really. They claim significant improvements in GUI responsiveness and admit to not knowing how much MAc users were suffering before which is kind of stupid because Macs were awfully slow for anybody even half objective. I don't think this has much to go with GHz, Apple tends to overabstract their system software which has tremendous consequences performance wise. Take their text handling framework, nicely abstracted, robust but slow like molasses. Same with everything else. Unless they start hand tuning code on system level with view toward efficiency not abstraction don't expect any realistic CPU to be able to handle their stuff competently.
i was never sure mini was such a great deal. For $650 you get from apple a refurbished 1.25/G4/Combo emac with a built in monitor (and the ability to connect to a second monitor for the bigger desktop, space enough to put a fast hard drive inside (say 250MB/7200RPM, easily and cheaply upgradeable optical drive to fast super for example, with keyboard and mouse included. Performance w/o any upgrades mentioned above indistinguishable from mini. All for only 150 extra. Much bigger package though.
check out eyeTV 500, HDTV signals both over-the-air and unencrypted digital cable (QAM). No analog tuner, or direct analog input though. 3 times more expensive roughly.
SATA was specifically designed to be LOW COST high speed interface, and as such given proper volumes should be competitive. Mini will hopefully be of high enough volume to make SATA possible. (sata was not designed for enterprise servers per se, better of these use ultrascsi 2.5/10 k drives that cost roughly $900 for 70GB). Besides 3.5 inch SATA drives are cheap these days and become still cheaper vis-a-vis PATA.
SATA is important because neither USB2 nor FW4 at least as implemented by Apple are capable of supporting external 7200rpm drives properly. Lets be honest not even 5400rpm and in case of USB2 not even 4200rpm. In case of mini that means no decently fast storage is possible unless 7200rpm notebook drives are up to the task.
Momentus either 4200rpm that Apple puts in Mini or newer 5400rpm (these go to 100GB and are advertised as 50% faster and were too dear for Apple) are not 24/7 as far as I can tell. Where did you hear it?
The only 24/7 notebook drive designed for 24/7 operation is that 60GB/7200rpm drive by Hitachi but only when designated e7k60, 7k60 is not. Beware.
Again in my opinion Apple should have used SATA 2.5 drives in Mini. Fujitsu makes them, 5400/80 max at this point.
Depends on your circumstances obviously. The form factor is very tempting. Myself I'm waiting for the second iteration. This is primarily a desktop machine and as such should have a disk that is as fast as that in current eMac. Right now disks in Mini are two times slower than in eMac! That is SLOW. External FW drives even with fast 7200 drives are equally slow, USB2 is much much worse! Otherwise perfect machine for everyday use.
Apple needs to do 3 things in second generation.
a) make HD at least as good as in the current eMac.
b) redo USB2 and Firewire. They suck now, and suck badly.
Many many years ago when i was putting extra memory in imac g3 i was told exactly that - macs are picky, timing issues, quality, etc. Suspecting fear mongering by memory merchants I went out and bought generic memory at below 50% what so-called "reputable" mac suppliers were charging. It worked and is still working fine.
I believe the line above only when somebody unconnected with "reputable" merchants (and that excludes MacWorld for example) tests generic offerings and reports real numbers (bad on arrival, errors discovered during stress cycling, etc). Barring that suspect self-serving fear mongering.
- actually 1GB memory can be had for $85. http://www.pricewatch.com/h/prc.aspx?i=33&a=4922
- macintouch has a decent performance review.
http://www.macintouch.com/perfpack/comparison.html
Overall mini is pretty good, but the disk is roughly like iBook, that is half the speed of eMac, (BTW eMac is a gem, it beats new iMAC G5 in most tests). Going FireWire or USB2 on mini is no solution, they are half as slow as internal even with fast drives (thus 4 times as slow as latest eMac). They have 60Gb/7200 internal on order so check them later to see if this solves disk problem.
