How about a 24" iMac with a second 24" display? Seems an effective (and affordable) solution to your needs.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Mac Mini Performance Highly Disappointing
- Thread starter Gregintosh
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
How about a 24" iMac with a second 24" display? Seems an effective (and affordable) solution to your needs.
The differences you saw in the store could be explained if the Mini had only 1GB of RAM installed. But if you install 4GB you'd see a huge improvement it it's ability to multi-task. The "non-smoothness" you found can be expained by the Mini's need to swap to a slow 5,400 RPM disk
But yes the Mini will always be slower than the others. It is well suited to the person who only shoots video when on vacation. Just let it render the final product over night. This would be unacceptable to a anyone who shoots video every week.
But yes the Mini will always be slower than the others. It is well suited to the person who only shoots video when on vacation. Just let it render the final product over night. This would be unacceptable to a anyone who shoots video every week.
@Cave Man
It doesn't matter how they are going to deal with the heat. I am sure they can figure out a way. If they can stick a 2.93Ghz Core 2 Duo and a 7200 RPM hard drive into a laptop that is around one inch thick, they can sure as hell figure out a way to stick a 2.4 in the mini.
Granted the MacBook Pro has more surface area, but then again the Mac Mini doesn't need a battery and is taller so it would cancel itself out one way or another.
But that's beside the point. We pay Apple big bucks to figure out exactly how to deal with these sorts of problems. I am sure if Apple wanted to, their engineers would be able to figure out in no time at all. I don't think engineering constraints were the reason Apple went with the processors they went with.
Of course video encoding is processor dependent, which is why I was fine with it taking longer. My complaint was that the computer couldn't handle anything else while encoding.
Also, people buy things because they see a benefit to them. A 30" ACD is a good display, even if old, and if I need a display that has 2560x1600 resolution, and I prefer Apple products, I will buy it. I did state that I was planning on buying around the end of the year, so if a new one is out by then perhaps that will alter my choice (or I may choose to snag a 30" current gen anyway on clearance and pocket the money).
What I meant by my bolded statement basically boils down to not wanting to have to upgrade a brand new machine right out of the box just to make it usable.
Duh. And an iMac's processor, depending on the model, falls somewhere in between, doesn't it?
After all 2.0 Dual Core for the Mini is less processing power than 2.66 Dual Core for the iMac which in turn is less processing power than 2.66 Quad Core Xeon for the Mac Pro.
So my statement of "I imagine it would be somewhere in between" sounds about right, from where I am sitting.
In any case, how does that particular portion of my statement reveal anything about my knowledge of Mac OS?
Finally, opinions cannot be "untrue", as they are opinions and not facts.
There is no way that me recommending that users of pro apps stay away from the mini and get an iMac or Mac Pro can possibly be "untrue."
It doesn't matter how they are going to deal with the heat. I am sure they can figure out a way. If they can stick a 2.93Ghz Core 2 Duo and a 7200 RPM hard drive into a laptop that is around one inch thick, they can sure as hell figure out a way to stick a 2.4 in the mini.
Granted the MacBook Pro has more surface area, but then again the Mac Mini doesn't need a battery and is taller so it would cancel itself out one way or another.
But that's beside the point. We pay Apple big bucks to figure out exactly how to deal with these sorts of problems. I am sure if Apple wanted to, their engineers would be able to figure out in no time at all. I don't think engineering constraints were the reason Apple went with the processors they went with.
Of course video encoding is processor dependent, which is why I was fine with it taking longer. My complaint was that the computer couldn't handle anything else while encoding.
Also, people buy things because they see a benefit to them. A 30" ACD is a good display, even if old, and if I need a display that has 2560x1600 resolution, and I prefer Apple products, I will buy it. I did state that I was planning on buying around the end of the year, so if a new one is out by then perhaps that will alter my choice (or I may choose to snag a 30" current gen anyway on clearance and pocket the money).
What I meant by my bolded statement basically boils down to not wanting to have to upgrade a brand new machine right out of the box just to make it usable.
Duh. And an iMac's processor, depending on the model, falls somewhere in between, doesn't it?
After all 2.0 Dual Core for the Mini is less processing power than 2.66 Dual Core for the iMac which in turn is less processing power than 2.66 Quad Core Xeon for the Mac Pro.
So my statement of "I imagine it would be somewhere in between" sounds about right, from where I am sitting.
In any case, how does that particular portion of my statement reveal anything about my knowledge of Mac OS?
Finally, opinions cannot be "untrue", as they are opinions and not facts.
There is no way that me recommending that users of pro apps stay away from the mini and get an iMac or Mac Pro can possibly be "untrue."
Just adding what Caveman stated, I think OP's expectations were a bit too high/unrealistic for the Mac Mini and don't understand which computers are for which customer/demographic. It looks like you're better off getting an iMac if not, then you're looking for the best computer at the cheapest cost. If an iMac is too much for you, then you can always upgrade the Mini, there's no harm in that but to say it's a disappointment, I don't think so.
