# Opinion: Mac Mini vs iMac?



## Lazarus18 (Sep 18, 2007)

So in the nearish future I hope to upgrade from my iBook G4 to a desktop. My dad just got a 2.4GHz iMac, and it was very impressive. I'm trying to decide between that, or a Mac mini. I liked the new keyboard but also love mine, and my 19" LCD monitor is perfectly acceptable. 

The issue is in the guts of the things. I'm wondering how much difference the video makes. I believe the mini has shared RAM and an inferior chipset. Also the max RAM is 1/2 that of the iMac, but either would be superior to what I have now.  Lastly is the difference in CPU significant? The iMac uses the new C2D chips with a higher FSB I think, and would be faster than the 2GHz C2D in a mini, or the 2.16 or 2.33GHz if you upgraded an older mini. 

I think once you start upgrading a mini too much you're butting up against the cost of an iMac, so better just to get the iMac and have two monitors. The real question then is how does a stock mini compare to the iMac for normal daily use plus fairly frequent home video editing. No one right answer here, but interested in opinions.


----------



## Satcomer (Sep 18, 2007)

Well this older BareFeats speed test comparison may help.


----------



## ScottW (Sep 18, 2007)

It's a clear winner... iMac. 

Seriously. I moved from a Mini to an iMac (2.8) and the difference is night and day. Plus you can add a second monitor to the iMac and not the Mini.


----------



## Giaguara (Sep 18, 2007)

What kind of use do you normally have with your Mac? You mentioned video edting .. that itself probably would be way nicer on the iMac. Screen size, video, max RAM (so for future needs too) and bigger hard drive.
I'm getting spoiled with nice hardware recently, but if money with those two isn't an issue, I'd say you'll enjoy iMac a lot more. That with your actual display .. yay. Think of it as well as something you will be using for at least next 2-3 years, so the cost differences can be seen as per year.

If you have any store around where you could try both with the default configuration, test them and see which one appeals more.


----------



## Qion (Sep 18, 2007)

Video editing would be much better on an iMac. Besides that, both the 20" and 24" screens are gems... can't go wrong with an extra monitor! If I were in the market for a new Mac, the extra cost of the iMac would be totally justified. As I've said before, the baseline 20" iMac right now is a steal.


----------



## icemanjc (Sep 18, 2007)

iMac, the Mac Mini is nothing compared to the new imacs or the old ones.


----------



## eric2006 (Sep 18, 2007)

Lazarus18 said:


> fairly frequent home video editing.



You want an iMac. The Mac Mini uses notebook drives - small, and slow. Sure, you could hook up a nice, big firewire drive, but you only have one FW port, so your firewire camcorder is stuck with no place to plug into. You'll only have enough space on the Mac Mini for about 4 MiniDV tapes - less if you have an iPhoto library, iTunes library, apps, etc. Memory, the dedicated graphics, two firewire ports, and a 3.5" HDD make the iMac much more suited for video editing.

Of course, you could use the mini if you don't edit much, but the iMac is a better deal if you can afford it. You don't need to worry about buying a new display, you get adequate amounts of RAM and HDD space, and increased performance. (and you can still hook up your old display)

If the iMac is on the edge of your budget, take a look at the refurbished iMacs. There's a surplus of the white models, and you can save up to 30% - brining the price within $150 of the high-end mini.


----------



## White-Knight (Sep 19, 2007)

OK, i am not hearing much support for Mac Mini. iMacs are ok, but i'm afraid Mac Mini is still a better model! iMac are just a novelty with the screen being the casing for the computer... Mac Mini can fit into more places!!

iMac are said to be faster but only as far as CD and DVD burning goes and yes iMac has built-in WebCam and Microphone, but Mac Mini have much more impressive features and have recently had a 24% increase in speed!!

10 Mac minis are trusted by professional studios here in the UK to run Logic, Reason, and Pro-Tools so they work perfectly fine with music editing. We also have a Mac Pro to also support our studios. 

In Video editing, we use two iMacs for film editing, and marvelous though it is for having the novelty of components built into the back of the screen, you are stuck with that screen you cannot change it to suit your needs, and the height is ill adjustable. 

Having had a Mac Mini since January 2007, i have not only had 0 problems minus one or two OS troubles, i had absolutely NO hardware faults with it what so ever and it has restored my faith in computers. MY girlfriend had a new iMac for two weeks and there has already been a mechanical failure with the hard disk, similar to that of one of the two iMacs used for video editing. My Mac Mini has also got strong powerful AirPort Wireless connection, as well as Bluetooth and an I-R receiver for Apple Remote. 

I'm so sorry everyone, but Mac Mini is the number one!!


----------



## eric2006 (Sep 19, 2007)

The Mac Mini is an excellent machine. However, while they may be "perfectly fine" for music, you run into storage issues when you are working with video frequently. You can use any display with the iMac, there's another hookup. The hard drive is faster, it supports more memory, and the processor is faster. The Mini is a good machine for many people, but when you get such a significant increase in performance for $150, the iMac becomes much more competitive.

That being said, I think the Mac Mini would look sweet on my desk.


