Trading in a G5 PowerMac for an Intel Mac Mini - any advice or comments?
in [UK Mac]
|
Prev: Umbrella Frameworks
Next: DumbĂwireless question
From: Rowland McDonnell on 5 Mar 2010 15:43 Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: [snip] > I've certainly often had email, Web, Usenet, and text layout apps > (different ones, of course) open at the same time very very often on my > old Performa 475 with its 4MB RAM and no video card as such at all - oh, > and an 80MB internal HDD. Tell a lie, I got the 160MB HDD, didn't I? Yes, of course I did. It's on top of a wardrobe at the moment, waiting for its big day. [snip] Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: Jaimie Vandenbergh on 5 Mar 2010 15:49 On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 20:43:24 +0000, djmaizels(a)mac.com (Debbie Wilson) wrote: >Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie(a)sometimes.sessile.org> wrote: > >> Since you've already got the best screen, it's ideal. >> >> Do you have need of vast amounts of storage? The Minis take a single >> 2.5" SATA, which is restrictive internally, but they do have FW800 and >> GigE for external disks. > >I do use a lot of storage due to archiving 16 years' worth of digital >artwork files, some of which are on the large side. However a 500GB Mini >for live projects combined with a large networkable hard drive so my OH >and I can both access archived files, would actually be a better >solution for us, and network HDs are fairly cheap. After the >tinnitus-causing drone of this G4 for the last 8 years, I also really >like the idea of a silent computer and one that can nestle on the base >of my screen's stand :-) That's the way to do it. Remember to get a network hard drive that you can plug a USB hard drive into to back it up - *so* useful, and much easier than doing your backups via a Mac. Mine's an Infrant ReadyNAS NV+ (medium size, 4 SATA slots) but they do smaller 2 disk ones, and Synology and Drobo make similar devices. All of them can sort out their own backup schedules/destinations and whatnot. Cheers - Jaimie -- "The dumbest people I know are those who know it all." -- Malcolm Forbes
From: Rowland McDonnell on 5 Mar 2010 16:24 Debbie Wilson <djmaizels(a)mac.com> wrote: > Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie(a)sometimes.sessile.org> wrote: > > > Since you've already got the best screen, it's ideal. > > > > Do you have need of vast amounts of storage? The Minis take a single > > 2.5" SATA, which is restrictive internally, but they do have FW800 and > > GigE for external disks. > > I do use a lot of storage due to archiving 16 years' worth of digital > artwork files, some of which are on the large side. However a 500GB Mini > for live projects combined with a large networkable hard drive so my OH > and I can both access archived files, would actually be a better > solution for us, and network HDs are fairly cheap. After the > tinnitus-causing drone of this G4 for the last 8 years, They're a lot less bother if you stick 'em under the desk, and then apply carpet off-cuts here&there underneath the desk as a sound-deadener. The high-frequency nastiness gets clobbered pretty well that way. Copydex and Stanley knife technology, that. Buying a Mac Mini is probably a better idea, though. Uses less electricity, makes less noise, has more computing power and capacity, and it's smaller. I wish my old 2G4 had lasted this long... Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: Rowland McDonnell on 5 Mar 2010 16:50 Debbie Wilson <djmaizels(a)mac.com> wrote: > Bruce Horrocks <07.013(a)scorecrow.com> wrote: > > > Yes, sorry Deb, I was looking at this page [1] where it just says 'DVI' > > under 'Cable' but mentions dual-link DVI at the very end under 'System > > Requirements' > > > > [1] > > http://store.apple.com/us/product/M9179LL/A?n=display&fnode=MTY1NDA5OQ&mco > > =MTA4MzU1OTQ&s=topSellers#overview > > Thanks very much all for your input on this. Certainly food for thought > and while a Mini seems like a good solution for the price, and in theory > can run a 30" display, I think a few years and several Adobe upgrades > down the line it will be too limiting for my needs. Plus there are the > screen adaptor issues which don't seem to be resolved from what I can > tell online. If I were buying a Mac /now/, I'd want at least four CPU cores and no less than 8GB max RAM. 6.5GB was enough on my old 4G5; 4GB isn't quite enough on my maxed-out Intel iMac. I do work with big graphics files from time to time - 1200dpi scanner, sometimes the full A4... Grand Central Dispatch will start to kick in soon enough, I suspect - and the multiple cores will really start to pay off. There's so much to be gained from using GCD that anyone writing a multi-processing app on the Mac should have started using it before the rest of us knew 10.6 was on the way. Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: Gavin Lawrie on 5 Mar 2010 19:42
On 2010-03-04 17:41:23 +0000, Nige said: > Could anyone offer any advice/insight on this as a worthwhile move? > Looking at my G5 and comparing it with the diminutive Mac Mini, it > seems hard to believe I'd be 'trading up' - but the spec's speak for > themselves... don't they? I've had a 2.3 Dual G5 Powermac and had the same concerns about it getting long in tooth etc. I'd already got access to Mac Minis, and gave some thought to swapping for one, but the Core2Duo 2.0 Mac Mini wasn't really that much faster, had max 2GB ram and not much scope for adding disks (only FW400 / USB) (I know more recent Mac Minis have more RAM etc.). So I went out and bought a second hand Mac Pro (1,1) - a 2.66Ghz Dual Xeon version. Packed it with RAM (9GB) and from the outset it simply blew the Powermac away. Incredible. And cheap. Rarely max out the processors even doing photo processing - though I don't use Photoshop (Pixelmator and Aperture 3). But initially disk access was slow - so I configured the disks in as a striped RAID and the difference was incredible. Really really fast. Graphics on the MacPro are not so good apparently. Not noticeably worse than the Powermac, but if you look at what MacPro discussions there are, changing the graphics card is popular and apparently highly effective. I've not tried, but apparently you can get some PC versions of ATI 4870 card to work in MacPro - but AFAIK Apple no longer sell an upgrade card that works in MacPro 1,1 (something to do with the 1,1 having 32bit EFI, and later versions having 64bit or some such). So if latest graphics cards are your thing probably not best option. HTH |