Hilarious! :) The Mac mini review @ Ars

[T2k]

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.

Let me spell it: TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ARCHITECTURES.
Apple grows on a tree, so does pear - and yet you can't compare them.
Gotcha?

PS: Incredible amount of cache? WHat's wrong with you? Xeons come with even 2MB of cache... FYI: large cache is always a definite sign of something suxc with memory controller, namely slow access, high latency - just like in case of the goodol' G4 with its archaic slow subsystem.

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.

I suggest you to read more on this subject to avoid posting more and more silly atuff like this: "Since most of the operating system doesn't really need to be active while running a game,"

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.

You don't realize many things yet you have chosen to come out against Jade of Ars... I told you...

 

[Fox5]

Bleh, I still say halo's playable on the mac mini, maybe not by your standards but I've found comments from Mac users online about how great it runs on their g4 800mhz. The 9200 can definetely run halo in fixed function mode, so the only thing left is the ram. The same mac user who says it runs great on his g4 800mhz has 512MB of ram, so that's the only part of the mini mac that might be unplayable.

BTW, the 800mhz G4, 512MB ram, 9200 system @ 800x600 with all settings at lowest gets a 20 fps average in the time demo, and was accompanied by comments of how anything above 24fps isn't visible anyhow.

 

[karlotta]

Bleh, I still say halo's playable on the mac mini, maybe not by your standards but I've found comments from Mac users online about how great it runs on their g4 800mhz. The 9200 can definetely run halo in fixed function mode, so the only thing left is the ram. The same mac user who says it runs great on his g4 800mhz has 512MB of ram, so that's the only part of the mini mac that might be unplayable.

BTW, the 800mhz G4, 512MB ram, 9200 system @ 800x600 with all settings at lowest gets a 20 fps average in the time demo, and was accompanied by comments of how anything above 24fps isn't visible anyhow.

They lie. And who wants to play Halo at 8x6 with no AA? yuky. Mac Nini is not a game rig NO ANDS IFS about it.

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

Anyone who's played HALO knows that the minimum spec is optimistic in the extreme. Even if you lower the res and turn everything off that you can so it looks like trash, it will be very sluggish.

Quoting average framerates in a benchmark means that dips are a lot lower during gameplay.

Saying no one can see more than 24 frames a second is so wrong I don't know where to start. It's one of those fallacies that the ignorent perpetuate over the internet. You do your argument no favours quoting such faulty information.

 

[Fox5]

Anyone who's played HALO knows that the minimum spec is optimistic in the extreme. Even if you lower the res and turn everything off that you can so it looks like trash, it will be very sluggish.

Quoting average framerates in a benchmark means that dips are a lot lower during gameplay.

Saying no one can see more than 24 frames a second is so wrong I don't know where to start. It's one of those fallacies that the ignorent perpetuate over the internet. You do your argument no favours quoting such faulty information.

What? Obviously there are people out there still capable of enjoying a game when it's running and looking like crap, and they're not just limited to Macs, I know quite a few people with crap PCs that play modern games and just don't care that it looks and runs like crap.

 

[Acert93]

BTW, the 800mhz G4, 512MB ram, 9200 system @ 800x600 with all settings at lowest gets a 20 fps average in the time demo, and was accompanied by comments of how anything above 24fps isn't visible anyhow.

20FPS average means there are sections where it dips below 20FPS. I really hate the Average FPS benchmarks. We really need to know the minimum also. e.g.

System 1: Ave. = 40fps; Min. = 10fps

System 2: Ave. = 35fps; Min. = 25 fps

As you can see, System 2 is actually better than System 1, although System 1 has a better average. The jumping up and down and all over the place really is not good--it really accents the fact the game is running below 60fps.

So a system running a game at 20fps average is going to be unplayable by most people's standards. Games with less than 30fps are choppy, and until you exceed 60fps you can really see a difference between going from 30 to 60, especially if it hops up and down a lot.

