Hilarious! :) The Mac mini review @ Ars

[Fox5]

the G5 cpu is competitive with the athlons and the pentiums, but way overpriced for what you get.

Then it ain't competitive.

Stuff about why graphic designers are morons

Trolling successful

Well, it's apple so you can't expect it to be priced comparatively, but the power is there for those who are willing to pay for it. It might not match the top end of AMD and Intel but it should come pretty darn close. And of the 4 computers listed on there site using G5 3 of them are dual cpus, I don't think Intel makes Xeons fast enough to compete with the 2.5ghz G5s.
Oh wait they do, but comparing Dell prices for dual 3.6ghz Xeon system to Apple's Dual 2.5ghz and Dell seems way more expensive. Not sure if everything is equal though, a geforce 6800 ultra is probably much cheaper than a top of the line quadro, even with apple overcharging by about $200 over the retail cost. Apple seems to maintain the price edge for dual cpu systems though, or at least when I'm trying to go fairly barebones while keeping options equal, apple's upgrades are generally more expensive so they'd catch up quickly when decked out.

Some things confuse me on apple's website though...for instance, why does the low end g5 have a 600mhz fsb, the two midranges have 900 and 1ghz, and the highend has 1.25ghz? Does apple not have multipliers? Are they running the fsb out of sync with the memory? And why does the FSB not seemed to be tied to the processor? The single 1.8ghz has a 600mhz fsb, while the duals have 900mhz fsbes. Maybe they're adding the total fsbes together, and the duals have lower fsbes than the singles?

Ok, since dual cpus don't really exist in the home pc market, I'll compare to the base g5 model. I'll pick a P4 2.8ghz as a comparable cpu to the 1.8ghz g5, I figure either it or the 2.6ghz would be right.
Ok, this time the Dell comes out nearly $1000 cheaper while having slightly superior components all around.(the difference between the dual cpu workstations was about $1500)

Why are G5s so expensive anyhow? From what I've heard it costs IBM less to produce one of the G5 cpus than it costs AMD or Intel to make a Prescott or Athlon 64.

 

[thegrommit]

Oh yeah, sorry, I have no sense of humor. So basically the mac mini is able to perform basic computing needs while not running windows?

Just FYI, Jade is a long time Mac owner and knows his stuff. His articles are an acquired tasted, but you really should get off your high horse.

As for "power" per cubic inch, the Shuttle cubes can be decked out pretty nicely for not a lot of cash.

 

[Fox5]

Oh yeah, sorry, I have no sense of humor. So basically the mac mini is able to perform basic computing needs while not running windows?

Just FYI, Jade is a long time Mac owner and knows his stuff. His articles are an acquired tasted, but you really should get off your high horse.

As for "power" per cubic inch, the Shuttle cubes can be decked out pretty nicely for not a lot of cash.

I'm not sure which you took offense too...
The "I have no sense of humor" line was because my post was the first that wasn't about the unique writing style used in the article. It was a humourous article, but no one had actually talked about what the article was about.
And the next sentence was what I got from the conclusion of an article that seemed fairly negative to the mac mini throughout.

And it's not always about power per cubic inch, just having enough power within a certain size. For its size the mini mac outperforms everything that is at that size, with the exception of laptops which are priced way above this system. The only other things in the same size range I've seen are VIA powered or Pentium 3 powered and don't have integrated graphics even as good as this.

 

[thegrommit]

And it's not always about power per cubic inch, just having enough power within a certain size. For its size the mini mac outperforms everything that is at that size,

Eh? You stated "for its size you'd be hard pressed to find a PC that can even equal it". There's no denying the mac mini is smaller than just about any equivalent PC. The question is whether paying the premium (in terms of price and relative lack of performance) for the size is worth it.