Turns out 40GB/7200RPM is now available in US for $143.
http://www.lookforpc.com/product_detail.php?
pid=H4014R9200
cheapest 60GB is not much higher $153
http://www.gogocity.com/product_details.asp?dept%5 Fid=211&pf%5Fid=CO02HDD0758BM
which is roughly what you will pay for 5400/80
you will need a case to put your original drive in, so consider buying this $178 (plus powered usb2 hub, needless to say)
http://www.gogocity.com/product_details.asp?dept%5 Fid=214&pf%5Fid=CO07HDD0745USBA
Note that both drives are designed for 24/7 operations, so they should be reliable.
http://www.hitachigst.com/hdd/support/e7k60/e7k60_ ov.htm
I will second the post claiming major perceivable changes when going from 4200 to 7200rpm. OSX is heavily disk dependent -- for example most menu operation require going to the disk and reading some file or worse like enumerating some files, or even worse like running some code that needs to read in from the disk. Think contextual menus for example. History menu in Safari. Sick of it already?
4200 is barely acceptable.
some considerations when upgrading hard drives.
Power - little change when going from 4200 to 7200, within 10% most. No problem here.
Latency - typically 7ms, 5.5ms amd 4.2 for 4200/5400/7200 rpm respectively. 7200 is almost twice as good as 4200.
Seek time - 12ms for 4200/5400, 10ms for the lone 7200 available. Nice but not earth shattering.
Buffers - 8GB in better drives. Unrelated to rpm.
Noise - slower is better. 7200RPM is roughly 2 time louder.
Reliability - who knows, specs are unhelpful here.
I love the form factor but paying $150 extra for a decent drive and $55 for memory (http://www.pricewatch.com/h/prc.aspx?i=33&a=4560) assuming case can be open makes it 700+ no monitor/keyboard/mouse
a) OSX is heavily disk dependent, if this is 5200RPM forget it. Really.
b) 7200RPM/60GB 2.5 drives (if that's what this takes) can be had for 150USD, very tight but better than nothing.
d) lack of 5.1 is a minus. Next iteration?. No audio in? Again!
e) 1GB can be had for 85USD (Apple $400+), but again how do you open that case?
f) size of that power brick?
g) opening the case is the problem - all those plastic latches. Somebody needs to make a cheap opening tool and sell it to 3rd party memory/drive sellers a buck a piece so they can be included with purchase.
h) good robust and good looking USB and Fire hubs badly needed for this baby.
Let me add that the FBI has similar rights (i.e to demand production of records at its discretion) in two other areas, basically any financial data about you from banks, etc. This is as unacceptable as the ability to demand telecom data that has been shot down by the judge here. This is unaffected by this decision.
Note also that the decision doesn't impede FBI in any way. Under the Patriot Act (sec. 215) they can still go to courts and after producing some evidence request that the judge issue identical order to produce the required data. What the heck, they don't even have to produce any evidence, just a verbal assurance (certificate) from an agent that he needs them. Once that verbal assurance is given the judge must issue the warrant.
This has to be struck too, the FBI has too sorry history to permit them this discretion. Normal standards i.e. showing of "probable cause" in open court (not ex parte or in camera) have to be reinstituted.
Volokh is right, it is the Reagan era law, the PA enters here only tangentially. Still the law stinks to high heaven.
As codified FBI can demand telecom (example demand letter here) records on its own i.e. w/o going to courts.
Volokh argues that since the recipient of any such FBI request can contest it in courts, everything is nice and dandy, i.e. the law is constitutional.
That's BS. If that was true, we could stop requiring judicially issued warrants and permit police/fbi to do searches and seizures at their discretion. Per Volokh that would be constitutional because you can always go to courts and contest it post facto. No self-respecting democracy would allow it.
Furthermore, the law allows FBI to issue permanent administrative gag orders to the recipient. The judge found it "previous restrain". Most rational people would concur.
Savage just called it huge victory for ACLU scum and I'll not repeat what he called the hispanic judge who issued the opinion. Technical data on the judge can be seen here.
Nothing out of ordinary. Started at 17 as assistant to the mayor, New York City. Clinton appointee.
similar secrecy surrounds recent join terrorism task force (fbi, local police squads of ill-repute, etc) arrest of B. Mayfield in Portland, OR. On apparently trumped up "charges". ACLU so far is not involved. For a minor commentary on ACLU in Oregon see
here .