The 24fps number is for movies. One reason they APPEAR smooth is because all the motion blur is incorperated into the frame. This gives the appearance of something moving smoothly. But if you have seen a movie that pans quickly, 9 times out of 10 it is choppy and annoying. I cannot stand fast pans--and remember, in games you TURN (pan) quickly on a frequent basis.

I am not sure the obsession with Halo either. You cannot compare console ports (Halo runs much worse on the PC than NFS2 does... different games, different needs) and running Halo at 800x600 with minimum settings at 20fps is pretty poor. I do not know a single review site that would consider that "playable".

The Mac Mini will have certain uses, but consistant gaming is not one of them. And this is not only a limitation of the hardware but of the entire platform--Mac gets very few quality games. You can name a couple, but the selection is pretty bare and the quality is very uneven. And moving forward how many new games will run well with the Mac Mini? Trying to convince people it is a gaming machine, or even good at gaming, is going too far. 20fps and meager features would get blasted on the console, let alone PC. I am not sure why the standard would be any different for the Mac Mini. It would be more relevant to discuss it strong points (small, elegent design, Mac OS for those wanting to get away from MS). Ironically, I read a review last night that noted that the iMac is actually a better deal price wise. If size is not concerned budget PCs are a better deal, and if size is a concern for the tech savy (or those who can navigate Shuttles site) there are SFF and Micro ATX. I am sure there are situations where the Mac Mini's size will be necessary even over a SFF, but I do not know of many.

Anyhow, the Mac Mini has some strong points (strong brand, different OS, small, nice design, fairly affordable, packaged software, etc) and it would be best to focus in that area. Argueing whether the Mac Mini is a gaming capable system when it (well, comparable system) can do Halo at 20fps with all the features turned off seems to answer the question--it is not a gaming rig and struggles with games released in the last 2 years, so you can draw your own conclusion about games released over the next 2 years that are lucky enough to make it to the Mac platform.

 

[Fox5]

I know the 24fps number is for movies(and only the bare minimum to make something seem to be in motion), and I would prefer every game to be above 50 fps, but there are people that don't care or don't know that the game is running like crap. Hmm, or maybe they just don't realize the hardware is the problem, that could be one of the reasons PC gaming has been doing so crappy the last few years, people are switching to consoles where the games are actually playable.
I wonder how many people(both Mac and PC) have crap computers that they believe are good and are blind to how crappy their software runs. I know they exist, I see people in the stores all the time picking up a pci fx 5200 or 9200se and raving about how powerful it is.

BTW, does the Mac OS have any advantages over running Linux? I'd imagine Linux would be pretty spyware free, and its ease of use depends on the distro.

 

[karlotta]

I know the 24fps number is for movies(and only the bare minimum to make something seem to be in motion), and I would prefer every game to be above 50 fps, but there are people that don't care or don't know that the game is running like crap. Hmm, or maybe they just don't realize the hardware is the problem, that could be one of the reasons PC gaming has been doing so crappy the last few years, people are switching to consoles where the games are actually playable.
I wonder how many people(both Mac and PC) have crap computers that they believe are good and are blind to how crappy their software runs. I know they exist, I see people in the stores all the time picking up a pci fx 5200 or 9200se and raving about how powerful it is.

BTW, does the Mac OS have any advantages over running Linux? I'd imagine Linux would be pretty spyware free, and its ease of use depends on the distro.

Well it could be because of Apple for haveing crap gaming machines? or NVDA for crap 5200s or gf4mx when ppl thought they had some great NVDA card....hmmm Or maybe its just eaiser to make games for a console, thus make more money! The whole point of this argument is, with 256mb of ram and OSX13 you can only do one thing at one time.... and that wont be playing halflife2. Even with 512mb... your hard pressed to do much multitasking. Then the GPU/vram... oh never mind.

 

[T2k]

and was accompanied by comments of how anything above 24fps isn't visible anyhow.

I think it's going to be classic...

 

[T2k]

BTW, the 800mhz G4, 512MB ram, 9200 system @ 800x600 with all settings at lowest gets a 20 fps average in the time demo, and was accompanied by comments of how anything above 24fps isn't visible anyhow.

