Re: [mythtv-users] Re: New Mac Mini

[Bob O'Shaughnessy]

On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 07:48:05 -0600, Loren H. Burlingame
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> decoding takes significantly less processor power than encoding. I
> still think that the mini imac is overkill and you are wasting your
> money if it is your intention to use it soley as a frontend.
> 

While once could get surplus PII boxes much cheaper, as you suggested
earlier.  I'd much rather have something small and silent like the
Mini than a huge, loud beige box at my TV.

Sometimes having your technology pass the wife test is worth the money.

-- 
Bob O'Shaughnessy
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://oshaughnessy.typepad.com
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] Re: New Mac Mini

[Loren H. Burlingame]

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 13:18:23 -0800, Scott Alfter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 12:16:34AM -0600, Loren H. Burlingame wrote:
> > I always thought the backend was supposed to be the one with the
> > horsepower.I mean, I run a P2 500Mhz machine as a frontend right
> > now with no problemand you can pick those up for maybe $30.
> 
> It's the other way around, at least if you're doing HDTV capture or hardware
> MPEG-2 compression of non-HD video.  Capture imposes a minimal load on the
> processor when the encoding is done by the broadcaster or the capture card,
> but playback (unless you're using the decoder on a PVR-350) requires
> considerably more power.  This is especially true of HD video...some sample
> clips I downloaded play OK on my Athlon XP 2400 frontend/backend if XvMC is
> enabled (other than the usual gotchas pertaining to XvMC), but 1080i skips
> and jumps if XvMC is disabled.
> 

decoding takes significantly less processor power than encoding. I
still think that the mini imac is overkill and you are wasting your
money if it is your intention to use it soley as a frontend.

-- 
Loren H. Burlingame <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GPG Key ID: 0x112DCF4F
"Irony can be pretty ironic sometimes."
   -William Shatner (a.k.a. Buck Murdock)
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] Re: New Mac Mini

[Max Waterman]

Ow Mun Heng wrote:
I don't think it is a valid assumption that it will be 'faster' simply 
because it has a higher RPM. 

And why would that be? Unless of course, one can order all the writen
bits onto the Hard Drive to be sequential and thus reduce seek times or
latency, it will have an effect of being "faster"
Well, yes. If you have identical densities.

IIRC my (top of the range, at the time) 
powerbook came with a slower spinning hard drive than the lower models 
because it out performed them. The explaination was something to do with 
density...

Density is the amount of bits which is forced into 1 sector/cylinder of
the drive. The more bits there are, the higher the density (DUH!). The
density does not affect the "fast" but effect more towards the capcity
of the drive. 
Well, apparently, the higher density does affect the rate at which they 
can are read. I mean, if two drives have the same rotation speed, but 
one has a higher density, then it can read more data.

In any case, I found a web page to show what I am talking about :
http://www.barefeats.com/pb12.html
"In the Random READ 5400rpm drive, to our surprise, was MUCH faster than 
the 7200rpm drive."

So, it's not a foregone conclusion that the higher rpm drives will give 
you a higher performance.

I'd say that it's fair to say that this is an exception though...
Max.
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] Re: New Mac Mini

[Dave Marples]

IIRC my (top of the range, at the time)
powerbook came with a slower spinning hard drive than the lower models
because it out performed them. The explaination was something to do 
with
density...
Density is the amount of bits which is forced into 1 sector/cylinder of
the drive. The more bits there are, the higher the density (DUH!). The
density does not affect the "fast" but effect more towards the capcity
of the drive.
The higher the density the faster bits are flying under the heads...go 
think about it.

DAVE
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] Re: New Mac Mini

[Ow Mun Heng]

On Tue, 2005-02-01 at 18:30, Max Waterman wrote:
> Jens Peter Vilstrup wrote:
> > On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 17:35:38 -0600, John Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 
> >>Here is a nice comparison with a complete micro-ATX system and the Mac
> >>Mini in price.  They are both pretty comparable.  The PC can even be
> >>made better by getting a cheaper 32 MB video card along with changing
> >>a few other things while adding a sound card with SPDIF.
> >>
> >>http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=9450
> >>
> >>I guess then the argument for opportunity cost would be exandability
> >>versus the advantage of having the MacOS with included software.
> >>
> >>Any opinions
> >>
> >>I do wonder about differences in noise levels of the two systems though.
> > 
> > 
> > He quotes the MiniMac drive as being 7200RPM, which I simply do not believe.

