[The Return of the 'nut]

Originally Posted by Brad Well, something else to keep in mind is that Safari is two years old and is currently only at version 1.2.4. Explorer has how many years for optimizations? Version one was released TEN years ago in 1995. That's a lot of time for Microsoft to have made optimizations. I wouldn't be surprised if parts of it are hand-tuned in assembly by now. That said, Safari 2.0 is supposed to bring some dramatic improvements with Tiger. If you don't feel like waiting or don't plan to upgrade, you could always give an alternate browser like Camino or Firefox a try.

that is true but Safari's existence is based on speed. When it was released it was released for the reason that web browsing on the mac was slow. Apple aimed to address that once and for all in their own hands by releasing Safari. Two years later and it's still slower. Safari 2.0 is suppose to have nice additions, but no where have I seen speed being one of the major improvements. Web browsing speed IS a problem on macs. I can go to the library here with their cheap who knows how old terminals and they bring up web pages instantly. No matter what mac i use, there is always a lag.

Honestly Switchah, I think the mistake wasn't buying a Mac, it was getting caught up in the hype and getting a mini when probably it didn't mean your requirements to start with. If you want to do any kind of serious work or gaming or whatever, the iMac is definitely the ship you want to be on if you're switching. I think you'd be a lot happier with a nice iMac loaded up with RAM (i.e. no regrets at all).

switchah really is not doing anything from what I have seen that should not be considered standard usage for a mac mini. Apple advetises it heavily for its use with the iLife suite and DVD burning and even gaming. It is not unreasonable at all to expect the iLife Apps to run flawlessly on it. As it is, with 256MB RAM standard the mac mini can not run them well. Switchah has even upgraded the base ram and still experiences problems. Small form factor is cool and all but the fact that Apple didn't go with much faster, much larger, and much cheaper 3.5 inch Hard drives bewilders me. It would resolve so many problems and would even alleviate some of the RAM problems.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by The Return of the 'nut that is true but Safari's existence is based on speed. When it was released it was released for the reason that web browsing on the mac was slow. Apple aimed to address that once and for all in their own hands by releasing Safari.

Well, when Safari was first released it was definitely the pick of the litter for a while. I certainly have not forgotten the pains of Internet Explorer or the early versions of Mozilla.

It is sad to see it languish as the Mozilla breed gets faster, though, and even sadder that Apple has chosen to require you to buy a new OS to run the more recent versions.

Safari 2.0 is suppose to have nice additions, but no where have I seen speed being one of the major improvements.

I read it just this past week from a site that had one of the last builds before Tiger allegedly went GM. Unfortunately, I don't remember the build number or the site. They claimed every single page load was faster on two identical machines side-by-side with the current version of Safari and Safari 2.0.

[switchah]

So, just for cynicysm's sake:

One of the selling points of the mini is that it is a great internet machine, but a budget celeron could handily beat it serving up web pages?

Safari and OS X in a lot of ways seem to be symbolic to Apple hardware. It is elegant in appearance, but quite rough around the edges in terms of refinement of function. In my reading there seem to have been some very basic mistakes by Apple in their USB implementation in their hardware which causes it to significantly lag windows performance, Safari is clearly outmatched by many popular websites, and I have seen in my 3 week OS X career many odd drag/drop and windows hiding behind the dock behaviors that scream out that this is basically a dressed up beta OS that still has a ways to go. I think Apple is riding the iPod wave and pumping out stuff that isn't *quite* ready for prime-time.

[The Return of the 'nut]

Originally Posted by Brad I read it just this past week from a site that had one of the last builds before Tiger allegedly went GM. Unfortunately, I don't remember the build number or the site. They claimed every single page load was faster on two identical machines side-by-side with the current version of Safari and Safari 2.0.

well, that's certainly good news. I just have never understood why this has been a mac specific issue for so long. Even alternative browsers are faster on Windows than Safari or whatever the fastest mac browser is. Web browsing does not seem as if it would be very processor intensive and watching processor monitors while surfing I would have evidence of that. So it certainly seems like a code issue or something else.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by switchah and I have seen in my 3 week OS X career many odd drag/drop and windows hiding behind the dock behaviors that scream out that this is basically a dressed up beta OS that still has a ways to go.

Well, you do realize that you can choose to hide the Dock until you mouse over the edge of the screen, right? I don't know of a single person that keeps it up all of the time.

[Luca]

Originally Posted by Brad Well, you do realize that you can choose to hide the Dock until you mouse over the edge of the screen, right? I don't know of a single person that keeps it up all of the time.

Yeah you do! You know at least one.