20FPS average means there are sections where it dips below 20FPS. I really hate the Average FPS benchmarks. We really need to know the minimum also. e.g.

System 1: Ave. = 40fps; Min. = 10fps

System 2: Ave. = 35fps; Min. = 25 fps

As you can see, System 2 is actually better than System 1, although System 1 has a better average. The jumping up and down and all over the place really is not good--it really accents the fact the game is running below 60fps.

So a system running a game at 20fps average is going to be unplayable by most people's standards. Games with less than 30fps are choppy, and until you exceed 60fps you can really see a difference between going from 30 to 60, especially if it hops up and down a lot.

The 24fps number is for movies. One reason they APPEAR smooth is because all the motion blur is incorperated into the frame. This gives the appearance of something moving smoothly. But if you have seen a movie that pans quickly, 9 times out of 10 it is choppy and annoying. I cannot stand fast pans--and remember, in games you TURN (pan) quickly on a frequent basis.

I am not sure the obsession with Halo either. You cannot compare console ports (Halo runs much worse on the PC than NFS2 does... different games, different needs) and running Halo at 800x600 with minimum settings at 20fps is pretty poor. I do not know a single review site that would consider that "playable".

The Mac Mini will have certain uses, but consistant gaming is not one of them. And this is not only a limitation of the hardware but of the entire platform--Mac gets very few quality games. You can name a couple, but the selection is pretty bare and the quality is very uneven. And moving forward how many new games will run well with the Mac Mini? Trying to convince people it is a gaming machine, or even good at gaming, is going too far. 20fps and meager features would get blasted on the console, let alone PC. I am not sure why the standard would be any different for the Mac Mini. It would be more relevant to discuss it strong points (small, elegent design, Mac OS for those wanting to get away from MS). Ironically, I read a review last night that noted that the iMac is actually a better deal price wise. If size is not concerned budget PCs are a better deal, and if size is a concern for the tech savy (or those who can navigate Shuttles site) there are SFF and Micro ATX. I am sure there are situations where the Mac Mini's size will be necessary even over a SFF, but I do not know of many.

Anyhow, the Mac Mini has some strong points (strong brand, different OS, small, nice design, fairly affordable, packaged software, etc) and it would be best to focus in that area. Argueing whether the Mac Mini is a gaming capable system when it (well, comparable system) can do Halo at 20fps with all the features turned off seems to answer the question--it is not a gaming rig and struggles with games released in the last 2 years, so you can draw your own conclusion about games released over the next 2 years that are lucky enough to make it to the Mac platform.

One more tidbit: Mac OpenGL only where ATI is historically poor - imagine the lowest ATI part, an integrated 9200 32MB under OpenGL, paired with a 167MHz FSB G4 1.25GHz and 256 MB memory...

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

What? Obviously there are people out there still capable of enjoying a game when it's running and looking like crap, and they're not just limited to Macs, I know quite a few people with crap PCs that play modern games and just don't care that it looks and runs like crap.

Oh that's all right then - as long as some people are pleased with their games looking and playing like crap on underpowered hardware, then I guess it's okay for all of us.

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

Hmm, or maybe they just don't realize the hardware is the problem, that could be one of the reasons PC gaming has been doing so crappy the last few years, people are switching to consoles where the games are actually playable.

People buy consoles because they are cheap and simple. That's why they run games at quarter of the resolution, no AA or AF, and at low frames compared to a well specced PC.

 

[Fox5]

What? Obviously there are people out there still capable of enjoying a game when it's running and looking like crap, and they're not just limited to Macs, I know quite a few people with crap PCs that play modern games and just don't care that it looks and runs like crap.

Oh that's all right then - as long as some people are pleased with their games looking and playing like crap on underpowered hardware, then I guess it's okay for all of us.

