1122 Views 6 Replies Latest reply: Sep 24, 2006 8:05 AM by MrVegas1234
depends on what you plan on doing. Games, I would stick to the mini you have because it has a real graphics card that even outperformed the intel mini's cheap, worthless, integrated graphics. Other than that, the mini would be faster for all native apps, which are basically all the apps that shipped with your computer.
You don't specify which Mini you have (1.25Ghz or1.42GHz) or how much memory your Mini has. I have the 1.25GHz Mini with 512MB RAM. I was going to order a new Mini the day they were announced. But I didn't because of the integrated graphics.
The Mini I have is quite capable of surfing the web, sending and receiving email, editing photos with iPhoto, playing music with iTunes, web page editing with iWeb or GoLive and so much more. It does everything I need it to do and more. It even plays games such as the Medal of Honor series without too much fuss.
Yes, a 1.66GHz Intel Core Duo would be faster when using the iLife '06 suite of apps and when using Mail, Safari and other apps included with OS X and Universal apps. But to me, the speed increase isn't enough to justify the cost. Especially because of the integrated graphics. The speed increase isn't nearly as much as Apple has claimed.
If your Mini only has 256MB of RAM, I would up it to at least 512MB. Other than that, I'd be content with the G4 PPC Mini you have.
Mini 1.25, 512MB RAM, 80GB HD Mac OS X (10.4.5) G4 DA 533MHz DP w/Giga dual 1.8GHz upgrade, 1.5GB RAM, Radeon 9600 Pro 256MB
With the config you got, I don't think it would be beneficial to spend the money on an upgrade. Steve Jobs himself said at WWDC 2005, the next major relase of Mac OS X code named "Leopard" will be compiled for both the PowerPC and Intel arcitecures, so at least in terms of the G4 mini being oselete for Mac OS X, everyone running PowerPC chips is going to be safe for at least the next 3 years. This is the main reason why I have not acutioned off my iBook on eBay and gone for a Macbook Pro.
I really don't underdstand the big complaint being stirred among the Mac community with Apple's decision to go with an integrated graphics solution. The Radeon 9200 is 3 year old technology, and just isn't capable anymore. In a Macworld interview, one of Apple's senior product managers said they locked the integrated graphics to only use 80 MB of system memory, and honestly, I don't think 80 MB is not going to make much of a difference if you are going to buy the stock system of 512 MB. You are not going to be having the best Mac OS X experience in either case. Here is the link to that interview, btw:
The new Intel graphics solution is really not too bad, and as said in the interview linked above, the new Intel graphics does allow for programmable pixel shaders, that will allow the use of Core Image in OS X. Also, I believe in the ExtremeTech article, it was stated that the Intel graphics chip has hardware accelerated 1080p video playback, so once the Apple engineers optimize the drivers, playing back 1080p video on a Mac mini will be that much better. (As of right now, I believe playback of 1080p video is being done in software and passed along to the processor(s) in the Mac mini.) So in effect I see the new integrated graphics as an upgrade rather than some bad and evil move on Apple's part.
If anyone is going to do any serious amount of computing with a Mac mini, then I would get the dual core mini and upgrade to at least 1 GB of Ram. That's what I'm going to do anyways once I get my tax refund. With 80 MB allocated to graphics, that leaves you with 944 MB effictive system RAM which would be more than enough for browsing the web, iTunes, and maybe opening a few terminal windows for fun. My iBook is running on 640 MB RAM, and it's doing fine, so for what I do 944 will be more than enough.
So yea, sorry to go so off topic, but to wrap it up, with what you have, you'll be good until at least 2009. Enjoy.
14.1 iBook G4 1 GHz, 640 MB, 60 GB HD, APX Mac OS X (10.4.5) 4 GB iPod Nano (Black)