 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Mac Forum / Programming / Mac Programming / May 2006Mac mini OK for development?
Hi all. I've been away from development for quite awhile and am looking to brush up my programming skills (unix, C++, Java) so as to reenter the job market. Rather than muck up the windows system I use for everyday tasks, I was thinking of getting a 2nd relatively cheap system to play with. I used to develop under Nextstep and loved the environment, so I'm gravitating toward OS X as my playground. I assume I'll be doing a fair amount of coding/compiling/debugging. Question: Anyone have insight/experience using a Mac Mini for development? Would a intel 1.5 solo core with 1 GB memory be too slow for comfort? Any insights appreciated. Thanks. > I assume I'll be doing a fair amount of coding/compiling/debugging. > > Question: Anyone have insight/experience using a Mac Mini for development? > Would a intel 1.5 solo core with 1 GB memory be too slow for comfort? Any > insights appreciated. Thanks. I don't own a mini yet (but I'm contemplating buying one). Having used it a bit for normal day-to-day tasks, I would figure that it's plenty fast for all but the most demanding projects. Also, gcc (supposedly) runs faster on x86 than on PPC, so the core solo probably outperforms any single core G5 machine. Springing for the duo would increase compile speed by a large margin (where are those compile benchmarks when you need them?), so that could be worth the extra cash. patrick >Question: Anyone have insight/experience using a Mac Mini for development? >Would a intel 1.5 solo core with 1 GB memory be too slow for comfort? Any >insights appreciated. Thanks. There's probably many levels of development, and many levels of programmer's patience. I use a 512MB 1.42GHz PPC mini for much of my C development from the command-line, and it easily meets my needs.  SignatureChris. I think you would be satisfied. Right now I do most of my development on 12"G4 1Ghz Powerbook with 768MB. Mostly C, Cocoa and Web stuff. It could be faster but generally seems quite good for development. When working I usually have a second monitor attached and that really helps. Also when working and doing large compiles I can use XCode's distributed compile function and suck cycles from a G5 in the building. --jim Thanks all. The comments helped. Sounds like I should be OK with the described setup. I'll put my order in tomorrow. Patrick - I agree with you on the dual giving much better compile times, but as long as the solo doesn't just flat out suck (which it sounds like it shouldn't), I'm going to go that route. Unfortunately I'm trying to do this as close to cheap as is comfortable. :( Thanks again to everyone. Appreciated. --Bob > Patrick - I agree with you on the dual giving much better compile times, but > as long as the solo doesn't just flat out suck (which it sounds like it > shouldn't), I'm going to go that route. Unfortunately I'm trying to do this > as close to cheap as is comfortable. :( I'm eying a solo as well. Compared to the 4 year old G4 it succeeds, it should fly... Also, chances seem excellent that you can give the little fellow a brain transplant if you need more traction later on. If you could report your experiences here when you've used the mini for a while, that would be nice. Most reviews of these machines seem to revolve around 'frame rates' and 'render times', not 'edit compile link times'. (even when sites like Ars Technica reviews Macs, it seems they only use it for entertainment, never for coding...). patrick > If you could report your experiences here when you've used the mini for > a while, that would be nice. Most reviews of these machines seem to > revolve around 'frame rates' and 'render times', not 'edit compile link > times'. (even when sites like Ars Technica reviews Macs, it seems they > only use it for entertainment, never for coding...). I don't have one, but I've talked to people who do and who use it for coding. They say things along the lines of "My Core Duo compiles in less time than my quad G5", so it should be pretty nice. SignatureMichael Ash Rogue Amoeba Software > If you could report your experiences here when you've used the mini for > a while, that would be nice. Glad to Patrick. I placed the order with amazon yesterday and should have the machine tomorrow. I'm going to see if it's useable as is, but I'm 95% sure I'll be upping it to 2GB from OWC for about $229. (This is a slight change from my orignal plan to order from Apple with 1GB installed.) I seem to think trading off CPU for memory will have the greater effect - i.e. going with the solo and 2 GB rather than the duo and 512 (or even 1 