New Intel CoreDuo Mac Mini is much slower than expected...

[Zorkon]

Repairing permissions is voodoo, RAM is not.

With regards to upgrading the RAM in the Mac Mini:

Others have pointed out that the Intel integrated graphics chipset onboard the mini steals RAM from the system. This is true. I haven't seen anyone quote figures though, so I thought I'd jump in.

The Intel chipset grabs (at a minimum) 64 MB of system RAM plus another 16 megs for setup/housekeeping. That means that your 512 MB of RAM is instantly reduced to 432 MB of RAM when the system boots and loads its graphics drivers.

Keep in mind that these figures are minimums. Should you do anything fancy, the Intel chipset can grab more memory from the system. I don't have hard figures on the maximum, but I read somewhere that it can approach 256 MB (that's hearsay ... the 80 MB on boot is fact).

Also, the original poster mentioned that he ran "Repair Permissions" on the disk when troubleshooting the problem. To quote John Gruber from Daring Fireball: "Repair Permissions is Voodoo". Please, if you run Repair Permissions regularly, you need to read this article:

http://daringfireball.net/2006/04/repair_permissions_voodoo

In short, it doesn't do what you probably think it does, and running it is mostly a waste of time on today's 10.4 systems ... especially if you're running an Intel chip without a Classic MacOS environment.

 

[aristobrat]

Something like an operating system in its first widespread test?

Or FireFox.

 

[aristobrat]

FWIW, I also opened a 20+mb file in Photoshop 5.0 running in Classic, along with the usual selection of OSX applications, copied a portion of of the graphic, pasted it into a new file. No page-outs.

IJ, you've gotten the swap thing down on your machine. You should teach a "How not to page on a machine with 1GB of memory" class!

Not sure anyone with a 512MB mini would find it helpful, but what the heck.

 

[QCassidy352]

It's just that the symptoms reported by the OP were classic of a mini that was spending too much time swapping out...

Exactly! All this discussion about how much RAM is enough and whether this board "overprescribes" RAM to people with problems is beyond the point.

The OP described problems that were clearly indicative of a RAM deficiency. His activity monitor report confirms that is the case. Whatever you want to say about how much RAM is sufficient, in general, for *this* poster on *this* system, 512 isn't cutting it.

Also, the fact that 80 megs are being stolen by the GMA950 is a good point, but I don't think it can be more than that. Didn't apple artificially cap how much the 950 can borrow for exactly that reason (didn't want the system reduced to 256 RAM)?

 

[IJ Reilly]

Also, the original poster mentioned that he ran "Repair Permissions" on the disk when troubleshooting the problem. To quote John Gruber from Daring Fireball: "Repair Permissions is Voodoo". Please, if you run Repair Permissions regularly, you need to read this article:

http://daringfireball.net/2006/04/repair_permissions_voodoo

If you are not experiencing any symptoms that would indicate permission-related problems, there is no reason to run Repair Permissions.

Well la-de-da, isn't that useful advice?

 

[IJ Reilly]

IJ, you've gotten the swap thing down on your machine. You should teach a "How not to page on a machine with 1GB of memory" class!

Not sure anyone with a 512MB mini would find it helpful, but what the heck.

Is there a point being made here? If so, I can't discover it.

 

[gloss]

Well la-de-da, isn't that useful advice?

Almost like this was a useful post!

 

[IJ Reilly]

Almost like this was a useful post!

I'd like to think it usefully pointed out that the referenced article was basically useless. And what was your point?

 

[aristobrat]

Is there a point being made here? If so, I can't discover it.

It's got about as much point in it as you continuing to post your personal swapping results from a machine that has 2x the amount of memory as the OP, in apparent disbelief that someone like the OPs parents could ever possibly run out of RAM on their new mini, or if they did, they must be doing something outlandish, because after all, your machine doesn't swap, even when you load 20MB photoshop pictures.