(repeat post - original disappeared)
Does anyone here know whether PGP 8.x is any good? (7 doesn't work on Mac X/Classic). I'm asking because there was something funny about how they eased Zimmernam out of control over his software and the nature of the outfit that took it over.
a) we are talking here about different statues. You refer to existing proposal called Justice Enhancement and Domestic Security Act of 2003 (S22). The one leaked today is called Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003.
b) both are totalitarian type power grabs of sorts. For example S22 gives the Government the right to call Military Tribunals and detain people all over the world. It's retroactive so they can justify what's going on in Cuba. As things stands now legally speaking, Cuba is a clear case of State criminality. S22 is, however, a mixed bag -- has a ton of other provisions, some even making sense to this reader. That's how they hope to get it passed, I guess.
c) re Sunset expiration of Patriot Act. With S22 proposed change 224(a) of Patriot Act reads:
In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), this title and the amendments made by this title (other than sections 203(a), 203(c), 205, 208, 210, 211, 213, 216, 219, 221, and 222, and the amendments made by those sections) shall cease to have effect on December 31, 2005 (PROPOSED) and any provision of law amended or modified by this title and the amendments made by this title (except for the sections excepted) shall take effect January 1, 2006, as in effect on the day before the effective date of this Act.
Which is a typical legalese mumbo jumbo (imo) nobody in Congress will even try to read. To me it means no more Sunset. That is Sunset from now to the end of 2005, and then automatically resurrected as permanent with no Sunset and full retroactivity. This is for changes and amendments introduced by the Patriot Act. All "new" sections of Patriot Act are still supposed to fade away in 2005. (Realistically don't count on it). Given that the bulk of totalitarian character of Patriot act is in modifications to the existing statues this limitation doesn't seem much. Nice going Mr. Ashcroft. BTW some 10 years ago the fundamental principle of democratic law making - namely that one cannot possibly legislate retroactivity - was still sacrosanct. No more unfortunately.
d) AMBER seems to refer to some alert notification communication network. I see nothing sinister or at first glance wasteful here.
Slashdot Mirror
really. They claim significant improvements in GUI responsiveness and admit to not knowing how much MAc users were suffering before which is kind of stupid because Macs were awfully slow for anybody even half objective. I don't think this has much to go with GHz, Apple tends to overabstract their system software which has tremendous consequences performance wise. Take their text handling framework, nicely abstracted, robust but slow like molasses. Same with everything else. Unless they start hand tuning code on system level with view toward efficiency not abstraction don't expect any realistic CPU to be able to handle their stuff competently.
i was never sure mini was such a great deal. For $650 you get from apple a refurbished 1.25/G4/Combo emac with a built in monitor (and the ability to connect to a second monitor for the bigger desktop, space enough to put a fast hard drive inside (say 250MB/7200RPM, easily and cheaply upgradeable optical drive to fast super for example, with keyboard and mouse included. Performance w/o any upgrades mentioned above indistinguishable from mini. All for only 150 extra. Much bigger package though.
check out eyeTV 500, HDTV signals both over-the-air and unencrypted digital cable (QAM). No analog tuner, or direct analog input though. 3 times more expensive roughly.
SATA was specifically designed to be LOW COST high speed interface, and as such given proper volumes should be competitive. Mini will hopefully be of high enough volume to make SATA possible. (sata was not designed for enterprise servers per se, better of these use ultrascsi 2.5/10 k drives that cost roughly $900 for 70GB).
Besides 3.5 inch SATA drives are cheap these days and become still cheaper vis-a-vis PATA.
SATA is important because neither USB2 nor FW4 at least as implemented by Apple are capable of supporting external 7200rpm drives properly. Lets be honest not even 5400rpm and in case of USB2 not even 4200rpm. In case of mini that means no decently fast storage is possible unless 7200rpm notebook drives are up to the task.
Momentus either 4200rpm that Apple puts in Mini or newer 5400rpm (these go to 100GB and are advertised as 50% faster and were too dear for Apple) are not 24/7 as far as I can tell. Where did you hear it?
The only 24/7 notebook drive designed for 24/7 operation is that 60GB/7200rpm drive by Hitachi but only when designated e7k60, 7k60 is not. Beware.
Again in my opinion Apple should have used SATA 2.5 drives in Mini. Fujitsu makes them, 5400/80 max at this point.