GB). It's been a while since I developed, but I seem to remember memory making the bigger difference in my development environments. We'll see. > chances seem excellent that you can give the little >fellow a brain transplant if you need more traction later on. That's what I'm thinking too. After I'm gainfully employed. :) --Bob > Question: Anyone have insight/experience using a Mac Mini for development? > Would a intel 1.5 solo core with 1 GB memory be too slow for comfort? Any > insights appreciated. Thanks. My backup/portable development machine is a G3/600 notebook and I rarely feel constrained by its performance in that role. (My primary machine is a 2x1.8 G5, for context.) My Core Solo mini beats the virtual pants off the iBook. Signature"Congurutulation!!!" - The subject line on some spam I received recently. I have no idea what it means, but it's such a cool "word" (by which I mean pronouncable sequence of letters) regardless. > Hi all. I've been away from development for quite awhile and am looking to > brush up my programming skills (unix, C++, Java) so as to reenter the job [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Would a intel 1.5 solo core with 1 GB memory be too slow for comfort? Any > insights appreciated. Thanks. Brilliant for development. I'm from a windows user background (mostly bit of freebsd and slackware). Use it for a mix of embedded systems and software development (still have to use windows for somethings - fpga) Been using a G4 mini for a year as a dev box 1.4GHz , 512MB ram which was very good just got a intel mini mac dual core with 1GB and its even better (plus a brilliant media / living room pc). Make sure to have a look at fink and darwin ports (similar to the freebsd ports system) http://fink.sourceforge.net/ http://darwinports.opendarwin.org/ Make sure to install all the dev tools which come on the OS X cds then go straight to apple developer connection and sign up for a free online account. Intel compilers ( c++ and fortran)are also now available (not free) they are good if you need cross platform code or need openmp in c or fortran. Also the ipp - performance primitives. Which means opencv hopefully should get a nice speed up. For java - netbeans or eclipse or jbuilder if you need an ide. Posting this unfortunately from windows as I'm stuck with dialup via usb modem due to transfer between broadband isps getting screwed up. Alex > Hi all. I've been away from development for quite awhile and am > looking to brush up my programming skills (unix, C++, Java) so as to [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > development? Would a intel 1.5 solo core with 1 GB memory be too slow > for comfort? Any insights appreciated. Thanks. Sounds like a great system for this purpose. I wouldn't use it for compiling large projects, due to the laptop-size/speed hard drive in it, but for your purpose it should do great. And it should work well even for most production code. When I speak of large projects, I'm thinking of the code I compile at work, which is several million lines, generating nearly 2GB of binary code (between object files, pre-link targets, three platforms, etc....), taking about 8 hours to compile from scratch. The Mac will come with the developer tools. The Xcode environment is an integrated editor, compiler, debugger. Or alternatively, you can use the command line (XCode is built on top of gcc/gdb, which you can call directly if you prefer.) -- David Well the consensus seemed to be that I would be OK using the mini as a dev env and my initial experience confirms that consensus. I don't know what I was so concerned about. The low end mini (1.5 intel solo with 512MB) pulls its weight. I haven't done anything meaningful yet - just grabbing things from fink and letting them build in terminal - but the system doesn't choke. It might tilt a little, but it doesn't fall over. I'm able to access other Apps and use them with adequate responsiveness even when Activity Monitor shows the cpu pegged at 100% and the disk getting banged on with page swaps during a build. I'm so impressed I'm holding off the upgrading of RAM. Maybe I won't need it. Anyways, will post more results as they become known - for example if/when I do udgrade RAM. Or if I should run into any gotcha's along the way that would be of interest to others considering the mini for dev. Thanks to everyone for sharing their insights - please continue. It's truely helpful. A Buddhist would tell you you're gaining merit, and you are. :) --Bob > I'm so impressed I'm holding off the upgrading of RAM. Maybe I won't > need it. You will. GCC is a RAM hog. On my desktop, there was a *very noticable* difference between 512MB & 