 

[IJ Reilly]

It's got about as much point in it as you continuing to post your personal swapping results from a machine that has 2x the amount of memory as the OP, in apparent disbelief that someone like the OPs parents could ever possibly run out of RAM on their new mini, or if they did, they must be doing something outlandish, because after all, your machine doesn't swap, even when you load 20MB photoshop pictures.

Well, since I never said that I thought they couldn't "ever possibly run out of RAM," or anything even remotely like it, I guess I don't have to worry about repeating myself in that department.

 

[zap2]

While I do understand that for many reasons this might be a case for more RAM- I do see where IJ is coming from. If you don't have twenty widgets on your dashboard, or don't have twenty web pages open, 512 MB of RAM is plenty for a lot of people on OS X.

Not when you have a MacBook/Mac Mini GPU steal RAM from that already low number. My Mini with 512mb had trouble do the ripple effect in dashboard, i know that it not neeeded for OS X, but if you want the full OS X fell you should have more the 512mb

 

[savar]

I can run Keynote, Pages, Safari, Mail, Preview, iPhoto, iCal and TextEdit literally for days without building a single swap file on 1 gig of RAM. So I think it's quite possible to run Safari on half that without exceeding physical RAM, at least to the point of seriously impacting performance.

So as a generalization, no I don't think the Mini would necessarily run better on more RAM. Like most things, it depends.

You failed to account for the OS RAM usage...if its using 500 MB, then the first app you open will cause page outs. I don't know how much RAM OS X typically uses -- never cared to look, but all apps these days use ungodly amounts of RAM, and I don't think you have to open too many apps before you hit the hard ceiling.

I think we can all agree with your last sentence.

 

[savar]

There seems to be a lot of RAM happy people on this board- 'get two or three Gigs, one ain't enough!'

The point is that RAM is the most cost-effective upgrade for any stock model in almost all cases. A processor upgrade won't make the same difference, an HD upgrade won't make the same difference...the lack of RAM on a lot of these machines really is by far the most significant bottleneck.

You and I know that if we're low on RAM we should close open applications to get some back. Most users don't -- they leave apps open all the time. So do a lot of power users, actually; it saves the time wasted to open an app that you use all the time anyway. The only difference is the power users have >512MB and the regualar users have 512MB.

The situation is exacerbated even further with integrated graphics. Considering that OS X can easily max out a video card with 128MB of VRAM (come on, its storing uncompressed, 32bit pixmaps), its no surprise that an intel mini would be paging out before you even finish logging in.

I'm sure there are cases where the extra RAM isn't worth the money. But if somebody takes the time to find this site, post an intelligent question, and clearly reflects savvy for the topic at hand, then more RAM is probably the answer.

I didn't see anybody suggesting 2-3GB by the way, I saw suggestions in the range of 1-1.25 GB.

 

[savar]

Also, the fact that 80 megs are being stolen by the GMA950 is a good point, but I don't think it can be more than that. Didn't apple artificially cap how much the 950 can borrow for exactly that reason (didn't want the system reduced to 256 RAM)?

Keep in mind that the window server caches almost all windows as textures on the video card. When the video card had a separate bank of VRAM, the OS loads it up as much as possible, and then any windows that don't fit into VRAM are buffered in RAM. Windows that are displayed more recently/more often are promoted to VRAM and lesser used windows are demoted to RAM (to reduce bus traffic whenever a window needs to be refreshed).

So even if Apple has capped the RAM that the graphics can claim, the window server will still use more RAM to store window buffers if the graphics drivers indicate that VRAM is full. (Even if VRAM=RAM, like in the intel mini) Open windows are actually very expensive in OS X for exactly this reason.

 

[MacSA]

Hmmm so the Mac Mini is nearly unusable with 512MB......and worse you run the risk of destroying it upgrading the RAM.

 

[sprkrtmnkdthcar]

The cure for pageouts is More RAM.

 

[dornoforpyros]

hmm seems that the integrated graphics are choking the mini more than expected. I don't recall this many "un happy with my mini" threads before the intel switch.