Depends on your circumstances obviously. The form factor is very tempting. Myself I'm waiting for the second iteration. This is primarily a desktop machine and as such should have a disk that is as fast as that in current eMac. Right now disks in Mini are two times slower than in eMac! That is SLOW. External FW drives even with fast 7200 drives are equally slow, USB2 is much much worse! Otherwise perfect machine for everyday use.
Apple needs to do 3 things in second generation.
a) make HD at least as good as in the current eMac.
b) redo USB2 and Firewire. They suck now, and suck badly.
c) add optical audio.
Perfect machine then.
Many many years ago when i was putting extra memory in imac g3 i was told exactly that - macs are picky, timing issues, quality, etc. Suspecting fear mongering by memory merchants I went out and bought generic memory at below 50% what so-called "reputable" mac suppliers were charging. It worked and is still working fine.
I believe the line above only when somebody unconnected with "reputable" merchants (and that excludes MacWorld for example) tests generic offerings and reports real numbers (bad on arrival, errors discovered during stress cycling, etc). Barring that suspect self-serving fear mongering.
sorry, actually FW on mini is imperceptibly faster than internal, it is USB2 that sucks
- actually 1GB memory can be had for $85.
l
Overall mini is pretty good, but the disk is roughly like iBook, that is half the speed of eMac, (BTW eMac is a gem, it beats new iMAC G5 in most tests). Going FireWire or USB2 on mini is no solution, they are half as slow as internal even with fast drives (thus 4 times as slow as latest eMac). They have 60Gb/7200 internal on order so check them later to see if this solves disk problem.
http://www.pricewatch.com/h/prc.aspx?i=33&a=4922
- macintouch has a decent performance review. http://www.macintouch.com/perfpack/comparison.htm
Turns out 40GB/7200RPM is now available in US for $143.
5 Fid=211&pf%5Fid=CO02HDD0758BM
5 Fid=214&pf%5Fid=CO07HDD0745USBA
_ ov.htm
http://www.lookforpc.com/product_detail.php? pid=H4014R9200
cheapest 60GB is not much higher $153
http://www.gogocity.com/product_details.asp?dept%
which is roughly what you will pay for 5400/80
you will need a case to put your original drive in, so consider buying this $178 (plus powered usb2 hub, needless to say)
http://www.gogocity.com/product_details.asp?dept%
Note that both drives are designed for 24/7 operations, so they should be reliable.
http://www.hitachigst.com/hdd/support/e7k60/e7k60
Heat is directly related to power consumed, and as i said that consumption is within 10% across available rpm range.
I will second the post claiming major perceivable changes when going from 4200 to 7200rpm. OSX is heavily disk dependent -- for example most menu operation require going to the disk and reading some file or worse like enumerating some files, or even worse like running some code that needs to read in from the disk. Think contextual menus for example. History menu in Safari. Sick of it already?
4200 is barely acceptable.
some considerations when upgrading hard drives.
Power - little change when going from 4200 to 7200, within 10% most. No problem here.
Latency - typically 7ms, 5.5ms amd 4.2 for 4200/5400/7200 rpm respectively. 7200 is almost twice as good as 4200.
Seek time - 12ms for 4200/5400, 10ms for the lone 7200 available. Nice but not earth shattering.
Buffers - 8GB in better drives. Unrelated to rpm.
Noise - slower is better. 7200RPM is roughly 2 time louder.
Reliability - who knows, specs are unhelpful here.
as posted before
imaging was designed and processed in Tuscon, Arizona.
fully agree. 4200rpm/2.5 (confirmed for minis) is a very dated technology and highly inadequate for OSX. Current largest 4200RPM is 100GB.
r eates_dedicated_notebook_7200rpm/
roughly $150 now.
) assuming case can be open makes it 700+ no monitor/keyboard/mouse
5400 RPM are widely available in 40GB to 80GB sizes - $90-150.
only one 7200 RPM in 60GB size. see here http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/05/14/hitachi_c
I love the form factor but paying $150 extra for a decent drive and $55 for memory (http://www.pricewatch.com/h/prc.aspx?i=33&a=4560
Not sure.
almost half a million a month per same source.
current contracted production of Mini 100+k per month. G5 books will ship 2Q/05.
http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20050114A7040.html
a) OSX is heavily disk dependent, if this is 5200RPM forget it. Really.
b) 7200RPM/60GB 2.5 drives (if that's what this takes) can be had for 150USD, very tight but better than nothing.
d) lack of 5.1 is a minus. Next iteration?. No audio in? Again!
e) 1GB can be had for 85USD (Apple $400+), but again how do you open that case?
f) size of that power brick?
g) opening the case is the problem - all those plastic latches. Somebody needs to make a cheap opening tool and sell it to 3rd party memory/drive sellers a buck a piece so they can be included with purchase.
h) good robust and good looking USB and Fire hubs badly needed for this baby.