1G. sherm-- SignatureCocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net Hire me! My resume: http://www.dot-app.org > You will. GCC is a RAM hog. On my desktop, there was a *very noticable* > difference between 512MB & 1G. Yup, my MacBook Pro (1.83) is considerably faster at compiling than my G5 2x2GHz, but the G5 only has 512MB which is possibly the most significant difference. > > You will. GCC is a RAM hog. On my desktop, there was a *very noticable* > > difference between 512MB & 1G. > > Yup, my MacBook Pro (1.83) is considerably faster at compiling than my > G5 2x2GHz, but the G5 only has 512MB which is possibly the most > significant difference. Also it seems that GCC is much more optimized for x86 than it is for running on PPC (which software isn't nowadays...), so even with equal amounts of RAM (and HD) the Book could well be faster. patrick > Also it seems that GCC is much more optimized for x86 than it is for > running on PPC (which software isn't nowadays...), so even with equal > amounts of RAM (and HD) the Book could well be faster. It's my understanding that PPC optimization was pretty bad in GCC version 2, but IBM has contributed substantially to its development since then, making version 3 much better, and version 4 up to contemporary standards. It still might be as optimized as the x86 compiler, but I'm not certain such a comparison is one that even makes sense, given how different the two architectures are. -- David >> Also it seems that GCC is much more optimized for x86 than it is for >> running on PPC (which software isn't nowadays...), so even with equal [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > since then, making version 3 much better, and version 4 up to > contemporary standards. Yes, but virtually all of that work has been focused on optimizing the generated code, rather than reducing GCC's footprint, which has actually gotten bigger over the years. A lot of that is probably the result of the optimizer growing and doing more. If you're compiling anything bigger than "hello world", GCC with 512MB is going to be swapping like mad. Combine that with the fact that compiling is disk intensive to begin with, and with the fact that the Mini ships with (IIRC) a relatively slow 4800RPM notebook hd. And, if you have the Duo model, with the fact that you'll be running two (or more) instances of GCC at once. I'm not saying that the Mini isn't usable - obviously it's good enough. But with 1G instead of 512M, it would be a *lot* better, and it's a relatively cheap upgrade. When RAM stops being the primary bottleneck, the next one is likely to be hd speed. So, if you haven't blown the budget buying RAM, I'd suggest a faster hd - you can get 7200RPM notebook drives, and battery life isn't an issue for the Mini. sherm-- SignatureCocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net Hire me! My resume: http://www.dot-app.org >If you're compiling anything bigger than "hello world", GCC with 512MB is >going to be swapping like mad. Combine that with the fact that compiling is >disk intensive to begin with, and with the fact that the Mini ships with >(IIRC) a relatively slow 4800RPM notebook hd. And, if you have the Duo >model, with the fact that you'll be running two (or more) instances of GCC >at once. Sorry, simply untrue. I compile 20kloc C programs every day, and my 512MB machine does not swap. All Mac Minis ship with 5400RPM drives. Two (or more) instances of GCC on a Duo?? You're not up with this, are you? SignatureChris. > I compile 20kloc C programs every day, and my 512MB machine does not swap. Good for you. My mileage - along with a *lot* of others' - varied. > All Mac Minis ship with 5400RPM drives. I clearly stated that my memory might be faulty on that point. What part of IIRC did you not understand? > Two (or more) instances of GCC on a Duo?? Of course. What else are dual cores for? > You're not up with this, are you? No, I've only been using GCC for fourteen years or so, and I've only used it on four different chip architectures. I'm not "up with this" at all, just a complete newbie. Did you have anything useful to add, or just ad-hominem attacks? sherm-- SignatureCocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net Hire me! My resume: http://www.dot-app.org >> I compile 20kloc C programs every day, and my 512MB machine does not swap. >Good for you. My mileage - along with a *lot* of others' - varied. >> All Mac Minis ship with 5400RPM drives. >I clearly stated that my memory might be faulty on that point. What part of >IIRC did you not understand? >> Two (or more) instances of GCC on a Duo?? >Of course. What else are dual cores for? >> You're not up with this, are you? >No, I've