MAC Mini

It's a laptop that doesn't have a screen, keyboard or battery, and comes in a small ali case. It's a low-cost way of having a mac in a tiny case, but performance isn't exactly blinding. Only you know why you might want one.
 
Have to admit, it's compact size is appealing would lightroom and Photoshop be ok on it you reckon?

Most of my work is tweaking in LR but have been doing some multiple exposure blending in PS lately.

I just don't know what's best.

Desktop PC, laptop or this Mac mini
 
I've been running a mini since last October. I couldn't quite justify 15" retina MBP - so I got the same performance apart from screen and SSD for 1/3 price. So far I'm very happy apart from one specific 10.9 bug that caused a few kernel panics. I am sure that is getting a fix.

Overall it is a great choice if you don't need a laptop, but maybe wait for a next refresh. Current ones are over a year old.
 
I may be the wrong person to ask, because although I've been a Mac user for the last 5 years (and a fanboi since the 90s) I think they are badly designed and the OS very poor at managing workflow. I still use a Macbook because that's what I bought and couldn't afford to ditch it - I have paid for my mistake. I've also upgraded it (4Gb RAM and a samsung SSD) to keep performance acceptable. And because Apples are now PCs like every other PC out there, I've had to re-install the OS 3 times (outside of upgrades) to maintain performance, just like you would with a windows PC.

I would think lightroom & photoshop would be OK - not spectacular, but OK. I've no idea whether a memory upgrade is possible with the latest versions, because they only have 4Gb, but if not then I would avoid because 4Gb isn't going to be enough in a couple of years time, just like the 2Gb in my Macbook wasn't enough 3 years ago. I like that they have a proper wired ethernet port, rather than wireless only like the latest macbooks.

But the cheapest is £500, the next one up is £700. On top of that you'll also need an Apple keyboard (windows keyboards aren't the same, but any mouse will do) a DVD drive and either a monitor that can take a displayport cable or you'll have to buy a dongle to convert mini displayport into VGA/DVI (and the mini DP:VGA isn't great - trust me on that). For that lot you could buy a pretty decent PC running windows or linux, maybe even in a nice mini case that would look good sat on the desk.

Really it's down to whether you want OSX in a pretty box or not, because that's the only thing a mini will really give you as a user over any other cheap, adequate PC base unit.

Sorry - I wouldn't buy it, but a lot of people feel differently.
 
ancient_mariner said:
I may be the wrong person to ask, because although I've been a Mac user for the last 5 years (and a fanboi since the 90s) I think they are badly designed and the OS very poor at managing workflow. I still use a Macbook because that's what I bought and couldn't afford to ditch it - I have paid for my mistake. I've also upgraded it (4Gb RAM and a samsung SSD) to keep performance acceptable. And because Apples are now PCs like every other PC out there, I've had to re-install the OS 3 times (outside of upgrades) to maintain performance, just like you would with a windows PC.

I would think lightroom & photoshop would be OK - not spectacular, but OK. I've no idea whether a memory upgrade is possible with the latest versions, because they only have 4Gb, but if not then I would avoid because 4Gb isn't going to be enough in a couple of years time, just like the 2Gb in my Macbook wasn't enough 3 years ago. I like that they have a proper wired ethernet port, rather than wireless only like the latest macbooks.

But the cheapest is £500, the next one up is £700. On top of that you'll also need an Apple keyboard (windows keyboards aren't the same, but any mouse will do) a DVD drive and either a monitor that can take a displayport cable or you'll have to buy a dongle to convert mini displayport into VGA/DVI (and the mini DP:VGA isn't great - trust me on that). For that lot you could buy a pretty decent PC running windows or linux, maybe even in a nice mini case that would look good sat on the desk.

Really it's down to whether you want OSX in a pretty box or not, because that's the only thing a mini will really give you as a user over any other cheap, adequate PC base unit.

Sorry - I wouldn't buy it, but a lot of people feel differently.
Click to expand...

A great & unbiased post by an Apple user

Why cant all the Apple fans be as objective and unbiased?
 