 

[Fox5]

Well, something the size of the minimac would be very useful in areas where pcs aren't normally found. It could basically be used as an Internet terminal or data information unit anywhere, you could put it in the kitchen and have all your recipes stored on it, have it in a mall doing stuff....umm...well it just looks nicer than having a bulkier box. But then the power of the mini mac isn't need then, so how about using it for servers or workstations? People use xboxes, they could stack tons of these together to make a cluster. Hmm, but you could just use dual cpu athlon mp boards and get more power per volume.

Ok, so these really don't have any market where they're best in, but they're a decent combo of power and size and their better availability than ITX systems combined with the idea of Mac superiority that many have may give them a decent market prescence.

 

[silence]

TBH, i doubt. lets call it a hunch.
whats their targetted market?...iPod users that want something else from Jobs&co.....i doubt...thats all

 

[ANova]

Considering it's a full fledged computer at about 1/6 the size of a G5 for $500, it's not bad. Of course it's slow, Apple is marketing it towards the average user for email and web surfing.

 

[MasterBaiter]

Considering it's a full fledged computer at about 1/6 the size of a G5 for $500, it's not bad. Of course it's slow, Apple is marketing it towards the average user for email and web surfing.

They seem to think this thing will run Halo... wonder if there are any benchmarks out there for it...

http://www.apple.com/macmini/graphics.html

"Lock the Target

Or one 3D game. Go ahead, just try to play Halo on a budget PC. Most say they’re good for 2D games only. That’s because an “integrated Intel graphicsâ€￾ chip steals power from the CPU and siphons off memory from system-level RAM. You’d have to buy an extra card to get the graphics performance of Mac mini, and some cheaper PCs don’t even have an open slot to let you add one."

I think I could put a $500 pc together that would slap this thing around like a $10 hoe.

 

[ANova]

Well, that page is pure marketing genious on Apple's part.

 

[Fox5]

Well, the Mac Mini does meet the minimum requirements for halo, plus the mac port is opengl so it might be faster.(doesn't have to conform to the same pixel shader limitations)

However, even a PC with only PCI slots could get faster video cards than the 9200...not much faster, but they could be faster.

 

[Florin]

Yeah, you could say that Halo runs on this thing. It is already quite playable on my iBook G4, which also has the Radeon 9200 but with a slower 1 Ghz processor.

They conveniently fail to mention however that the game only allows the 'Vertex Shaders Only' Rendering Pipeline option with this configuration, and not the 'Pixel + Vertex Shaders' one. And this game looks pretty crappy without it.

The DX9 version of Halo looks waaay better on my Dell Centrino, even with a lowly Radeon 9000.

 

[_xxx_]

That Mac looks cool, but look at this.

You can even put a full blown gfx card and an Audigy2 into it, along with a 3.4 MHz P4 and 2 gigs of RAM. It is more expensive than that mac, but will have 4-5x the performance.

 

[T2k]

Well, the Mac Mini does meet the minimum requirements for halo, plus the mac port is opengl so it might be faster.(doesn't have to conform to the same pixel shader limitations)

Bullsh*t, my friend. Did you EVER try to run Halo on OS X?
Have you ever touched an OS X machine?

I don't think so.

I'm tired of this... why don't you read around first, instead of guessing?
I have a dual G5 w/ R9600 and it's way behind my PC in terms of Halo. Originally my Mac arrived with FX5200, Halo was a POS, not an enjoyable game.

FYI: R9200 is one of the worst piece ATI has ever released, in terms of gaming. Besides this what do you expect from 32MB of video memory, huh?

However, even a PC with only PCI slots could get faster video cards than the 9200...not much faster, but they could be faster.

However from $500 you can get a PC in pretty small case with 3x faster CPU/performance, doubled memory, doubled hard drive etc - backed with support from hp/Compaq, for example.

 

[Fox5]

So OSX is bloatware and even the more efficient code that can be produced for the PowerPC architecture can't make it run good? Why do people rave about it so much then?