only been using GCC for fourteen years or so, and I've only used it >on four different chip architectures. I'm not "up with this" at all, just a >complete newbie. >Did you have anything useful to add, or just ad-hominem attacks? Attacks, I guess, when you're spraying incorrect information around as advice. Oh, 14 years, good-oh. Particularly, why did you mention two (or more) copies of GCC on a Duo as something that will dramatically slow down a Mini? Ummm, they share their text image in the 512MB (less the shared graphics) of memory. Do you have recent experience of this slow down, or just more "advice"? ______________________________________________________________________________ Dr Chris McDonald E: chris@csse.uwa.edu.au Computer Science & Software Engineering W: http://www.csse.uwa.edu.au/~chris The University of Western Australia, M002 T: +618 6488 2533 Crawley, Western Australia, 6009 F: +618 6488 1089 > Attacks, I guess, when you're spraying incorrect information around as > advice. The common complaint about GCC's excessive RAM usage is widespread and well- known - I am not the first person to point it out, nor am I likely to I be the last. I'll grant you, the problem is most prevalent when compiling C++ code, including Objective-C++, but does also affect Objective-C & C to an extent. Here's some recent discussion: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/2006-01/msg02066.html> <http://archives.free.net.ph/message/20060207.224352.37a01fa8.en.html> From Wikipedia (yeah, I know... :-) <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compiler_optimization> "For a long time the open source GCC was criticized for a lack of powerful interprocedural analysis and optimizations. But now things are changing. ... whole-program optimization (interprocedural optimization) is very costly." From "Refactoring gcc Using Structure Field Access Traces and Concept Analysis" Robert W. Bowdidge, Apple Computer. <http://www.csd.uwo.ca/woda2005/proceedings/02.pdf> "The size of header files directly affects gcc's memory use, and memory use eventually affects compile times." > Oh, 14 years, good-oh. That attitude is uncalled-for. I was refuting your assertion that I'm a newbie, not bragging. What's your problem, anyway? > Particularly, why did you mention two (or more) copies of GCC on a Duo as > something that will dramatically slow down a Mini? Ummm, they share > their text image in the 512MB (less the shared graphics) of memory. Shared code != shared data. The parse tree, the optimizer's data, it all uses RAM, and none of it is shared. There is at least one file in MySQL that causes GCC's memory use to go to 400MB and above when it's being compiled, and that's just for a single instance of the compiler. Two instances can sometimes drive even my 1GB machine to swapping. sherm-- SignatureCocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net Hire me! My resume: http://www.dot-app.org >Here's some recent discussion: > <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/2006-01/msg02066.html> > <http://archives.free.net.ph/message/20060207.224352.37a01fa8.en.html> >From Wikipedia (yeah, I know... :-) > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compiler_optimization> > "For a long time the open source GCC was criticized for a lack of powerful > interprocedural analysis and optimizations. But now things are changing. > ... > whole-program optimization (interprocedural optimization) is very costly." >From "Refactoring gcc Using Structure Field Access Traces and Concept Analysis" > Robert W. Bowdidge, Apple Computer. > <http://www.csd.uwo.ca/woda2005/proceedings/02.pdf> > "The size of header files directly affects gcc's memory use, and memory > use eventually affects compile times." Thanks for these links - very helpful. (personally, I'm finding Wikipedia increasingly useful for such technical summaries) >That attitude is uncalled-for. I was refuting your assertion that I'm a >newbie, not bragging. What's your problem, anyway? Neither an attitude, nor a problem. You offered 14 years as an authority, and I don't see it that way. I suspect you don't accept my statements, either, but I don't regard that as a problem, just a difference. >> Particularly, why did you mention two (or more) copies of GCC on a Duo as >> something that will dramatically slow down a Mini? Ummm, they share >> their text image in the 512MB (less the shared graphics) of memory. >There is at least one file in MySQL that causes GCC's memory use to go to >400MB and above when it's being compiled, and that's just for a single >instance of the compiler. Two instances can sometimes drive even my 1GB >machine to swapping. I don't doubt that - the