Been running a 2.5GHz dual core Mac Mini for almost a year now, along with this Dell Ultrasharp screen http://www.amazon.co.uk/Dell-Ultrasharp-U2412M-Widescreen-Monitor/dp/B005LNDPPS

Upgraded the RAM to 8GB as it was struggling with LR and PS open, but since then i've had no issues with it struggling. All depends what you want to spend/what your preferences on operating systems are but can't see you'd have any problems if you did go for a Mini.
 
neil_g said:
both platforms will slow down if you're (you are) permitting regular updates from the manufacturer.
Click to expand...

Fixed that for you. ;)

To be fair Mountain Lion has been much better than than 10.5 in terms of not slowing down after a few months (although that could be because I'm using SSD instead of HDD) and better than 10.6 in that everything worked and kept working.

This morning I tried the RAW editing software Sony supply for ARW files on this Macbook. It was laggy in processing a 20Mpx image and on a couple of occasions the fans became audible as the processor was working so hard. This is on a 2GHz core 2 duo machine with 4Gb RAM, SSD and about 1 year old install of Mountain Lion. It would work, but it was slow, clunky and not especially nice to use, and that doesn't seem good to me at all. However as Ollie says, if you have enough memory and a faster processor then it seems to be OK for Lightroom and Photoshop, at least using current versions. I also have that monitor he linked to, and it's very nice to use, especially because it has a displayport, and that solves the poor display quality that you see with the DP:VGA dongle.
 
ancient_mariner said:
And because Apples are now PCs like every other PC out there, I've had to re-install the OS 3 times (outside of upgrades) to maintain performance, just like you would with a windows PC.
Click to expand...
This is wrong. You do not need to re-install the OS to maintain performance, whether OSX or any NT kernel version of Windows.

ancient_mariner said:
On top of that you'll also need an Apple keyboard
Click to expand...
No, you won't. I have a Mac Mini (core2 duo version) and even when I was running OSX on it I did not require an apple keyboard to make it work, just a normal USB on was fine. The only pain was when I left a CD in the drive when turning it off. On powering up it then decided to try to boot from the non-bootable CD and ignored the hard disk. There is no eject button on the CD drive and the only way I could find to eject it was to borrow an Apple keyboard which has a button to do it (none of the suggested methods using a normal keyboard worked).
 
onomatopoeia said:
The only pain was when I left a CD in the drive when turning it off. On powering up it then decided to try to boot from the non-bootable CD and ignored the hard disk. There is no eject button on the CD drive and the only way I could find to eject it was to borrow an Apple keyboard which has a button to do it (none of the suggested methods using a normal keyboard worked).
Click to expand...

So you still need an apple keyboard, might as well get one and save a lot of aggro.

:)
 
onomatopoeia said:
This is wrong. You do not need to re-install the OS to maintain performance, whether OSX or any NT kernel version of Windows.


No, you won't. I have a Mac Mini (core2 duo version) and even when I was running OSX on it I did not require an apple keyboard to make it work, just a normal USB on was fine. The only pain was when I left a CD in the drive when turning it off. On powering up it then decided to try to boot from the non-bootable CD and ignored the hard disk. There is no eject button on the CD drive and the only way I could find to eject it was to borrow an Apple keyboard which has a button to do it (none of the suggested methods using a normal keyboard worked).
Click to expand...

It is possible to maintain performance of a windows machine by not installing updates, as established by the standalone machines you still see working in labs etc. Or if you do allow updates, at least in theory, by carefully removing all the cruft that accumulates in a regularly updated machine. It is possible to clean up a machine, but most users don't have the knowledge or interest to maintain a windows machine like that, and a rebuild every 18 months ensures performance remains acceptable. That includes machines running NT kernel based windows, running regular apps like a browser, office suite etc - not one that has games and other junk continually installed and removed.

I've no idea why OSX slows over time. Lots of people told me that it couldn't possibly happen, but it most certainly does. Again, this is a machine used solely for work purposes running a couple of browsers, office suite and iPhoto etc. There may be a way of maintaining and removing the detritus from updates, but TBH I don't care - the machine is behaving just like a windows PC. This also happens with machines running Linux. It's just an outcome of the update process.