----------



## symphonix (Sep 19, 2007)

While the Mac mini is a great little machine I think today's iMacs are an absolute gem: beautiful, well featured, easy to live with and affordable. I think the iMac will have a higher resale in the long run and will be a better performer for video and photo stuff. I'd hook up that 19" LCD as a second display and enjoy it.


----------



## Lazarus18 (Sep 19, 2007)

OK, so if we settle on the iMac, another question:

How significant are the differences between the white and aluminum iMacs? I'm comparing a refurb 24" white iMac to a 20" 2.4GHz aluminum one. 

Again you're running into 2.16Ghz vs 2.4GHz, the old 667MHz FSB vs the faster 800MHz FSB on the new, and 3GB max RAM vs 4GB. Of course these will make a difference, my question is whether or not it is an appreciable one. Is it worth giving up 4" of screen? The price with my education discount would be within $50 of each other.


----------



## Qion (Sep 19, 2007)

That's an incredibly tough decision. By default, it's always better to get newer hardware. Honestly, I think it's up to your intepretation of good aesthetics... is 4" of screen worth it to you? 

I really don't think you'd see a substantial speed difference between the machines. In fact, the if the 24" iMac has a 7600 GT graphics card, it could be up to twice as fast in real-world gaming. 

Honestly... it's up to you. Personally, I'd go with the newer iMac; it's just too cool looking.


----------



## Lazarus18 (Sep 19, 2007)

Hmmm. According to this article: http://www.macworld.com/2007/08/reviews/aluminumimac/index.php

The real world difference between a 2.4Ghz and a 2.16GHz from the last iteration is about 7 seconds longer to do common tasks (rip MP3, encode iMovie effects, etc). The refurb unit listed on Apple.com right now has the 7300GT, but I never game on my Mac, so I don't think it matters much. The old ones looked pretty great to me, the new ones a little better. I think what I'd really need to do is see the old matte display next to the new display and decide based on that. I've seen both, but it's really hard to compare things that you've seen weeks apart. 

The Apple stores of course have given all the old iMacs the boot, I have no idea where I could compare them side by side.


----------



## eric2006 (Sep 19, 2007)

Lazarus18 said:


> The price with my education discount would be within $50 of each other.


The newer iMac will repay you in resell value, and 4" of screen is a lot. I could understand going got a refurb if it was $200 less, but if they're only $50 apart, I would go for the newer model. Of course, if you really need the $50, the previous generation iMac will still be able to do everything you want it to, and more.


----------



## Lazarus18 (Sep 20, 2007)

It's not the $50, it's the screens. You sort of confused me. Did you mean to say that 4" ISN'T a lot? Otherwise you've posted a great argument for each machine.


----------



## Qion (Sep 20, 2007)

4" is a big difference.


----------



## nixgeek (Sep 20, 2007)

Qion said:


> 4" is a big difference.



_Argh....resisting....urge....to make....joke......_


----------



## Qion (Sep 20, 2007)

lmao...


----------



## chevy (Sep 20, 2007)

Lazarus18 said:


> OK, so if we settle on the iMac, another question:
> 
> How significant are the differences between the white and aluminum iMacs? I'm comparing a refurb 24" white iMac to a 20" 2.4GHz aluminum one.
> 
> Again you're running into 2.16Ghz vs 2.4GHz, the old 667MHz FSB vs the faster 800MHz FSB on the new, and 3GB max RAM vs 4GB. Of course these will make a difference, my question is whether or not it is an appreciable one. Is it worth giving up 4" of screen? The price with my education discount would be within $50 of each other.



Size matters more than speed (as my wife said), so I would prefer the 24" to the 2.4 GHz.


----------



## Giaguara (Sep 20, 2007)

nixgeek said:


> _Argh....resisting....urge....to make....joke......_



Size matters  there, I said it. 4" makes a big difference on how much you like using the screen.

Anyway, I added the poll to this ...


----------



## Lazarus18 (Sep 20, 2007)

So, rampant sexual innuendo aside, I have (surprise) another question about the monitor situation.

Does anyone use two monitors? I never have except briefly. I'm wondering if having a 24" as a main monitor and a 19" next to it would be a weird transition. 20" and 19" would be closer, but then there is sharp next to matte. 

When I briefly did have two monitors I never had something across both, it was usually have an ap or two open on one and different aps working on the other. Kind of like putting things on the other monitor instead of minimizing them.


----------



## chevy (Sep 20, 2007)

It's a good poll !

(x) Lexus
( ) Toyota


----------



## Lazarus18 (Sep 21, 2007)

OK, a decision has been reached, an order has been placed. The wife decided 2.4Ghz > 24". Went with a 500GB HD, will upgrade RAM with 3rd party stuff. Should be very good. We'll see how moving everything over goes.


----------



## Giaguara (Sep 22, 2007)

You'll love it Lazarus


----------



## chevy (Sep 22, 2007)

Have fun Laz.


----------



## icemanjc (Sep 22, 2007)

Just think, your the luckiest man alive with a 24" iMac, I still have a 17" iMac 1.6ghz.


----------