It is usable, but it's not for your needs. Mac Mini is clearly not the computer for you so you're better off getting an iMac if you don't feel it's necessary to upgrade the Mac Mini.
Are you honestly comparing a $2500+ Mac Pro to a $599 Mac mini?
Hmmmm
LOL, yes, seriously...
OP - thanks. Your intent is to make sure you put those desktops in their proper perspective?
Hey, for me, as long as it runs Atari Tempest and Asteroids, I'm happy...
It's about nickel-and-diming for the Mini, which is why they kept the Combo drive around for sooooooo long (a Superdrive was only about $5 more in the last year).
Same goes now for the 5400 vs 7200...
I was talking about his rant on cramming components in without taking into consideration heat factors and overall volume of the computers.
In a way I guess.
When I first heard of the announcement for the new mini and read the specs it seemed like it was barely an upgrade over the old mini at all given that it had the same clock speed when not BTO. It seemed to me that the only real advantage of this generation of minis, performance-wise, was that the graphics card was more adequate for today's computing environment and that you can now stick 4GB of RAM into it.
But then over the last few months I kept seeing these Mac Mini posts talking about what a great performer it is and how great it is handling everything people are throwing at it so naturally my expectations grew accordingly.
I am glad some people here appreciated my original post and hopefully I at least got some people thinking about testing these in person to see if they are right for them, because reading all the fanboy threads about it one could easily be led to believe that the mac mini was good enough out of the box to use for more than just surfing the net, watching movies, and typing papers.
I had a 1.42GHz PPC mini, and I now have one of the new 2009 models at 2GHz.
Even the old mini sounds more responsive than the one you tried out. Admittedly it would be slower to render, but I would have no trouble browsing the web etc. in the background.
My new mini is definitely more responsive than you describe. I was able to render a six minute video in iMovie, export it to DVD, whilst listening to iTunes, using MSN in Adium and browsing the web in the background.
Even the old mini sounds more responsive than the one you tried out. Admittedly it would be slower to render, but I would have no trouble browsing the web etc. in the background.
My new mini is definitely more responsive than you describe. I was able to render a six minute video in iMovie, export it to DVD, whilst listening to iTunes, using MSN in Adium and browsing the web in the background.
Yes, Mini's are a "great value" when it comes to a basic Mac. Now, especially, with nVidia dual-display capabilities and FW 800.
But, in the end, Integrated Graphics are Integrated Graphics and may not handle more intensive tasks...
I remember telling someone who wanted to get an iMac (a few years ago) that wanted to use it for Final Cut Express but wanted to use it with the 128 Meg ATI Card. I told him to get the one with the 256 Meg ATI card instead or just go home....
You can certainly attach a 30" monitor to either a 20" or 24" iMac. Both have a Mini DisplayPort video out connector, which with the help of an adapter will drive a 30" display. More screen real estate for the win.
After reading your post however, you say that the Mini was choking with a couple of programs open. This sounds like there was a hardware defect with the computer, and I would urge you to find another one to test to get the real experience. My friend had a 2.0ghz 2007 Mini, 1gb RAM, in which he could easily open every application on his hard drive without it choking.
Edit: In fact as a test, I just opened every application on my hard drive. It's a 2.2ghz Macbook from late 2007, admittedly with 4gb RAM but with poor Intel GMA graphics. It did not choke at all.
What's helped me in the past is to just rebuild the operating system. Not every single computer coming out of a factor that makes thousands is going to be perfect...
See if that works then go from there...
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 2_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/525.18.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.1.1 Mobile/5H11 Safari/525.20)
Why are people giving the OP a hard time for this post? I find it helpful information, and I don't think his expectations were unrealistic.
That said, I think 90% of the problem here can be solved with $60 worth of RAM.
Why are people giving the OP a hard time for this post? I find it helpful information, and I don't think his expectations were unrealistic.
That said, I think 90% of the problem here can be solved with $60 worth of RAM.
You took the time to render video in-store but you didn't invest 2 mouse clicks to see what was under the hood of the machines being tested?
The current Mini has a 2.26GHz Core 2 Duo w/ a 25W TDP. You can get up to a 2.66GHz Core 2 Duo and still be at 25W TDP per the specs on Intel's website.
Maybe get some facts before you jump down the OP's throat.
The Kool-Aid Krowd is quick to slam anybody that says anything remotely negative about Apple and quick to make excuses for Apple, even if the excuses are BS.
Is he expecting too much for a $600 computer to be able to encode video while surfing the net? I don't think so. And yes, you can add RAM for relatively little cash if you don't buy it from Apple. But taking apart a Mini isn't trivial for the average computer buyer.
To be somewhat fair to the OP.... iMovie encoding (i did a 720p movie last night) does seem to be somewhat inefficient and less well coded at threading .... my iMac was encoding it for about 8 minutes and while the mac was still responsive it was noticeable how bad the rendering engine seems to be....