Let me add that the FBI has similar rights (i.e to demand production of records at its discretion) in two other areas, basically any financial data about you from banks, etc. This is as unacceptable as the ability to demand telecom data that has been shot down by the judge here. This is unaffected by this decision.
Note also that the decision doesn't impede FBI in any way. Under the Patriot Act (sec. 215) they can still go to courts and after producing some evidence request that the judge issue identical order to produce the required data. What the heck, they don't even have to produce any evidence, just a verbal assurance (certificate) from an agent that he needs them. Once that verbal assurance is given the judge must issue the warrant.
This has to be struck too, the FBI has too sorry history to permit them this discretion. Normal standards i.e. showing of "probable cause" in open court (not ex parte or in camera) have to be reinstituted.
Volokh is right, it is the Reagan era law, the PA enters here only tangentially. Still the law stinks to high heaven.
As codified FBI can demand telecom (example demand letter here) records on its own i.e. w/o going to courts.
Volokh argues that since the recipient of any such FBI request can contest it in courts, everything is nice and dandy, i.e. the law is constitutional.
That's BS. If that was true, we could stop requiring judicially issued warrants and permit police/fbi to do searches and seizures at their discretion. Per Volokh that would be constitutional because you can always go to courts and contest it post facto. No self-respecting democracy would allow it.
Furthermore, the law allows FBI to issue permanent administrative gag orders to the recipient. The judge found it "previous restrain". Most rational people would concur.
need to correct myself. The guy apparently got his B.A. at the ripe age of 13 and legal degree from Yale at 17. Typo?
Savage just called it huge victory for ACLU scum and I'll not repeat what he called the hispanic judge who issued the opinion. Technical data on the judge can be seen here.
Nothing out of ordinary. Started at 17 as assistant to the mayor, New York City. Clinton appointee.
similar secrecy surrounds recent join terrorism task force (fbi, local police squads of ill-repute, etc) arrest of B. Mayfield in Portland, OR. On apparently trumped up "charges". ACLU so far is not involved. For a minor commentary on ACLU in Oregon see here .
(repeat post - original disappeared) Does anyone here know whether PGP 8.x is any good? (7 doesn't work on Mac X/Classic). I'm asking because there was something funny about how they eased Zimmernam out of control over his software and the nature of the outfit that took it over.
A few comments -
a) we are talking here about different statues. You refer to existing proposal called Justice Enhancement and Domestic Security Act of 2003 (S22). The one leaked today is called Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003.
b) both are totalitarian type power grabs of sorts. For example S22 gives the Government the right to call Military Tribunals and detain people all over the world. It's retroactive so they can justify what's going on in Cuba. As things stands now legally speaking, Cuba is a clear case of State criminality. S22 is, however, a mixed bag -- has a ton of other provisions, some even making sense to this reader. That's how they hope to get it passed, I guess.
c) re Sunset expiration of Patriot Act. With S22 proposed change 224(a) of Patriot Act reads:
Which is a typical legalese mumbo jumbo (imo) nobody in Congress will even try to read. To me it means no more Sunset. That is Sunset from now to the end of 2005, and then automatically resurrected as permanent with no Sunset and full retroactivity. This is for changes and amendments introduced by the Patriot Act. All "new" sections of Patriot Act are still supposed to fade away in 2005. (Realistically don't count on it). Given that the bulk of totalitarian character of Patriot act is in modifications to the existing statues this limitation doesn't seem much. Nice going Mr. Ashcroft. BTW some 10 years ago the fundamental principle of democratic law making - namely that one cannot possibly legislate retroactivity - was still sacrosanct. No more unfortunately.
d) AMBER seems to refer to some alert notification communication network. I see nothing sinister or at first glance wasteful here.