BTW, halo pc's minimum requirements are listed as a 733mhz processor and 32MB t&l capable video card. I know halo pc can run at greater than 30fps average at 800x600 on a geforce 3, though the computer I tried it in had a 2200+ athlon xp processor. The 9200 is much faster than the geforce 3(plus there's always fixed function mode to drop back to) so that should probably make up for the slower processor. Oh wait, maybe not, I thought the 9200 had dual pixel/vertex shaders while the geforce 3 only had one, but the 9200 seems to get its ass kicked by the geforce 3.

The requirements for the mac version of halo are the same, except the cpu has been raised to 800mhz and the OS changed to OSX. Remember, the majority of the PC gaming community plays on computers at sub 2ghz, often celerons too, and with whatever crap video card they can find cheaply, so there are a lot of fx 5200s and 9200ses out there. Those people play games like halo and never know the difference.

 

[T2k]

So OSX is bloatware and even the more efficient code that can be produced for the PowerPC architecture can't make it run good? Why do people rave about it so much then?

Thanks for confirming that you didn't even understood this whole story, due to lack of basic understanding.

BTW, halo pc's minimum requirements are listed as a 733mhz processor and 32MB t&l capable video card. I know halo pc can run at greater than 30fps average at 800x600 on a geforce 3, though the computer I tried it in had a 2200+ athlon xp processor. The 9200 is much faster than the geforce 3(plus there's always fixed function mode to drop back to) so that should probably make up for the slower processor. Oh wait, maybe not, I thought the 9200 had dual pixel/vertex shaders while the geforce 3 only had one, but the 9200 seems to get its ass kicked by the geforce 3.

Thanks for confirming you don't even know WTF is Radeon 9200SE, due to your missing knowledge.

The requirements for the mac version of halo are the same, except the cpu has been raised to 800mhz and the OS changed to OSX. Remember, the majority of the PC gaming community plays on computers at sub 2ghz, often celerons too, and with whatever crap video card they can find cheaply, so there are a lot of fx 5200s and 9200ses out there. Those people play games like halo and never know the difference.

Thanks for confirming that you're utterly clueless on CPUs and Mhz too, not on OSes and VGAs only.

 

[Fox5]

So OSX is bloatware and even the more efficient code that can be produced for the PowerPC architecture can't make it run good? Why do people rave about it so much then?

Thanks for confirming that you didn't even understood this whole story, due to lack of basic understanding.

BTW, halo pc's minimum requirements are listed as a 733mhz processor and 32MB t&l capable video card. I know halo pc can run at greater than 30fps average at 800x600 on a geforce 3, though the computer I tried it in had a 2200+ athlon xp processor. The 9200 is much faster than the geforce 3(plus there's always fixed function mode to drop back to) so that should probably make up for the slower processor. Oh wait, maybe not, I thought the 9200 had dual pixel/vertex shaders while the geforce 3 only had one, but the 9200 seems to get its ass kicked by the geforce 3.

Thanks for confirming you don't even know WTF is Radeon 9200SE, due to your missing knowledge.

The requirements for the mac version of halo are the same, except the cpu has been raised to 800mhz and the OS changed to OSX. Remember, the majority of the PC gaming community plays on computers at sub 2ghz, often celerons too, and with whatever crap video card they can find cheaply, so there are a lot of fx 5200s and 9200ses out there. Those people play games like halo and never know the difference.

Thanks for confirming that you're utterly clueless on CPUs and Mhz too, not on OSes and VGAs only.

Why don't you explain the story about OSX then?
It says the Mac Mini has a 9200, not a 9200SE, so it should have a 128bit memory bus.
And explain what I'm clueless about on cpus and mhz? I do know how to read the minimum requirements of a game, I know most people have crappy computers, and I know that a PowerPC compiler produces less lines of code for an equivilent program than an x86 compiler. And based on the specs of the processors, P3 < G4 < Athlon. I also know that celerons do suck, and something like 70% of PCs sold have them.