Using something like handbrake, photoshop, Terragen2 etc on my iMac while doing other things does feel a lot better actually than doing the same thing with iMovie
Using something like handbrake, photoshop, Terragen2 etc on my iMac while doing other things does feel a lot better actually than doing the same thing with iMovie
Reporting back, the mini arrived today, so far am very pleased.
I haven't had a great amount of time to play but here's what I've noticed so far:
Aperture is very fast, snappy, "as smooth as butter"
Coming from a slower PowerPC machine, adjustments update virtually in real time, scrolling is great etc.
It launches almost instantly.
Adjustments on JPEGS and most RAWs are nice and smooth.
Things only start slowing down when working on RAW images ~16MB with many adjustments stacked on - even then some adjustments are smooth whilst others are not so. This may just be Aperture, and it depends on the image...
Now, when launching just about every app and utility that comes on the base install + iLife, the performance I describe above of Aperture worsens only slightly. I have around 900MB of RAM free at that stage. Both cores average around 50% with all these apps open (not doing anything).
(also running two displays, 128MB VRAM for each)
Perceived performance differs from person to person but I think it's really good.
I can't comment for video performance sorry.
Dock:
I haven't had a great amount of time to play but here's what I've noticed so far:
Aperture is very fast, snappy, "as smooth as butter"
Coming from a slower PowerPC machine, adjustments update virtually in real time, scrolling is great etc.
It launches almost instantly.
Adjustments on JPEGS and most RAWs are nice and smooth.
Things only start slowing down when working on RAW images ~16MB with many adjustments stacked on - even then some adjustments are smooth whilst others are not so. This may just be Aperture, and it depends on the image...
Now, when launching just about every app and utility that comes on the base install + iLife, the performance I describe above of Aperture worsens only slightly. I have around 900MB of RAM free at that stage. Both cores average around 50% with all these apps open (not doing anything).
(also running two displays, 128MB VRAM for each)
Perceived performance differs from person to person but I think it's really good.
I can't comment for video performance sorry.
Dock:
Attachments
1GB Ram is the problem
I ordered a 2.26 mini with 1GB ram and stock HD.
Once I got it up and running, i was WTF.... this thing is crippled. Just using it and launching apps was so sluggish. I can understand what the OP would have experienced.
Once i got all the parts I ordered (would never pay apple £££ for upgrades), i brought the mini upto 4GB Ram and 7200 HD and its a world of difference. The mini feels like a champ right now. I suspect that 2GB is all you need to have it up and running nicely.
Apple should not sell the mini with 1GB as its basic package, its gimped at this configuration especially as it has shared memory with the GPU. Its just not enough to run the os.
I would recommend trying to find a store that has a 2GB model to compare to the imac, forget the mac pro, it in a different league
The mini is a good package, that should never been sold with anything less then 2GB.
Also - I even got WoW running on it, settings are not high, but I can get just under 20 FPS, playable. This was not possible under the old mini, so the video card is a nice improvement
I ordered a 2.26 mini with 1GB ram and stock HD.
Once I got it up and running, i was WTF.... this thing is crippled. Just using it and launching apps was so sluggish. I can understand what the OP would have experienced.
Once i got all the parts I ordered (would never pay apple £££ for upgrades), i brought the mini upto 4GB Ram and 7200 HD and its a world of difference. The mini feels like a champ right now. I suspect that 2GB is all you need to have it up and running nicely.
Apple should not sell the mini with 1GB as its basic package, its gimped at this configuration especially as it has shared memory with the GPU. Its just not enough to run the os.
I would recommend trying to find a store that has a 2GB model to compare to the imac, forget the mac pro, it in a different league
The mini is a good package, that should never been sold with anything less then 2GB.
Also - I even got WoW running on it, settings are not high, but I can get just under 20 FPS, playable. This was not possible under the old mini, so the video card is a nice improvement
Supposedly, Snow Leopard will run great in 512 Megs (Leopard really wants 1 Gig minmum), hence still offering the 1Gig configuration. SL should run fine with 1 Gig.
Same with Windows 7, will run great in 1 Gig RAM (Vista wants 2 Minimum).
Hence, a lot of companies still offering a 1 Gig configuration to save costs.
I don't need to read a piece of paper. I have a MacBook Pro and I know all about the heat that is generated from a 2.4 gHz Penryn. The last thing I want is a computer that sounds like a wind turbine.
I've said plenty of negative things about Apple, including the Mini. I even have two hackintoshes. But that's irrelevant to this discussion. What is relevant are the misleading comments, statements and gross generalizations made by the OP.
But that's just it. The Mini has been able to do that since the Core Duo was introduced with the Calistoga chipset. Someone who's never owned a Mini and has only spent 10 min using a low-ball demo at an Apple Store can't really be taken seriously.