No, but there's a market of people who are fine with it. Many people are fine with something just working and don't care how well it works.
I have a group of friends who the minimac would be perfect for(mostly korean), they only play blizzard games and counterstrike and tend to have spyware related troubles on their PCs.(which certainly aren't speed demons, the highest end of all the computers has an agp geforce 4 mx)

 

[Pete]

No one's going to be buying one of these to game with, IMO. You may as well just buy an Xbox if you want to game. Come to think of it, it's interesting that MS can sell an Xbox with a P3-733, 64MB RAM, GF3 "IGP," and a HD for $200. Surely Apple could have done better for $500, even considering a $100 OS cost?

Seriously, this Mac mini looks nice, but I just bought a Toshiba laptop for $600 (after rebates, natch, but with two years no interest the rebates become a moot point). Cel-M 1.5GHz 512kb L2, 256MB RAM (actually 512MB due to another store promotion, and more actually 768MB since my store ran out of 256MB SODIMMs 8)), 60GB HD, Intel IGP (the mini wins here, but not by much).

Oh, and a 15.4" WXGA widescreen LCD.

You'd have to really like OS X to take a Mac mini over this Toshiba or any of the now-common $500-600AR Windows laptops.

The Mac mini is nice--think of it as a reborn G4 Cube--but it's still too expensive, IMO. OS X really needs more than 256MB, and upgrading the mini's memory requires a $50 Apple service fee (or exhorbitant Apple memory prices) to avoid voiding the warranty. So you're up to $600 right off the bat. It's interesting as a playback HTPC, especially with a DVI port for hookup to HDTVs.

But bang for buck? Nope. Apple's still too far out there. I find the iPod Shuffle intriguing, tho. It's a tempting alternative to a regular USB memory stick.

 

[anaqer]

Come to think of it, it's interesting that MS can sell an Xbox with a P3-733, 64MB RAM, GF3 "IGP," and a HD for $200.

It's easy - they sell it at a loss.

 

[[maven]]

One more tidbit: Mac OpenGL only where ATI is historically poor

You know what? You can't tell anything from ATIs (poor) Windows OpenGL drivers about their Mac efforts (which are better by far and with a lot of support from Apple). But why are we having this discussion; the mac mini is not a games machine. And neither was it meant to be.

 

[T2k]

]

One more tidbit: Mac OpenGL only where ATI is historically poor

You know what? You can't tell anything from ATIs (poor) Windows OpenGL drivers about their Mac efforts (which are better by far and with a lot of support from Apple).

? I can't? And why, may I ask?

FYI: less than 2 years ago the whole Mac division was about 4 people at ATI - I do know it...

But why are we having this discussion; the mac mini is not a games machine. And neither was it meant to be.

That's definitely true.

 

[[maven]]

]

One more tidbit: Mac OpenGL only where ATI is historically poor

You know what? You can't tell anything from ATIs (poor) Windows OpenGL drivers about their Mac efforts (which are better by far and with a lot of support from Apple).

? I can't? And why, may I ask?

Stop being so damn confrontational. You're not better than anyone else.

you - pronoun second person sing. or pl. 1 used to refer to the person or people that the speaker is addressing. 2 used to refer to the person being addressed together with other people regarded in the same class. 3 used to refer to any person in general.

 

[T2k]

]

]

One more tidbit: Mac OpenGL only where ATI is historically poor

You know what? You can't tell anything from ATIs (poor) Windows OpenGL drivers about their Mac efforts (which are better by far and with a lot of support from Apple).

? I can't? And why, may I ask?

Stop being so damn confrontational. You're not better than anyone else.

Stop trolling here.
If you have nothing to say on topic, STFU.

Two useless, stupid posts, that's all you produced here.

 

[T2k]

Back to business... I just saw over at R3D: DellSB - Dimension 3000 with 2.8Ghz P4, 512MB DDR SDRAM, 80GB HD, 48x CD-ROM, and 2 Year Warranty for $429 after Rebate with FREE Shipping not that I'm a big fan of Dell, absolutely not, (their workstations for example exceptionally crappy, poorly designed machines IMO) but this machine mops the floor with ANY MAc mini and it's actually $70 cheaper. (Though way bigger too.)