[The Return of the 'nut]

Originally Posted by Brad Well, you do realize that you can choose to hide the Dock until you mouse over the edge of the screen, right? I don't know of a single person that keeps it up all of the time.

Every mac user I know including myself has their dock up all the time.

[fooie]

seriously every mac should come with minimum 512 ram. theyre too slow other wise. 256 is slow on winblows aswell. The rest of the crap that is being winged about though, seems like a bunch of bollocks. you put at least 512 ram in and itll be fine, faster than windows at most things.
so stop winging like a bloody great big poofta and get on with it. :smokey:

[psmith2.0]

I don't know ANYONE who hides their dock either. They might keep it on the left or right - weirdos! - but it's always visible. About a year ago I briefly flirted with the idea for about six minutes, but hated it.

I like seeing it, knowing it's there. I keep it small and out of the way, but it's there.

[Brad]

Really? Huh.

[dfiler]

I agree that web browsing on a Mac is slower than on the PC.

However, I also see this as a minor problem. Web browsing is now "quick enough" for the vast majority of users. Granted... this isn't much help if you're one of the few which find it aggrevating.

Most importantly, i'd rather wait longer on each page load than to have to deal with a single virus or spyware incident.

Not to say that your annoyance isn't warranted... only that it is increasingly rare. Every second thread on these boards used to be on the topic of mac web browsing. Since safari was released, these threads have all but disappeared. No longer are majority of users dissatisfied with browsing on the Mac. Instead, they typcially rave about the trouble-free nature of spywareless browsing on a mac.

Good news though... MacOS 10.4 will make browsing significantly quicker.

[The Return of the 'nut]

Originally Posted by dfiler Most importantly, i'd rather wait longer on each page load than to have to deal with a single virus or spyware incident.

i really don't see why we can't have both. they certainly aren't connected in anyway. Just because we have other advantages doesn't mean we have to accept some problems/disadvantages

[LudwigVan]

Originally Posted by switchah ...and I have seen in my 3 week OS X career many odd ... windows hiding behind the dock behaviors that scream out that this is basically a dressed up beta OS that still has a ways to go.

Is this an OS thing, an application-specific thing, or some combination of both? (I'm referring to the cause of the problem here.)

[Brad]

It's application-specific. Developers can explicitly decide whether or not to block windows from being left under the dock, but the default behavior for both Cocoa and Carbon disallows it.

[Luca]

I'm pretty sure it's application-specific. Most applications don't let you move or resize their windows below the dock. Sometimes you run into a sloppily-coded application that DOES put windows below the dock, like Internet Explorer.

EDIT: Damn!

[julesstoop]

This thread is starting to look like a ploy to elicit negative remarks about the performance of (certain applications on) Mac OS X.
I for one get the feeling from switchah's remarks that we are not dealing with a Mac-newby and sometimes it feels like the edge of trolling.
But then again. I am not a native speaker so I might miss certain subtleties.

[The Return of the 'nut]

Originally Posted by julesstoop This thread is starting to look like a ploy to elicit negative remarks about the performance of (certain applications on) Mac OS X. I for one get the feeling from switchah's remarks that we are not dealing with a Mac-newby and sometimes it feels like the edge of trolling. But then again. I am not a native speaker so I might miss certain subtleties.

I don't know. His complaints seem fairly valid and common.

[Luca]

I agree. We can't simply squelch all forms of negativity towards OS X. It's GOOD to look at where OS X falls short just to keep some perspective. switcha's tone was a bit hostile at first but I think he's being pretty reasonable.

[switchah]

Oh, Im a genuine switchah all right

And my bank account proves it! I have really, honestly been tortured about this because the computer is the center of the modern “digital hub”. It provides you with information, a place to hear music, watch videos, store and archive pictures. Communicate with family- It’s a big deal and you need a machine that facilitaes your life. I went Apple because of the digital hub sell. And, incidently, I do photoshop and illustrator for work, so I need something with a bit of oomph.

I guess I got caught in the hype and did the full boat switch with no safety net. I am kind of regretting it now because the things I thought were so “cool” was just on the surface, and when I really got going with it, it kind of let me down when it came to boring old solid functionality. But… I was aware of one thing… Apple’s legendary resale value. I already have an offer of $850 for it and I am salivating at the kind of PC I can build with that kind of money. I will take the next couple days to consider whether the Mac platform is really something I should hitch my wagon to.

[curiousuburb]

I think you're being unrealistic to expect the bottom of the line Mac to win speed races.

If speed is what you're measuring value by, the PM is the only real monster (this week).