Re: keyboards, you don't *need* an apple keyboard to run a mac, but it makes life a lot easier, just like you don't need a 20"+ monitor for image editing, but it helps. And what sort of cheapskate is going to buy a shiny mac mini, then attempt to connect up an old windows keyboard except in emergency just to save a few quid?


neil_g - there's no Media Eject (⏏) on a non-apple keyboard. In any case sometimes those options don't work and the only answer is to insert a credit card into the superdrive slot, jamming the disc until it ejects it. It was surprising how many DVDs I could only recover like that from my Macbook until they sorted out the superdrive firmware - it used to be such a common problem magazines frequently mentioned it to help new mac users.
 
ancient_mariner said:
And because Apples are now PCs like every other PC out there, I've had to re-install the OS 3 times (outside of upgrades) to maintain performance, just like you would with a windows PC.
Click to expand...
No. The reason you've re-installed the software is not because it is a PC, just that you have, over time, installed stuff that has slowed it down. The underlying hardware knows nothing about what software is run on top of it and the fact it runs an Intel processor is immaterial - the machines themselves don't slow down, it is (as Neil put it) the crud you install that slows them..

I have a number of PCs here (and many more Linux machines). The only time I install Windows is when I build a new system. But then once built most of them don't get new s/w installed and if they do, generally I reject any free trial/special offers/taskbars etc... that the installer wants to install. Keeping a Windows machine running sweetly is mainly about making sure you only run the programs necessary. Typically, software will drop stuff into the startup folder or install services and that clogs memory and boot time. This generally gets worse and worse as people keep installing stuff over time and it is worth periodically checking what you have starting at boot time. It is the user that makes machines go slow, not Windows or the fact it is a PC....

Rant over - carry on talking about the Mac mini. Personally, I think it's a well engineered small and quiet mid range workstation. If that's what you want (whether to run Linux, Windows or OSX) then it isn't a bad choice. It is a little expensive for what's inside, but there's no denying it is a very good design.
 
ancient_mariner said:
It is possible to maintain performance of a windows machine by not installing updates,
Click to expand...
No. It is possible to maintain performance by not installing crud. All you do by not installing updates is leave the machine vulnerable to security threats. Most updates are security updates and have little to no impact on performance of the machine.
 
arad85 said:
No. It is possible to maintain performance by not installing crud. All you do by not installing updates is leave the machine vulnerable to security threats. Most updates are security updates and have little to no impact on performance of the machine.
Click to expand...

Please re-read my posts again. I've not been running some crappy Toshiba full of manufacturer's bloatware and collapsing under the weight of 'toolbars'.

And machines that stand alone in a work environment with responsible adults around are not vulnerable to software attacks. I would never recommend a user to reject updates normally, but there are situations when updates are of no use, and in these case we see old machines that continue to function acceptably over many years.
 
ancient_mariner said:
Please re-read my posts again. I've not been running some crappy Toshiba full of manufacturer's bloatware and collapsing under the weight of 'toolbars'.
Click to expand...
Bloatware doesn't just come from manufacturers....

ancient_mariner said:
And machines that stand alone in a work environment with responsible adults around are not vulnerable to software attacks.
Click to expand...
If they ever have USB drives inserted or the users have any ability to install stuff, then yes, they are vulnerable. I know many responsible adults who have no clue how to look after a computer (Mac, Windows, whatever). The updates are generally to protect people from their own stupidity. Even those around me still regularly manage to mess up their computers. They are never sure how they have done it, but it will be by clicking yes without reading what is on screen....

ancient_mariner said:
I would never recommend a user to reject updates normally, but there are situations when updates are of no use, and in these case we see old machines that continue to function acceptably over many years.
Click to expand...
And you don't see machines which are regularly updated which continue to function for years?

I'm confused on your stance though. You seem to claim that updates slow a machine, yet you always suggest people take updates. You also say that a reinstall will speed things up and given you recommend taking the updates, then I would assume the machine would be updated almost immediately to the same OS state it was before you did the reinstall (minus the accumulated crud). If updates were the cause of slowing down, wouldn't installing the updates just cause it to slow immediately, thus requiring an immediate reinstall?

Alternatively, it could just be that it's the accumulated crud causing it to slow ;)
 
ancient_mariner said:
Re: keyboards, you don't *need* an apple keyboard to run a mac, but it makes life a lot easier, just like you don't need a 20"+ monitor for image editing, but it helps. And what sort of cheapskate is going to buy a shiny mac mini, then attempt to connect up an old windows keyboard except in emergency just to save a few quid?
Click to expand...
Me, because I bought it not out of love for OSX or shinyness, but because I needed an Apple platform for iphone app development. It might be possible to cross platform develop now, but at the time there was no way to get xcode coupled with the iphone SDK to run under any kind of hacked OSX installation on a PC. I don't need an apple keyboard to type source code and I don't buy into the whole iEverything ethos that comes with owning Apple hardware and why would I buy one when I have much better (in tactile terms) keyboards already?