At USD499, getting a 7200 RPM drive in it would be a STEAL actually. 
> 
> I don't think it is a valid assumption that it will be 'faster' simply 
> because it has a higher RPM. 

And why would that be? Unless of course, one can order all the writen
bits onto the Hard Drive to be sequential and thus reduce seek times or
latency, it will have an effect of being "faster"

> IIRC my (top of the range, at the time) 
> powerbook came with a slower spinning hard drive than the lower models 
> because it out performed them. The explaination was something to do with 
> density...

Density is the amount of bits which is forced into 1 sector/cylinder of
the drive. The more bits there are, the higher the density (DUH!). The
density does not affect the "fast" but effect more towards the capcity
of the drive. 

There is some tradeoff with higher density whereby the heads/electrical
has a tougher job to do to to decode the data.

This is tranparent to end-users.


> 
> Perhaps you already know about this and can explain further?
> 
> Max.
> ___
> mythtv-users mailing list
> mythtv-users@mythtv.org
> http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

--
Ow Mun Heng
Gentoo/Linux on DELL D600 1.4Ghz 
98% Microsoft(tm) Free!! 
Neuromancer 19:21:41 up 10:45, 8 users, 
load average: 0.65, 0.91, 0.64 

___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] Re: New Mac Mini

[Greg Cope]

> > He quotes the MiniMac drive as being 7200RPM, which I simply do not believe.

What that the Mini Mac has a 7200rpm drive (I thought it had a 5400rpm).

You can get 7200rpm 2.5" drives - I have one in my laptop - nice and
fast they are too.

Greg
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] Re: New Mac Mini

[Max Waterman]

Jens Peter Vilstrup wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 17:35:38 -0600, John Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Here is a nice comparison with a complete micro-ATX system and the Mac
Mini in price.  They are both pretty comparable.  The PC can even be
made better by getting a cheaper 32 MB video card along with changing
a few other things while adding a sound card with SPDIF.
http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=9450
I guess then the argument for opportunity cost would be exandability
versus the advantage of having the MacOS with included software.
Any opinions
I do wonder about differences in noise levels of the two systems though.

He quotes the MiniMac drive as being 7200RPM, which I simply do not believe.
I don't think it is a valid assumption that it will be 'faster' simply 
because it has a higher RPM. IIRC my (top of the range, at the time) 
powerbook came with a slower spinning hard drive than the lower models 
because it out performed them. The explaination was something to do with 
density...

Perhaps you already know about this and can explain further?
Max.
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] Re: New Mac Mini - one unrelated informal benchmark...

[Henk Poley]

> 
> How is this related to using the Mini Mac as a frontend for MythTV?

Don't know.. but this is: (Apple's "Service Source" document for Mac Mini)
http://www.smashsworld.com/2005/01/mac-mini-complete-technical.php


 Henk Poley <><
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] Re: New Mac Mini

[Scott Alfter]

On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 12:16:34AM -0600, Loren H. Burlingame wrote:
> I always thought the backend was supposed to be the one with the
> horsepower.I mean, I run a P2 500Mhz machine as a frontend right
> now with no problemand you can pick those up for maybe $30.

It's the other way around, at least if you're doing HDTV capture or hardware
MPEG-2 compression of non-HD video.  Capture imposes a minimal load on the
processor when the encoding is done by the broadcaster or the capture card,
but playback (unless you're using the decoder on a PVR-350) requires
considerably more power.  This is especially true of HD video...some sample
clips I downloaded play OK on my Athlon XP 2400 frontend/backend if XvMC is
enabled (other than the usual gotchas pertaining to XvMC), but 1080i skips
and jumps if XvMC is disabled.

  _/_
 / v \ Scott Alfter (remove the obvious to send mail)
(IIGS( http://alfter.us/Top-posting!
 \_^_/ rm -rf /bin/laden>What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?



pgpKYsdrvqDje.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] Re: New Mac Mini

[Jesse Perkins]

A friend of mine just got a new iBook which is very compariable to the
mini macs in performace.  We found a compiled copy of mythtv for OSX
and it worked ok.  The playback of my recordings (from pvr250) was
using all the cpu and was a little jerky.  There was no mythvideo or
mythmusic on this binary install, so I do not know if they would work.

I was thinking about installing Ubuntu or yellowdog linux and trying
to run mythtv that way.  Maybe the performance would be better.  But
I'm sure that someone familiar with compiling things on the OS X could
make some enhancements to the compile options and get it working a
little better with the playback.

