Forums | MacLife

So if you buy an LED CInema Display to go with the Mac mini, wouldn't that leave the MagSafe connector dangling?

robco wrote:

Well, if you want your super fast and inexpensive PC to actually run fast - avoid Vista like the plague and stick with XP. If you can get what you need under *nix, even better.

i don't know what you are talking about or what others are saying how Vista is so Horrible. I run a 64 bit version of Ultimate and am able to render some pretty slick smurf at pretty slick speeds on my quad core with 8 gigs of ram. I had to build a pc for working at home 3d Projects (I still have my powerbook for other stuff). Anyway, Vista is a memory hog, but I've had no problems with it.  Is Vista awesome? Not particularly. Does it work and fit my needs at the moment? Yes. 7 Ought to be better with regards to resource management so that's nice.

This thing also plays games nicely too.

Oh and yes it does have bugs but it isn't non-functional like people always make it out to be.

personified8 wrote:

robco wrote:

Well, if you want your super fast and inexpensive PC to actually run fast - avoid Vista like the plague and stick with XP. If you can get what you need under *nix, even better.

i don't know what you are talking about or what others are saying how Vista is so Horrible. I run a 64 bit version of Ultimate and am able to render some pretty slick smurf at pretty slick speeds on my quad core with 8 gigs of ram. I had to build a pc for working at home 3d Projects (I still have my powerbook for other stuff). Anyway, Vista is a memory hog, but I've had no problems with it.  Is Vista awesome? Not particularly. Does it work and fit my needs at the moment? Yes. 7 Ought to be better with regards to resource management so that's nice.

This thing also plays games nicely too.

Oh and yes it does have bugs but it isn't non-functional like people always make it out to be.

Vista SP2 hit RC status recently, too. Anyway, earlier in thread you asked about video, renaming etc. This would be a good start, and working either way from that point should yield some answers.

I'll have more later. Long day.

Booksley wrote:

personified8 wrote:

Why the hell isn't there an iMac with a quad core processor yet? Apple's only quads are doubled up in a tower. There is no medium build for these guys!

I understand why no quad in a lappy: heat. Is this the same issue for the iMac?

The iMac uses laptop components, and there are no Core 2 Quad laptop chips.

Doesn't mean you can't cram one into a properly designed "laptop" enclosure. (It's more a luggable by today's standards, but the iMac ain't exactly a featherweight either.)

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-9761814-1.html

The lowest power C2QS dissipate about 65w, max. Intel's hottest mobile dual core does 35w max. If an iMac had a vent on the back and a large-diameter, low profile fan over the heat sink, it could vent directly out into open air, and probably dissipate a hell of a lot more than 65w of heat. Without making nearly as much noise as the linked laptop above probably does.

It would just have to have a row of vent slits on the back and be as thick as the old white Intel iMac. ...horrors.

Apple could do it, they just don't want to.

macnuke wrote:

silly me..

I ordered.

Mac Pro

6G ram
ATI video card.

delivery March 28th.

oops!

I think I will be getting a 4 core Mac Pro for home.  I am seeing the writing on the wall that my DP G5 is going to be kept out of the fun when snow leopard comes out.

Although I could use an 8 core; the new 4 core would probably be nearly as fast as the olds 8 core.

I'll probably go for 6GB RAM, and the ATI high end graphics.

-mark

This should help a bit on the video front.

NVIDIA GeForce GTS 250: A Rebadged 9800 GTX+
First it was the 8800 GT, then the 8800 GTS 512, then the 9800 GT then the 9800 GTX and shrunk down to the 9800...

NVIDIA's GTX 280M Uses Same G92 Chip as 9800 GTX+

NVIDIA has the fastest single GPU for the desktop in the GTX 285, a 55nm die-shrunk version of its predecessor the GTX 280. However, ATI has been able to gain a larger market share due to aggressive pricing and ramping of smaller geometries.  This has led to price pressure on NVIDIA, especially in the performance mainstream segment.

NVIDIA's original GT200 chip -- which is used in the GTX 280 and GTX 260 -- is too big, too costly, and consumes too much power to be used effectively in a mobile solution. NVIDIA has already switched to TSMC's 55nm process from the baseline 65nm node to deal with these issues for the GTX 285, but it is still not suitable for the majority of laptop users. Battery life is too short, the cooling fan is too loud, and the cost is too much.

One solution was to begin manufacturing on the 40nm bulk process like ATI has done. According to our sources, NVIDIA's attempts to produce a die-shrunk 40nm GT200 chip were "disastrous at best". Design problems became evident, since the GT200 was originally designed for the 65nm node. Two shrinks in a row without a major redesign was just too much for NVIDIA, and our most recent information from Taiwan is that the first 40nm chips from NVIDIA will be in the GeForce 300 series.

NV's renaming shenigans go well beyond rationalizing their naming scheme. It's also marchitecture, attempting to get folks to think some cards/chips are newer, more advanced than they are.

The above nails it reasonably well; NV's latest GT200/200b chip is simply too large and expensive, with yields too poor, to bring out midrange and low end cards (or integrated chips) based on it. It's a monster sporting 1.4B transistors, and no cards below the GTX 260 are even on their roadmap. Their 'solution' for the lesser price segments has been to continually rebrand their previous-gen chip, the now-venerable G92.

So yes, the MP is again shy on video horsepower for its price range. It has neither the GTX 285 nor the 4870X2, or even ATi's 4870 midrange card (not that OSX supports Crossfire yet anyway). The 4850 is nice, but pushing towards the affordable end of the price range these days.

macnuke wrote:

silly me..

I ordered.

Mac Pro

6G ram
ATI video card.

delivery March 28th.

See you downtown.   

macnuke wrote:

silly me..

I ordered.

Mac Pro

6G ram
ATI video card.

delivery March 28th.

I feel your pain on the wait time associated with your custom to order. I don't understand how having to build a unit from scratch for someone adds another 2-3 weeks onto an order!

Some1 wrote:

Former Windork wrote:

The Mini is finally not a stepchild in terms of performance, but it's hardly priced correctly for what you get.  $599 and no keyboard and mouse (much less a monitor)?  For that price, they should at least give you the keyboard and mouse.  Otherwise the price point should be more like $449 and $649 or better yet, $399 and $599.

Given the option between a hackintosh netbook, and Mac Mini, what would you take?

Add me to the very short list of people considering building their own hackintosh.
I love my MacBook Pro, but I'd like to have something much more custom, even putting aside the price point, in a tower, where one can really tune things to their liking. I'm used to working with Linux and having to tweak things, anyhow, so I guess it'll just be par for the course

sturner wrote:

You wouldn't be happy with any name brand, out of the box Windows box either.

Face it, you qualify as a hobbyist or hardware nerd. So you aren't in the demographic that Apple, or any of the main brand computer manufacturers are aiming at.

Quite true.
But I'm a geek, not a nerd

As aforementioned, I do love my MacBook Pro, tho. I mean, I'm absolutely crazy about it. Even if I could build a highly tweaked custom notebook, I'm not so sure I would. Just the desktop.

Ugh. Not THAT sort of crazy...

I too, prefer the term geek over nerd. I also Like Ozzy Osbourne. Send the chickens.