discussion here is on whether a Mac Mini is reasonable for development, not whether it can handle esoteric demands. Presumably if the OP had hefty demands, they wouldn't be asking about a MM anyway, and will be less concerned about specific cases of some projects demanding 1GB or more of memory. Interesting case, though. ______________________________________________________________________________ Dr Chris McDonald E: chris@csse.uwa.edu.au Computer Science & Software Engineering W: http://www.csse.uwa.edu.au/~chris The University of Western Australia, M002 T: +618 6488 2533 Crawley, Western Australia, 6009 F: +618 6488 1089 > Neither an attitude, nor a problem. You offered 14 years as an authority, An authority? Heavens no! More like an interested bystander. Anyway, the 14-year figure wasn't meant to impress - there are undoubtedly folks here who have been using GCC for longer. It was just a counter to your assertion that I might be a newbie. > and I don't see it that way. I suspect you don't accept my statements, > either. Point taken. > I don't doubt that - the discussion here is on whether a Mac Mini is > reasonable for development Oh, I thought that had already been established - it's quite reasonable. For that matter, I found my 500Mhz G3 PB to be reasonable too, and my current 1xG4/500 PM. Once they had enough RAM, that is. ;-) My point isn't that 512M is insufficient, it's that in many cases 1G is better. > Presumably if the OP had hefty demands, they wouldn't be asking about > a MM anyway Point taken. For smaller projects, it probably won't make as much of a difference. But then, RAM is a cheap upgrade, and I've yet to see a problem being caused by too much. sherm-- SignatureCocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net Hire me! My resume: http://www.dot-app.org >Sherm Pendley <sherm@dot-app.org> writes: >>Chris McDonald <chris@csse.uwa.edu.au> writes: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>>>>>>Sherm Pendley <sherm@dot-app.org> writes: >>>>>>>>Chris McDonald <chris@csse.uwa.edu.au> writes: ... and our friendly combatants shake hands are retire to their corners, both wishing that a Mac Mini could handle more than 2GB of RAM. -- Chris. > Sorry, simply untrue. > I compile 20kloc C programs every day, and my 512MB machine does not swap. That's not very big :) With my daily work, I've got individual source files that (after preprocessing) clock in at well over 20,000 lines. The two main components that I work with contain (before preprocessing) thousands of source files and millions of of lines of code. (One module is about 3800 files and 1.8M lines. The other is 6800 files and 3.1M lines.) This system literally takes all day to compile, if I do it on a single computer. (Fortuntely, we have a compiler-farm, so it can be parallelized across many machines. Otherwise I'd never get any work done.) And believe me, it swaps, even on systems with much more than 512M. (Our compile servers are Sun Enterprise servers and Linux servers with 8-16 GB of RAM each.) > Two (or more) instances of GCC on a Duo?? You're not up with this, > are you? Depends on what you're compiling. If you have a lot of small files, then the memory footprint might not be that bad, and the parallelization will help. If your files are large, then clearly you're going to want to max out the RAM, since swapping will kill any gain from parallel compilation. -- David >> Sorry, simply untrue. >> I compile 20kloc C programs every day, and my 512MB machine does not swap. >That's not very big :) >With my daily work, I've got individual source files that (after >preprocessing) clock in at well over 20,000 lines. The two main >components that I work with contain (before preprocessing) thousands of >source files and millions of of lines of code. (One module is about >3800 files and 1.8M lines. The other is 6800 files and 3.1M lines.) >This system literally takes all day to compile, if I do it on a single >computer. (Fortuntely, we have a compiler-farm, so it can be >parallelized across many machines. Otherwise I'd never get any work >done.) And believe me, it swaps, even on systems with much more than >512M. (Our compile servers are Sun Enterprise servers and Linux servers >with 8-16 GB of RAM each.) Well, you should get a Mac Mini - it will trivially handle your requirements :) May need to upgrade from the standard 512MB, though. Actually, your comment of "(after preprocessing) clock in at well over 20,000 lines" made me think about preprocessing - I'm unsure if you meant just after the C-preprocessor, or another specific one. Anyway, just for fun I counted the lines of some typicaly C files, and their preprocessed versions, wc -l < $ and gcc -E $i | wc -l with each including about 4-8 standard header files: 260 11678 90 11505 204 11535 603 12050 596 48401 300 11709 135 11545 92 11507 63 11478 79 11486 181 11589 357 12293 A interesting explosion in (often blank) lines. Thank goodness for cached files, and precompiled headers. SignatureChris. >> It's my understanding that PPC optimization was pretty bad in GCC >> version 2, but IBM has contributed substantially to its development [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > actually gotten bigger over the years. A lot of that is probably the > result of the optimizer growing and doing more. OK. I misunderstood. I thought you were talking about optimization of the generated code, not of the compiler itself. > If you're compiling anything bigger than "hello world", GCC with 512MB > is going to be swapping like mad. Well, I wouldn't go that far. But you're right that a substantial-sized project will consume a lot of RAM. Fortunately, Apple is offering a pretty good deal to get a mini preloaded with 2G. It's a $300 upgrade for this. Given the fact that the 1G SO-DIMMs required sell for slightly less than $150 each (using Crucial.com as a reference), that's a good price to have it installed and tested at the factory. -- David Sherm and Chris, well done. I like happy endings. :) Now not to stir the waters, but I just did a clean install of mysql from fink and I was quite surprised at the results. While the cpu was pegged at 100% during the entire build, memory rarely appeared stretched. I say appeared because I'm not sure I have a good handle on swapping. I'm basing my statements on what I saw in Activity Monitor's System Memory. For the most part, 1/2 my memory was "wired" or "active" while the other 1/2 was "inactive" or "free". This flies against everything I believe. I believe I need more RAM for compiling, but I'm having a hard time seeing this with Activity Monitor. It appears that the cpu - a 1.5 solo - is the bigger bottleneck during compiles. I'm now starting to think that the solo 1.5 and 512MB is just about the right combo. Perhaps it's only when stepping up to the duo that more RAM would be efficiently used during compiles. That doesn't sound right to me, but...? I'm still thinking about getting more RAM - I heard prices are going up Q2 and I almost ordered some today - but it's mostly because the OS feels sluggish when switching between apps with several open windows. Not unuseable, just sluggish. Anyway - if anyone has a better method for determining swapping other than Activity Monitor - please share. Thanks. --Bob > Now not to stir the waters, but I just did a clean install of mysql from > fink and I was quite surprised at the results. While the cpu was pegged at > 100% during the entire build, memory rarely appeared stretched. Some guesses in what is, in my opinion, most likely to least: Newer MySQL releases might have "tweaked" whatever code issue gave GCC such fits when I compiled it, which was a few years ago. Likewise, newer GCC versions might not choke so badly on MySQL. Or, some combination of both. Or, since you have a brand-new machine, it might not have so much running on it. I've had mine for a while, and I had Apache, XEmacs, and some other stuff running at the same time. When GCC got up to about 300MB for one of MySQL's files, that was enough to push my machine into swap. That > appeared because I'm not sure I have a good handle on swapping. I'm basing > my statements on what I saw in Activity Monitor's System Memory. I was using top, but I think the difference is essentially cosmetic. AFAIK, both apps get their info from the same low-level interface(s). > This flies against everything I believe. I believe I need more RAM for > compiling, but I'm having a hard time seeing this with Activity Monitor. It > appears that the cpu - a 1.5 solo - is the bigger bottleneck during > compiles. As long as you have enough RAM to prevent swapping, that's probably true. > I'm still thinking about getting more RAM - I heard prices > are going up Q2 and I almost ordered some today If your budget allows, go for it. There's no such thing as too much RAM. sherm-- SignatureCocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net Hire me! My resume: http://www.dot-app.org > Anyway - if anyone has a better method for determining swapping other than > Activity Monitor - please share. Thanks. I like vm_stat and (as another poster mentioned) top. This is an old article now, but the comments about top and vm_stat still apply just as well as they did back then: http://arstechnica.com/reviews/os/macosx-10.1.ars/8 If you run vm_stat and specify a number (in seconds) after it you'll get a running summary of how many