It now sits in my lounge as a media PC running Windows 7, because it is small and quiet so is ideally suited to the task (if massively over specified).
 
onomatopoeia said:
This is wrong. You do not need to re-install the OS to maintain performance, whether OSX or any NT kernel version of Windows.


No, you won't. I have a Mac Mini (core2 duo version) and even when I was running OSX on it I did not require an apple keyboard to make it work, just a normal USB on was fine. The only pain was when I left a CD in the drive when turning it off. On powering up it then decided to try to boot from the non-bootable CD and ignored the hard disk. There is no eject button on the CD drive and the only way I could find to eject it was to borrow an Apple keyboard which has a button to do it (none of the suggested methods using a normal keyboard worked).
Click to expand...

You can just map a key to be the eject key, it's quite easy.

I used a cheap tesco keyboard with my Mac Pro for ages.
 
ancient_mariner said:
neil_g - there's no Media Eject (⏏) on a non-apple keyboard. In any case sometimes those options don't work and the only answer is to insert a credit card into the superdrive slot, jamming the disc until it ejects it. It was surprising how many DVDs I could only recover like that from my Macbook until they sorted out the superdrive firmware - it used to be such a common problem magazines frequently mentioned it to help new mac users.
Click to expand...
Well aware, just quoting apple.
 
arad85 said:
Bloatware doesn't just come from manufacturers....

If they ever have USB drives inserted or the users have any ability to install stuff, then yes, they are vulnerable. I know many responsible adults who have no clue how to look after a computer (Mac, Windows, whatever). The updates are generally to protect people from their own stupidity. Even those around me still regularly manage to mess up their computers. They are never sure how they have done it, but it will be by clicking yes without reading what is on screen....

And you don't see machines which are regularly updated which continue to function for years?

I'm confused on your stance though. You seem to claim that updates slow a machine, yet you always suggest people take updates. You also say that a reinstall will speed things up and given you recommend taking the updates, then I would assume the machine would be updated almost immediately to the same OS state it was before you did the reinstall (minus the accumulated crud). If updates were the cause of slowing down, wouldn't installing the updates just cause it to slow immediately, thus requiring an immediate reinstall?

Alternatively, it could just be that it's the accumulated crud causing it to slow ;)
Click to expand...

I don't really have the interest to keep this one going, but one last time.

TBH I don't see machines that are regularly updated keeping going for years, no, in fact quite the opposite. With my work laptops in the past (primarily Lenovo machines) they were running XP (off the Lenovo partition - minimal crud) the current version of office inc outlook, firefox, opera and a specialised piece of software for controlling a semi-automated analyser through an RS232 connection. On fresh install they would be lightning quick (for the day) deteriorating to reasonably responsive after all the M$ updates had been applied. Installing the apps after that didn't really change performance, but after a week they would be noticeably slower, after a month moreso and after 12 months laggy. After about 18 months they became frustrating and I would re-install mine freshly to get another year of responsiveness.

Vista was no different. A good friend bought his Dell laptop at the same time I got my Macbook, however he's not inclined to do the rebuild thing like I do. Now this is his business machine, so runs MOffice, Skype, firefox, iTunes and HP printer software. Lovely piece of kit when he got it, but 3 years down the road it's become unbearably slow. This week we discussed it, and it's just become unusable. I know what he's like as I gave him IT support for 9 years, and he's not one to add junk software to a work machine.

Seen the same thing happen to a lesser degree with Linux installs at home. I have a pretty much fixed set of apps I use: Digikam, Audacity, Firefox, Opera, Libreoffice, gparted (doesn't always get included) plus whatever the distro bundles. I've seen several different distros become progressively slower with updates until it gets irritating (or if it's Sabayon then eventually it gets broken by updates).

Seen the same thing happen on that work Macbook, where I never used to try new software at all (that's actually changed under ML, and it's held up WAY better than 10.5 ever did).

So the crud?

Updates are essential for security reasons for a normal user. The price of frequent updates is that they slow the system down: less if as a single large & co-ordinated update, more if applied gradually and piecemeal.