Every feature you've asked that this machine be able to support (digital hub, basic graphics work, DVD, etc) works just fine. If you really push Adobe design apps to their limits, you'll want something that handles more than 2 Gigs of RAM anyway, but plenty of users here make their living as Graphics professionals on machines less capable than the Mini.

I don't see what the problem is other than apples-vs-oranges expectations.

The budget computer that does everything you want is slower than you'd like. And...?
The power computer that is orders of magnitude faster/more RAM costs more. And... ?

OS X gives you stability, security, seamless integration...
No known viruses or worms. No downtime for AdAware/Spybot runs.

Worth far more to most of us than bragging rights about whose CD spins faster.
PC folk are often coming from a world where OS and integration aren't 'benefits' for the price.

[Moogs]

Switchah: I read your comments about the iMac you "saw". Any chance you were in a retail store or in front of one that was bought from a retail store? 256MB of RAM -- almost guaranteed. It's for this reason I go batty when people base their first impression of the Mac platform on a machine they tested on some showroom floor. The dumbasses at CompUSA and elsewhere are too cheap / stupid to load the machines with the amount of RAM they're actually going to recommend to buyers.

Namely 512-1GB. If the machine you saw had a GB of RAM (seriously doubt it had that much), you would see a huge difference from teh stock 256.

[switchah]

Well it did have 256.

Don't you think that's honest? That's the computer they were selling at compUSA

How lame would it be to sell a machine at price X but show the customer a machine that is $150 more expensive to hook people ignorant of how to check for RAM.

curious- I take issue with your post. I, as a purchaser will be the judge of what is "just fine". Wouldnt you be just a *tad* peeved if you sold your computer, paid 2X the cost for a new one and it was slower?

Another example: I was using speakable items. Very cool. Loved it. Thought yea! this is the kind of stuff that made me switch. Then *poof* stops working. Check Apple discussions. Several people with the same problem/symptoms. Developers try to help and troubleshhot (a definite plus of the Apple community), but can offer no fix. Apple offical line: Reinstall OS X.

OK. so.... when does this "seamless stability kick in?" So far, I need an OS X reinstall, 80GB of lossless music went *poof*, I need to crack the thing open and spend $150 to install a reasonably fast drive, and it takes forever to burn my MP3 archive.

I mean, I really like the mac- hell I BOUGHT ONE! for the reasons you offer, but c'mon let's not all be drinking the Kool-aid.

As I said before. I will try the HD install because I really want to give the mac a fair shake- but it's been rough.

[julesstoop]

Fine. Glad to see that you all seem to think I'm wrong.
Apologies to Switchah: I hope you'll accept them.

[Quagmire]

I repeat, I think the Mini could be a dud itself if a reinstall doesn't work. You have the impression that Macs never have problems. While some Mac users have hyped that up, they will have problems, but less then the average dell. I read a survey report back in November or so. Like 1 or 2 out 8 macs had a problem. Dells had like 4 out of 8.

[curiousuburb]

That sounds like an unusual amount of problems in such a short time.
Unless you've recently offended an old Haitian lady, I'd also start to suspect a bad Mini.

Mine hasn't arrived yet, so I can't personally speak to what I'd consider reasonable performance, but I've taught PhotoShop on design lab G3 and G4s (all under 800MHz and never more than 768MB RAM). Not pushed as hard as a professional production machines, but perfectly acceptable for files under 200MB, as long as you don't mind a bit of coffee with your progress bar at times. Want faster, get more RAM, then CPU.

I wouldn't expect a Mini to perform at professional speed or capacity. Not for that price.

My point was that you seemed overly concerned about speed.
< Must resist car analogy. Must resist car analogy >
Smell the flowers a bit and enjoy the journey a bit more, rather than dwelling on time to destination.

Sorry if that isn't/hasn't been your first mac experience thus far.

[The Return of the 'nut]

It really bothers me that mac users can't have a rationale discussion about new user's gripes and problems. Even now, switchah has not said one thing that is not valid and a common complaint amongst new mac users or even old mac users.

It also really bothers me when everyone resorts to telling people they are fools or ignorant because they haven't updated to x amount of ram or haven't replaced the hd or haven't upgraded x. This, and nearly every mac, especially consumer macs, are suppose to work excellent straight out of the box. For years now everyone has claimed that closed box systems ready to go out of the box are the way. As minor of an upgrade as RAM may seem to you its still and upgrade, it stills requires a condiserable amount of money on top of the purchase (1/4 of the cost of the computer almost just for 512MB). It also requires either paying a certified technician or prying the thing open yourself to install RAM. it also requires trashing the RAM you already paid for because there is only one slot.

