Other Sites
Why is Mac mini RAM Installation So Difficult?
Mac mini (Early 2006): About the Video Processor
Mac mini Core Duo 512MB vs 1GB--How Fast Is It?
A maximum look at a mini Mac, part one
A maximum look at a mini Mac, part two
A maximum look at a mini Mac, part three
Follow-up to mini series
Why is Mac mini RAM Installation So Difficult?
The Mac Night Owl, Gene Steinberg says:
Last year, when the Mac mini first appeared, putty knives became both jokes and essential ingredients for new owners of the tiny desktop computer. Revisiting the problems one encountered adding memory to the first generation iMac and older Macs, Apple designed the mini to make RAM updates a chore.
Unlike other Macs of recent vintage, there were no screws and pop-out latches to get inside. You had to pry the case apart, being careful not to damage anything. Now, I understand that Apple might have felt that there was a design advantage to such a scheme, but why not have a simple-to-remove bottom cover, perhaps reminiscent of the lamp shade generation of the iMac?
For the full commentary, visit here:
http://www.macnightowl.com/news/2006/03/week3.htm#difficult
Mac mini (Early 2006): About the Video Processor
A new Apple Knowledge Base article says:
The Mac mini (Early 2006) uses the Intel GMA950 graphics processor for video output. This processor shares the main system memory, allocating a base amount of 80 MB for video and boot processes. This leaves 432 MB of SDRAM available to Mac OS X in a standard system (configured with 512 MB SDRAM).
Memory available to Mac OS X may vary depending on graphics needs, as the card allocates additional memory to the graphics processor depending upon the application being used.
For best graphics performance, your Mac mini (Early 2006) ships from Apple with two equal-sized SO-DIMMs installed, one in each slot, for each memory configuration offered from the Apple Store. If you upgrade the memory in your Mac mini (Early 2006), make sure you have matching size SO-DIMMs in each slot for best graphics performance.
You can check it out at:
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=303407
Mac mini Core Duo 512MB vs 1GB--How Fast Is It?
MacsOnly!'s Bill Fox says:
We recently applied our speed test to our 1.66GHz Mac mini Core Duo with 512MB of RAM in a shootout among our upgraded Power Mac G4 Cube that the Mac mini Core Duo replaced and our 20" 2GHz iMac Core Duo. One question left hanging was should one upgrade the base Mac mini Core Duo's RAM from 512MB to 1GB or even to 2GB.
We tested the RAM requirements of our original 1.25GHz Mac mini G4 and came to the conclusion that 256MB was easily sufficient for an entry-level or general computer user. We also saw no difference in application speed during weeks of use with 256MB or 512MB of RAM. A stress test consisting of launching and running six popular applications simultaneously showed no improvement when the 256MB RAM module was replaced by a 512MB module. Of course, we did not run any professional video or digital image applications which run better with a vast amount of RAM because the Mac mini G4 was not targeted at those users.
For the full report, visit here.
http://www.macsonly.com/index.html#_131
A maximum look at a mini Mac, part one
MacWorld's Rob Griffiths says:
A week ago Friday, I received my first Intel Mac: a 1.66GHz Intel Core Duo Mac mini with 512MB of RAM and an 80GB hard drive, to be used as my test machine for all Intel-related Mac OS X Hints. This being my first exposure (beyond a few minutes on the Macworld Expo show floor in January) to any of the Intel boxes, I decided to spend a fair bit of time with the machine, trying to see just how well it works, and just how Mac-like it may be, relative to my recent thoughts about the direction of the platform.
As such, what follows is both a look at the Core Duo mini in detail, and a more general look at the transition from PowerPC to Intel, as seen through the eyes of the mini. Think of it as an incredibly detailed hands-on report, based on my first week with the unit.
What this article is not is the official Macworld benchmark report for the mini, though I will include some other interesting (or not) figures from a few benchmarking apps. This is also not the official Macworld review of the new mini. This article also isn’t a look inside the new mini, as Jason Snell has already covered that topic in detail. And finally, this is not a “new vs. old” comparison of the second and first generation minis, as I didn’t have a first-generation machine with which to compare.
For the full report, visit here.
http://www.macworld.com/2006/03/firstlooks/minitome/index.php
A maximum look at a mini Mac, part two
The second part of a three-part series documenting Macworld Senior Editor and Mac OS X Hints founder Rob Griffiths’ first week with an Intel Mac mini.
After my previous installment, you’ve got a sense for what the Mac mini is like, and how individual applications perform, both in native and Rosetta form. But how well does the mini actually work, when you sit down and use it on a daily basis? For the last seven days, I’ve been doing exactly that.
If you’re expecting a simple one-word answer like “great!” or “awful!” or “so-so,” you’ll be disappointed. How well the mini might work for you really depends on two things. First, what types of programs you run and what you do with those programs. And second, how many applications you like to use at once.
For the full report, visit here.
http://www.macworld.com/2006/03/firstlooks/minitome2/index.php
A maximum look at a mini Mac, part three
The final installment of a three-part series documenting Macworld Senior Editor Rob Griffiths’ first week with an Intel Mac mini.
You can see the results of the Macworld Lab’s tests in our full review. Since my personal objective was to learn as much about the Mac mini as possible, I sought out additional test tools to add to what the Macworld Lab tests told me.
Geekbench benchmark: Impressed with the relaunch speeds of applications, I went looking for a benchmark test that would measure the raw computing power of the Core Duo chip in the mini. With some help from Google, I found Geekbench, which runs in the Terminal and runs a whole slew of number-crunching tests (and works on Windows and Linux, too). I ran Geekbench on all three Macs. One interesting feature of Geekbench is that there’s a Rosetta version as well as a native version, so you can see just what kind of performance impact Rosetta makes.
Geekbench is, well, quite geeky, so dig into the table below only if you want to see all the gory details.
For the full report, visit here.
http://www.macworld.com/2006/03/firstlooks/minitome3/index.php
Follow-up to mini series
Macworld's Rob Griffiths says:
First, thanks to everyone who took the time to read parts one, two and three of my “mini series” this week. The discussion around the articles was very interesting, and some good questions were asked. Today I bumped the RAM in the mini to 2GB (after a brief wrong turn), so I thought I’d take a few minutes to revisit some of the tests that may have been RAM dependent. I also tried to address the one major area my original report didn’t touch on—how well do things like printers and scanners work, as well as looking at a couple of other games.
For the full report, visit here.
http://www.macworld.com/2006/03/firstlooks/minifollow/index.php
Charles W. Moore
Tags: Blogs ď Mac mini Muse ď