AFAI can see, updates are the crud you're referring to, at least to a degree. Now you might see skype as a piece of crud (I don't know - it's just an example) and that's fair enough, but for many it's an essential business tool, but certainly before any of us used skype machines were still grinding to a halt with pukka software, rather than half the contents of a magazine CD installed and removed every month.

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
 
ancient_mariner said:
So the crud?
Click to expand...
It'll be there - there's 1001 things that don't need to be installed that do get installed by people genuinely believing they help them (network drivers are notoriously bad for adding config software which doesn't need to be there for example). Also, software expands over time which can cause performance problems if you have a system on the edge as far as memory is concerned.

ancient_mariner said:
Vista was no different. A good friend bought his Dell laptop at the same time I got my Macbook, however he's not inclined to do the rebuild thing like I do. Now this is his business machine, so runs MOffice, Skype, firefox, iTunes and HP printer software. Lovely piece of kit when he got it, but 3 years down the road it's become unbearably slow. This week we discussed it, and it's just become unusable. I know what he's like as I gave him IT support for 9 years, and he's not one to add junk software to a work machine.
Click to expand...
There will be a reason, but I'd be willing to bet it isn't due to updates, but without looking at the machine for either of us to identify a reason is just pure speculation. Anecdotally, I have 3 machines here that are ~3 years old (including a Dell laptop) running Windows 7 that are fine and have no perceptible slowdown. They've never been reinstalled but are kept up-to-date. Same with the machines before them. Am I just lucky?

ancient_mariner said:
Updates are essential for security reasons for a normal user. The price of frequent updates is that they slow the system down: less if as a single large & co-ordinated update, more if applied gradually and piecemeal.
Click to expand...
That's just not my experience. But if this is the case, then it's not the updates doing it, it is where the update exists on the disk. You'd expect a defrag to get you back to nominal speed. Security updates are just bug fixes and replace DLLs and executables with bug fixed versions. Unless you have really inefficient programming (which every large piece of software probably has somewhere) causing a performance degradation, the update itself can't be causing a slowdown. It must be something else.
 
Just a quick post. I have several macs and a hackintosh. My Mac mini is a 2011 model with 2gig of ram and it cruises easily with LR4 it also doubles as a media centre connected to my tv in the living room running at 1080p. It's not been turned off since jan 2011 and not one problem. Excellent machine.
 
ancient_mariner said:
TBH I don't see machines that are regularly updated keeping going for years, no, in fact quite the opposite.
Click to expand...

i do. got many machines over at our warehouse for example that have been in place for 7-8 years (XP based, minimal spec requirement). updates deployed by WSUS whenever they are available. and as they are locked down with restricted accounts they are fresh as a daisy (other than needing the HSF relieving of dust once in a while).

With my work laptops in the past (primarily Lenovo machines) they were running XP (off the Lenovo partition - minimal crud) the current version of office inc outlook, firefox, opera and a specialised piece of software for controlling a semi-automated analyser through an RS232 connection. On fresh install they would be lightning quick (for the day) deteriorating to reasonably responsive after all the M$ updates had been applied. Installing the apps after that didn't really change performance, but after a week they would be noticeably slower, after a month moreso and after 12 months laggy. After about 18 months they became frustrating and I would re-install mine freshly to get another year of responsiveness.
Click to expand...

sorry but youre talking rubbish. never, ever have i seen (or even read about) a windows or osx box lag after updates. and trust me ive built/rebuilt a "few". id suggest you must be doing something to cause the lag, especially if youre seeing it cross platform.

they will lag if you dont lock the user account down and let them install all sorts of rubbish (in which case you'll probably be thankful for the updates being in place).

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
Click to expand...

very much so.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, didn't want to get involved but couldn't stop. What a load of utter nonsense about updates slowing down OSes.

Installing junk and unnecessary software slows OSes down. Updating XYZ.DLL to a new version doesn't.
 
I have a mac mini and I like it a lot. The performance is really good, and it will run PS or LR with no problem at all.

My oldest mac isn't that old. It's only from 2007 but it's going strong without any sign of problem slowdown or anything despite the fact I've never reinstalled the OS or done anything to it over the years other than updates from Apple.

My experience of all 7 of my macs, both at work and at home, has been very positive but maybe I've just been fortunate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top