 

[zap2]

Hmmm so the Mac Mini is nearly unusable with 512MB......and worse you run the risk of destroying it upgrading the RAM.

Not at all, it usable with 512mbs(i mean if a G4 was at 256mb, a Core Duo is easly good enough for many) but in this case this person needs more RAM.

 

[zap2]

hmm seems that the integrated graphics are choking the mini more than expected. I don't recall this many "un happy with my mini" threads before the intel switch.

Well i think a lot of people expected a true headless iMac this time around, and i think it pretty much is WHEN you upgrade the RAM(save for gaming and a few other thing that need a strong GPU)

If it makes you feel any better i love my Mac Mini with 1.25Gbs of RAM

 

[QCassidy352]

Keep in mind that the window server caches almost all windows as textures on the video card. When the video card had a separate bank of VRAM, the OS loads it up as much as possible, and then any windows that don't fit into VRAM are buffered in RAM. Windows that are displayed more recently/more often are promoted to VRAM and lesser used windows are demoted to RAM (to reduce bus traffic whenever a window needs to be refreshed).

So even if Apple has capped the RAM that the graphics can claim, the window server will still use more RAM to store window buffers if the graphics drivers indicate that VRAM is full. (Even if VRAM=RAM, like in the intel mini) Open windows are actually very expensive in OS X for exactly this reason.

I didn't know all that about the window server; thanks for explaining it! This is what I love about this site; no matter how much you know, there are knowledgable, helpful people who can teach you even more.

Not at all, it usable with 512mbs(i mean if a G4 was at 256mb, a Core Duo is easly good enough for many) but in this case this person needs more RAM.

Well said! As I said last post, this isn't about RAM usage in general, or even mac minis in general. All I'm saying in this thread is that for this user on this mini, 512 is not enough.

 

[VoodooDaddy]

Well this thread was like watching a tennis match: back and forth and back and forth

I'm in the same boat as the OP. Just got a mini duo a couple weeks ago, my first mac. And while I like it, its not as speedy as I thought it would be. As an example, if I have say Firefox open and click on itunes, it takes several seconds to open (icon bouncing in dock)

And I don't leave a lot of things running at all times. I typically close all apps as I'm done with them. I don't run any widgets as I noticed that they still use system resourses even when the dashboard isn't up (which I understand, that is what allows them to come to the front so fast)
Also, I have "beachballing" here and there.

One other interesting thing of note, I have the exact same printer, HP 1510. He mentioned it was running some things as PPC, which means Rosetta, which means system lag.

I've not paid any attention to page ins/outs, but I will take a look when I'm on next time.

I pretty much knew I needed more ram, although I was surprised at performance. I was expecting more.

The PC it replaced only had 256mb ram, although did have a video card which alleviates the shared ram for video. That pc was experiencing a lot of slow down due to 3.5yrs since the last reformat/install of XP. Just last night, I reformatted/reinstalled, and put in another 256mb ram and it absolutely flys now. Much, much faster than the mini. Its an Athlon XP2100 (1.67ghz).

Anyway, I had already accepted the fact I needed to boost the ram. My only concern is cracking the thing open and installing. I build my own pc's in the past, so its not that I don't have any experience, but the mini is so compact, I'd a bit afraid to breaking something.

I think that in the day and age we live in, waiting a few seconds has become a nuisance. We expect things to happen instantly. But consider for a second the size of the mini and what it can do compared to computers of 5-10yrs ago. I'm still amazed at what it can do for how small it is AND how quiet it is. My old pc sounded like a jet engine with multiple variable speed fans. The sound of silence is almost enough to overlook the occasional delays.

 

[IJ Reilly]

I believe it's been said already, but I think one of the main bottlenecks in Mini performance is the 5400 RPM hard drive. This is going to cause more "dock bounce" than a system with a faster drive, RAM issues not withstanding. If you then get into creating large vm swap files due to physical RAM exhaustion, then the performance is bound to feel more degraded than with a system running on a 7200 RPM drive.