It is not suprising that the iApps run slow with 512MB RAM. They run extremely slow with 256MB RAM. I have 512MB on my Powerbook. My machine runs fine, I use iPhoto, iTunes, etc.....but I do get lags, and I do get slow downs. And so has every other mac I've used with inadequate RAM or a slow hard drive. I'm not sure why so many people dispute this. Burning a DVD or compressing a DVD is NOT A STRICTLY PROFESSIONAL task anymore. This is common stuff for people buying all macs, even the mac mini. and the damn computer should be able to do it handily. PCs in its price range can, technically it should, if Apple didn't neuter it for no good reason.

[Wyatt]

Originally Posted by The Return of the 'nut It really bothers me that mac users can't have a rationale discussion about new user's gripes and problems. Even now, switchah has not said one thing that is not valid and a common complaint amongst new mac users or even old mac users. *clip!* It is not suprising that the iApps run slow with 512MB RAM. They run extremely slow with 256MB RAM. I have 512MB on my Powerbook. My machine runs fine, I use iPhoto, iTunes, etc.....but I do get lags, and I do get slow downs. And so has every other mac I've used with inadequate RAM or a slow hard drive. I'm not sure why so many people dispute this. Burning a DVD or compressing a DVD is NOT A STRICTLY PROFESSIONAL task anymore. This is common stuff for people buying all macs, even the mac mini. and the damn computer should be able to do it handily. PCs in its price range can, technically it should, if Apple didn't neuter it for no good reason.

I agree completely. I'm not a video professional at all, but I intend to make full use of iMovie and iDVD and I will not tolerate waiting forever for a DVD to burn when I can burn one on my PC in under ten minutes. (Then again, my PC is a bit juiced up, as will be my mini)

[psmith2.0]

I totally agree too. Which I why I said what I did a page ago: I think if the mini is going to have any serious legs, it needs to address a few things:

1. More base RAM (this applies to all Macs, IMO...512MB out of the box. For a machine that only comes with one RAM slot, it seems a bit cruel to ship it with 256MB stock, knowing good and well it's going to suck for anyone launching more than two apps and that, eventually, that 256MB DIMM is going to be removed and trashed anyway. Put 512MB in there and shut up.

Applenut's right: burning DVDs and editing digital video are NOT solely "professional, high-end" activities anymore...it's the whole reason iLife exists. And it just leaves a bad taste in people's mouths when they try to do this stuff on the 256MB, OR realize they have to turn around and spend more money to get the thing actually usable.

2. Easier-to-open case for user RAM and AirPort Extreme upgrades. A box this cute and small shouldn't be "welded shut".

The mini should have some sort of "release" button(s) or switch somewhere, where pushing or turning it lets that whole top come off easily and quickly. From there, the customer can put in RAM and an AirPort card after the fact, with no worries of screwing up his machine.

Those two things are indisputable (more RAM, easier access).

The following might be up for debate, but I don't think so:

3. 5400rpm hard drives standard
4. 64MB graphics

These four reasons (or combinations of them) are the ONLY things I hear, over and over again, that keep people from buying the mini.

There's always Rev. B...here's hoping!

I guarantee you: even if they stayed at the exact same clockspeed (1.25 and 1.42GHz), BUT came with 512MB, easy snap-off lid, 5400rpm hard drive and 64MB graphics, A LOT more people - especially current Mac users, who know what's what - would be snapping these things up by the hundreds.

[Moogs]

Switchah: thanks for verifying my suspicion on the 256MB of RAM thing. It is honest in the sense that is how Apple ships them the computer, but it is disingenuous in the sense that they know damn well any modern computer -- particularly a Mac -- is going to see immediate and useful benefits from having a total of more than 512MB of RAM in teh machine.

They also know it's very cheap to add RAM and that they always pitch more RAM to their customers that buy nice computers. So to leave the machine on the floor with 256MB of RAM is just inane. They should load all of their Macs and PCs up with the amounts of RAM they are going to recommend to people and say "this computer ships with only ___ RAM, but we definitely recommend ____, so we display it that way", not the other way around.

[Luca]

And then people will say, "So you're saying that you ship all your computers with an inadequate amount of RAM?" And they'll squirm because it's true.

RAM prices have dropped like a rock recently. Now's the perfect time to bump ALL models to 512 MB.

[Moogs]

It's not the retailers that ship it with inadequate amounts, it's Apple (another discussion entirely - and I agree it's past time to make 512 the minimum btw).

What I'm saying is, the retailers representing Apple product should say "Hey, we believe many computer manufacturers including Apple tend to ship their retail machines with not enough RAM. We recommend at least 512MB, as it's very inexpensive now... so that's how we like to demonstrate them. This way you can get an idea of how well the machines can perform with adequate RAM."