 

[T2k]

So OSX is bloatware and even the more efficient code that can be produced for the PowerPC architecture can't make it run good? Why do people rave about it so much then?

Thanks for confirming that you didn't even understood this whole story, due to lack of basic understanding.

BTW, halo pc's minimum requirements are listed as a 733mhz processor and 32MB t&l capable video card. I know halo pc can run at greater than 30fps average at 800x600 on a geforce 3, though the computer I tried it in had a 2200+ athlon xp processor. The 9200 is much faster than the geforce 3(plus there's always fixed function mode to drop back to) so that should probably make up for the slower processor. Oh wait, maybe not, I thought the 9200 had dual pixel/vertex shaders while the geforce 3 only had one, but the 9200 seems to get its ass kicked by the geforce 3.

Thanks for confirming you don't even know WTF is Radeon 9200SE, due to your missing knowledge.

The requirements for the mac version of halo are the same, except the cpu has been raised to 800mhz and the OS changed to OSX. Remember, the majority of the PC gaming community plays on computers at sub 2ghz, often celerons too, and with whatever crap video card they can find cheaply, so there are a lot of fx 5200s and 9200ses out there. Those people play games like halo and never know the difference.

Thanks for confirming that you're utterly clueless on CPUs and Mhz too, not on OSes and VGAs only.

Why don't you explain the story about OSX then?

What should I explain? I clearly sadi what I said: OS X is a memory hungry OS. 256MB is NOTHING for OS X, believe me.

It says the Mac Mini has a 9200, not a 9200SE, so it should have a 128bit memory bus.

Well, what I seen before the release, that was SE - of course, we'll see the final shipping version. BTW SE stands not only for crippled membus but for halfed pipes too.
On the other hand 32MB video memory is sooo ridiculously low that even 128bit bus won't matter, I think.

And explain what I'm clueless about on cpus and mhz? I do know how to read the minimum requirements of a game, I know most people have crappy computers, and I know that a PowerPC compiler produces less lines of code for an equivilent program than an x86 compiler. And based on the specs of the processors, P3 < G4 < Athlon. I also know that celerons do suck, and something like 70% of PCs sold have them.

So the what did you want citing MHzs?
Now you're really confusing... Sorry but I can't follow you.

PS: Anybody plays Halo on PC with 32MB FX5200 or R9200 paired with some very fast P3, I'll congratulate for them because it's quite impossible.
And G4 plus R9200... same crap, believe me.

 

[Fox5]

Windows XP likes ram too, I wouldn't run windows xp on 256MB of ram but people do. OSX is worse?

Edit: Just downclocked my Athlon XP to 1ghz, and halo was definetely playable. Typically framerate was between 20 and 50 fps, depending on what was going on in the game at time. At some points it would drop into the low teens, but halo is surprisingly one of the most playable fpses I've ever seen at low framerates. Multiplayer at those framerates would probably be harder as it wouldn't benefit from frame skipping, but the removal of halo's AI probably greatly reduces the load on the cpu.

Now then I don't know if the halo is playable on 256MB ram and a radeon 9200(se?).
It's a console port, so it shouldn't require too much ram, but I guess it depends how ram hungry the OS is while a game is running. I know Need for Speed Underground runs perfectly fine on an xp computer with 256MB ram.
The 8500 is only 25 mhz faster than the 9200's core, so the 9200 should have the power to outperform a geforce 3. However, the memory speed even on the nonse 9200 dropped from 275mhz to 200mhz, I guess having the memory speed of a geforce 3 ti 200 really hurts performance. Eh, maybe it's good for people who play at 640x480 because they don't know how to change the resolution. But if the 9200 sucks that bad, then the SE would be completely useless.

 

[T2k]

Windows XP likes ram too, I wouldn't run windows xp on 256MB of ram but people do. OSX is worse?