pages have been swapped in/out in the given period: $ vm_stat 5 There is also a rather good article on the Apple site about what wired, active, inactive, etc. really mean (it's perhaps not totally on topic, but I've found it to be useful background when interpreting what's going on): http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Performance/Conceptual/ManagingMemory/A rticles/AboutMemory.html Graham While the low-end mac mini is totally acceptable for development efforts - I bit the bullet and added 2GB RAM. This moved me out of "doing it on the cheap" to "being more comfortable" wrt having a dev env to play in. Anyways, thought I'd update this thread with the results. With 2GB, the UI is snappy as heck. I keep a lot of apps open and switching between them is no longer sluggish. Scrolling and everything windows related is just so much more responsive that it feels like a different machine. Again, 512MB was acceptable/useable, but with 2GB it's much more comfortable. As far as compile times go, it hasn't made that big of a difference. This surprised me. I rebooted the machine, opened Activity Monitor, opened Terminal, ran "fink -y rebuild mysql" and timed the rebuild. I repeted this test twice with 512MB and twice with 2GB. The results (rounded out) were as follows: 512MB: compile time: 20 minutes page swaps : 19,000 2GB: compile time : 19 minutes page swaps : 0 Page swaps are based on the "page outs" number from Activity Monitor. I realize testing the compile time on just one app isn't representative of all compiles, but it might be useful. Some closing thoughts: 2GB was probably overkill. 1GB would probably be the sweet spot. Likewise, if you're looking to speed up your compiles, pay up for the duo. --Bob > While the low-end mac mini is totally acceptable for development efforts - I > bit the bullet and added 2GB RAM. This moved me out of "doing it on the > cheap" to "being more comfortable" wrt having a dev env to play in. How's your putty knife ;-) > Anyways, thought I'd update this thread with the results. With 2GB, the UI > is snappy as heck. I keep a lot of apps open and switching between them is > no longer sluggish. Scrolling and everything windows related is just so much > more responsive that it feels like a different machine. Again, 512MB was > acceptable/useable, but with 2GB it's much more comfortable. Thanks for keeping us updated. I must say the mini sounds more and more attractive. I'm trying to squeeze the last bit of life out of my PowerBook before I'll have to buy a new system. This transition is turning out to be very nice.. I could wait for the new PowerMacs, but who needs ventilators? I could choose an iMac, but I can't stand white computers. Those options would have the benefit of a dual monitor setup. I'm thinking of buying a 20" monitor (possibly a dell 2007wfp, not available in The Netherlands yet). What monitor do you use with the mini? patrick >Those options would have the benefit of a dual monitor setup. I'm >thinking of buying a 20" monitor (possibly a dell 2007wfp, not available >in The Netherlands yet). >What monitor do you use with the mini? Hi Patrick, I'm using a Dell 2405WFP, with which I've had no problems at all, and it makes the Mac Mini look even smaller! SignatureChris. > >What monitor do you use with the mini? > > I'm using a Dell 2405WFP, with which I've had no problems at all, and > it makes the Mac Mini look even smaller! Sounds like a nice setup! The only reservation I have about Dell is that it is very hard to get face to face with the monitor before buying it. The strange situation now occurs that I can go into any medium sized city in NL and choose from 3 different Apple shops where I can touch and test the hardware as much as I like. If I want to see the a Dell, I have to break into someone's house... Esp. for the monitor, seeing it in person is very important. For instance, I don't like the picture quality of the 20" cinema display at all. (The anti-reflection coating makes me want to rub my eyes, it feels like there's this layer of dust on the screen). Everyone else seems to rave about it. Generally I'd trade a bit of computing power for a better screen... patrick > How's your putty knife ;-) Putty knife is fine, however the case might be a little worse for the wear. :) > What monitor do you use with the mini? The mini is hooked to a 21'' CRT - an IBM P260 running 1280x1024 @ 90 Hz. Looks good to me. Actually I was really missing dual head with the mini - I usually run windows dual headed - until I discovered Expose. Now I don't miss it so much. Good luck to you Patrick and your new system when you get it. --Bob |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.