It's not rocket science, but of course most of the people managing CompUSA or Best Buy stores or whereever are not the brightest people in the world, otherwise they'd be working somewhere else.

[switchah]

Well now I have another problem

Another external firewire NTFS drive with 70 Gig of irreplacable music I was transferring onto a Mac formatted disk will now refuse to mount.

It started with the mini, now it will not mount on XP either. I suspect the mini trashed it somehow??

This experience has been an unmitigated disaster. The stuff before was correctable. This is not. I am still trying to determine if family photos were on there as well.

Does anyone out there know how to rescue a HD that will not mount? It won't even show up in disk utility.

[The Return of the 'nut]

i thought this was an interesting note for those who argue that the mac mini can easily have its ram upgraded on your own.

from today's developer note:

Note: Additional memory can be installed only by Authorized Apple Service Providers. Contact your Apple Care representative for installing additional RAM.

emphasis mine

[Moogs]

Switchah: are you saying you didn't back up your 70GB worth of songs before trying to read a mobile hard drive, formatted as NTFS, with a Mac?

[psmith2.0]

See?!? How lame is that?

Every other Mac in Apple's lineup allows for warranty-safe user-upgradeable RAM. But not the mini, probably the one machine that could most benefit from it...



People DO perform their own RAM upgrades, but I'm guessing at the expense of the warranty? I'm not sure. There seems to be some gray area on this. I suppose Apple's policy is firm and plainly stated, it's just that everyone is ignoring it (can't say I blame them).

I consider this a boneheaded design flaw, such a sealed, closed rig. Some of the very people this thing is aimed at (switchers, pissed-off Windows users, newbies, etc.) shouldn't have to take a putty knife to a brand new $500 purchase and have warranty-voiding fears. NOR should they have to - in the case of someone living where I do - haul the damn thing 120-plus miles to the nearest Apple place to have it done.



Lame, with a capital "L".

[The Return of the 'nut]

Originally Posted by Moogs Switchah: are you saying you didn't back up your 70GB worth of songs before trying to read a mobile hard drive, formatted as NTFS, with a Mac?

backup or no backup, a new user should not expect their hard drive to get hosed when attempting to use it with their new mac. if this is the expected result, there should be warning of it in documentation or something.

[Luca]

Yeah, pscates, you should go look at an old Mac LC. Until the LC came along, the only "consumer" Macs were the little Classic Mac series, and those are an order of magnitude more difficult than the mini to open up and upgrade. You need a special screwdriver, a lot of patience, and a lot of courage. Upgrading the RAM involves removing the entire motherboard and being careful not to touch the CRT (because you could be severely electrocuted by the charge that remains in there).

The LC was different. Basically the Mac mini of its time. It was little, cheap, had color capability built-in, and you could easily remove the top of the case by just pressing on two clips. From there it's really easy to replace the RAM, floppy disk, and hard disk. It also had one expansion slot (often used for Ethernet).

Apple really should have done something like that again. Having an expansion slot on the mini would be nice too. Just like a mini-PCI or something to that effect. Then again, the LC was a whole lot bigger than the mini. About the same height, with probably six times the footprint (like a pizza box). The mini doesn't even have enough room for a third USB port (which would be another very nice addition), much less an expansion slot of any kind.

[Wyatt]

I definitely would appreciate an easier way to open the mini--I've heard way too many horror stories about how difficult it is. I'm almost afraid to open mine to install new memory when I finally get it.

Any chance we'll see a rev.b mini by August?

[alcimedes]

switchah, can you start a new thread w/regards to the HD issues and lost files? i think the problem is getting lost in the shuffle of the other topics flying around in this thread.

[psmith2.0]

Luca, my first Mac ever (bought in February 1994) was a Quadra 610, which was sorta a "pizza box" thing: low and wide...about 2-3" tall and wide/deep.



But it had two little snap tabs on the back that you just lifted up on, and its entire top came off easily too. Not a putty knife in sight!



How it should be, ESPECIALLY from the company that came up with the cool drop-door guts on the blue & white G3 towers (which carried over to the G4 and all its varieties). Upgrading one of those beige "pre iEra" G3 towers was indeed a pain in the butt.

Actually, you know what? The whole lid doesn't need to come off the Mac mini...what if, instead, there was just a simple set-screw or button in the back, and when you loosed or pushed it, that white top portion of the mini released, and you just simply pulled it off to expose the mini's guts? That way, no one has to screw with any putty knife silliness...the white portion (where the gray Apple logo is) just pops up enough to grab it by the sides and pull off. When done, stick it back on, press it down and it clicks back into place?

That would work.