WORSE.
Even 512 is actually the limit to do some useful multitasking on my dual G5.
I still have my old G4 800MHz 512MB, I remember when I OCed once to get some more juice - nothing really has changed.

I really like OS X but it's really a memory sucking whore, 512MB is the entry level if you want to do some multitasking, unlike XP Pro which is actually quite useable with half gig.

Edit: Just downclocked my Athlon XP to 1ghz, and halo was definetely playable. Typically framerate was between 20 and 50 fps, depending on what was going on in the game at time. At some points it would drop into the low teens, but halo is surprisingly one of the most playable fpses I've ever seen at low framerates. Multiplayer at those framerates would probably be harder as it wouldn't benefit from frame skipping, but the removal of halo's AI probably greatly reduces the load on the cpu.

WTF are you talking about AGAIN?

What is this BS with 1GHz AGAIN?

AS EVEN YOU AGREED LAST TIME YOU CAN'T COMPARE CLOCK by clock - especially not wtih an Athlon - way more powerful than a G4.

What a retarded idea is this again?

Now then I don't know if the halo is playable on 256MB ram and a radeon 9200(se?). It's a console port, so it shouldn't require too much ram,

Suuure, they just ported from Xbox to Mac, which is OpenGL only, right?

I gave up this point, sorry.

but I guess it depends how ram hungry the OS is while a game is running. I know Need for Speed Underground runs perfectly fine on an xp computer with 256MB ram.

Ok, it's enough. You already made me laugh when you downclocked an Athlon to compare it or simulate a G4...

This 256 megs and NFSU... this is getting hilarious. WTF NFSU has to do with Halo? 8)

The 8500 is only 25 mhz faster than the 9200's core, so the 9200 should have the power to outperform a geforce 3. However, the memory speed even on the nonse 9200 dropped from 275mhz to 200mhz, I guess having the memory speed of a geforce 3 ti 200 really hurts performance.

Jesus... go and check out that f*ckin GPU table before you talk more, OK?
FYI: 4x2 != 4x1, not to mention the fact that all Mac versions are susually way underclocked, especially in this case when you have to deal with very special cooling environment.

Eh, maybe it's good for people who play at 640x480 because they don't know how to change the resolution. But if the 9200 sucks that bad, then the SE would be completely useless.

Wow. This was oone of a kind... errr... logical weirdo, let me just put this way...

Man, you have one weird mindset, I'm telling you.

 

[Fox5]

Back when the athlon, P3, and G4 were all in their prime I don't ever remember the athlon having a huge lead over the other cpus. Most websites that I've seen talking about the mini mac have actually been comparing the mini mac cpu to a 2000+(1.67 ghz) athlon xp or 2ghz pentium 4.

Also, Apple makes the G4 with an incredible amount of cache, the G4 one is made with a 512KB L2 cache and 167mhz fsb. The p4s and athlons people are comparing it to only have 256KB L2 cache and the athlons have a 133FSB and the P4s a 100FSB. And my computer was running with a 100fsb, so there wouldn't be a large bandwidth difference, 1600MB/s versus 1350MB/s.

WTF NFSU has to do with Halo?

They're both console ports that run on xbox. Since most of the operating system doesn't really need to be active while running a game, can't it be stored in virtual memory and free up most of the real memory for Halo? Halo's code shouldn't take up much more than 64MB of ram, which leaves the rest for whatever else the OS needs to run the game. Halo PC only requires 128MB of ram and halo had segemented levels so it shouldn't be a ram hog.

FYI: 4x2 != 4x1, not to mention the fact that all Mac versions are susually way underclocked, especially in this case when you have to deal with very special cooling environment.

I didn't realize the 8500 was a 4x2 design, I thought the only changes to the 9000-9250 cards were clock speed and memory. Hmm, and here I thought there were finally some PCI cards beyond a Geforce 2 in speed. Ok, well then the mac mini would definetely have to run the game in fixed function mode, which makes the game look like such complete crap that even halflife 1 looks better.