whackintosh]

Anyone?

 

[The Hammer]

Are you asking about the 2.26?

 

[GoCubsGo]

If it matters I can try it on my 2.0 that has 4 gigs ram and a 250 gb 7200 rpm drive.

 

[Whackintosh]

If it matters I can try it on my 2.0 that has 4 gigs ram and a 250 gb 7200 rpm drive.

That would be great! Can you try it with a few RAW files?

I wish there was a way to see a mini with 4gigs and a 7200 HDD in action at the Apple store. The stock config seems very slow, even for things like opening Word or Imovie!

 

[reebzor]

My 2.0 mini with 4gb and a 5400 drive runs aperture fine.

 

[GoCubsGo]

I disagree with the stock config being slow. The ram and hdd weren't totally necessary for my needs (htpc) but they're nice to have.

 

[Cave Man]

My MacBook Air (1.83/9400m) does very well with raw files, so I suspect the Mini will be even better. Don't plan on batch processing hundreds of files (unless you let it run overnight), but otherwise, put 4 gb of RAM in it and you should be set for moderate use.

 

[geoffreak]

I disagree with the stock config being slow.

Well, I disagree with your disagreement. After working on a 2.26GHz with 2GB RAM and the stock 160GB HDD for about a month, I can assure you that you cannot find a computer with a slower hard drive on the market.
Basically, I couldn't do more than one thing at a time before the computer would start to excessively slow down. Even using Plex with media stored on an external HDD was nearly impossible.
After placing a WD Scorpio Black 320GB HDD inside the Mini, I can actually use the computer.

Why on earth does Apple not have a drive that is actually usable as standard? They do it on all the other product lines.

There is no noticeable difference in processing power between 2 GHz and 2.26GHz compared to the difference a faster HDD makes.