 

[QCassidy352]

I believe it's been said already, but I think one of the main bottlenecks in Mini performance is the 5400 RPM hard drive.

I certainly agree with that, but I never have a problem with excessive "dock bounce" or other general "system sluggishness" on either my ibook G4 (4200 RPM HD, 1.5 GB RAM) or my macbook (5400 RPM, 1 GB). In an ideal world, the OP would upgrade both the RAM and the HD, and then the system would really fly. But IMO, the RAM is not only easier and cheaper to upgrade, it will provide a lot more performance gain per dollar than the hard drive upgrade.

There are lots of factors, but I still think upping the RAM is the easiest and most cost effective way to see a significant performance increase.

 

[gloss]

I believe it's been said already, but I think one of the main bottlenecks in Mini performance is the 5400 RPM hard drive. This is going to cause more "dock bounce" than a system with a faster drive, RAM issues not withstanding. If you then get into creating large vm swap files due to physical RAM exhaustion, then the performance is bound to feel more degraded than with a system running on a 7200 RPM drive.

Again, this may be theoretically true, but with 512 megs of RAM he's going to hit a memory bottleneck WAY faster than whatever thoroughput limitations his HD is causing. I've got a MacBook with a 5200 RPM hard drive and I can tell you now that it's lightning fast. I'm sure plenty of other people own Minis that are similarly quick. I'm also sure that the majority of them have upgraded their RAM from stock. A 5200RPM hard drive is simply not going to be the root cause of iTunes loading more slowly than he thinks it should. Maybe it will cause delays in track seeking, but that's about it.

 

[TheMac19]

I'm in the same boat as the OP. Just got a mini duo a couple weeks ago, my first mac. And while I like it, its not as speedy as I thought it would be. As an example, if I have say Firefox open and click on itunes, it takes several seconds to open (icon bouncing in dock)

And I don't leave a lot of things running at all times. I typically close all apps as I'm done with them. I don't run any widgets as I noticed that they still use system resourses even when the dashboard isn't up (which I understand, that is what allows them to come to the front so fast)
Also, I have "beachballing" here and there.

One other interesting thing of note, I have the exact same printer, HP 1510. He mentioned it was running some things as PPC, which means Rosetta, which means system lag.

I've not paid any attention to page ins/outs, but I will take a look when I'm on next time.

All right, now we're getting somewhere - someone in the same boat as me!

As for my millions of page-outs... no, I'm not doing anything crazy on here. When I use Safari I generally have anywhere from several to quite-a-few windows or tabs open, so that might be one cause. And I keep a few widgets running when I need to; like package tracker to watch the progress of new toys headed my way and SOL so that I know when I've got to grab some beer and jump in the boat to catch the sunset.

I decided to uninstall all of the HP nonsense that I initially installed with the HP 1510 printer, and I'm just letting the built in drivers do the work. So far so good when printing, but I'll have to install at least HP Scan so I can use the scanner. Oh well, at least now in normal usage there are no PowerPC apps showing up in Activity Monitor. Still loads of page-outs, but it doesn't feel quite as bad as before. Perhaps another cause of all the page-outs might be Fast User Switching. We use it very rarely, but it when it's used I know that it does put a strain on the system.

I'll probably just suck it up and drop another gig of RAM in the mini soon, but I'm really not looking forward to attacking it with a putty knife. That was the preferred "installation method" - no?

As for the ripple-effect in Dashboard: No, it never actually looks good on this machine. Even after a restart and with nothing at all running, it's still late and choppy...

And if repairing permissions is Voodoo, fine. All religions are legit to those who believe, so too is Voodoo and repairing permissions. Repairing permissions has been ingrained in me over the past years with my powerbook, so it's automatically a sound starting point when a mac starts behaving strangely. Plus, if you post here with a query, the first response will be "have you repaired permissions?" Then the next post, of course, is "you need more RAM!"