Jesse


On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 18:17:23 +0100 (CET), Schlomo Schapiro
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi friends,
> 
> I am also considering the mini mac, for the following reasons:
> 
> - supposed to be quiet (is it true ?)
> - Mac OS X good platform with high WAF and sufficiently OSS compatible
> - should be good enough for watching DVDs, DivX and Myth
> - small and nice ( I use a HP e PC 42 now)
> 
> Besides the talk, did ANYONE test it already ?
> 
> Schlomo
> 
> On Fri, 21 Jan 2005, Andrew Close wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 15:28:38 -0600, Jon Bauerle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Don't forget, though, that with the Mac you also get iPhoto, iTunes,
> > > iMovie, etc.  :-)
> >
> > and OS X!
> >
> > 
> > 6 GMail Invites available
> > Email me OFF-list only...
> >
> >
> 
> --
> Regards,
> Schlomo
> 
> 
> ___
> mythtv-users mailing list
> mythtv-users@mythtv.org
> http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
> 
> 
> 


-- 

Jesse Perkins
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://jperkins.homeip.net
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] Re: New Mac Mini

[Schlomo Schapiro]

Hi friends,

I am also considering the mini mac, for the following reasons:

- supposed to be quiet (is it true ?)
- Mac OS X good platform with high WAF and sufficiently OSS compatible
- should be good enough for watching DVDs, DivX and Myth
- small and nice ( I use a HP e PC 42 now)

Besides the talk, did ANYONE test it already ?

Schlomo

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005, Andrew Close wrote:

> On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 15:28:38 -0600, Jon Bauerle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Don't forget, though, that with the Mac you also get iPhoto, iTunes,
> > iMovie, etc.  :-)
> 
> and OS X! 
> 
> 
> 6 GMail Invites available
> Email me OFF-list only...
> 
> 

-- 
Regards,
Schlomo
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] Re: New Mac Mini

[Loren H. Burlingame]

I am really astounded at the amount of people willing to drop $500 on
a frontend device...

You all must be rich as hell.

I always thought the backend was supposed to be the one with the
horsepower.I mean, I run a P2 500Mhz machine as a frontend right
now with no problemand you can pick those up for maybe $30.


-- 
Loren H. Burlingame <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GPG Key ID: 0x112DCF4F
"Irony can be pretty ironic sometimes."
   -William Shatner (a.k.a. Buck Murdock)
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] Re: New Mac Mini

[Matt Picker]

--- Jens Peter Vilstrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
> I seriously doubt the MiniMac will give the PC any
> kind of run for
> it's money, exept in the "design", "useability",
> "included software"
> and "virus-susceptible" categories.
...

To many non linux users those sort of catagories sound
very appealing.



__ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] Re: New Mac Mini

[Jens Peter Vilstrup]

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 17:35:38 -0600, John Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here is a nice comparison with a complete micro-ATX system and the Mac
> Mini in price.  They are both pretty comparable.  The PC can even be
> made better by getting a cheaper 32 MB video card along with changing
> a few other things while adding a sound card with SPDIF.
> 
> http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=9450
> 
> I guess then the argument for opportunity cost would be exandability
> versus the advantage of having the MacOS with included software.
> 
> Any opinions
> 
> I do wonder about differences in noise levels of the two systems though.

He quotes the MiniMac drive as being 7200RPM, which I simply do not believe.
I think it was on the anandtech forum where someone posted a
screenshot of it having a Toshiba 4200RPM laptop drive. Of course,
that could be the pre-production model.
I seriously doubt the MiniMac will give the PC any kind of run for
it's money, exept in the "design", "useability", "included software"
and "virus-susceptible" categories.

I will definitely get a MiniMac, if only because I've been wanting to
try out a Mac for a long time (other than those unuseable in-store
demos, living with it is where the ugly rears it's head), but they are
so horrendously expensive... until now.
I'm planning on it as a MythFrontend, since:
a) Apple quotes it as "whisper-quiet"
b) very high WAF (Wife Appreciation Factor) due to the size and looks
c) the trouble of an Xbox + chip + linux + Myth or Mac + Myth... you pick.

Jens
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] Re: New Mac Mini

[John Thomas]

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 16:42:29 -0500, Mark L. Cukier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> iTunes is free
> 
> Jon Bauerle wrote:
> 
> > Don't forget, though, that with the Mac you also get iPhoto, iTunes,
> > iMovie, etc.  :-)
> >
> >
> > On Jan 21, 2005, at 3:06 PM, John Thomas wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> No, you are correct.  The Shuttle system is barebone.  But the CPU, 40
> >> GB drive and memory would be pretty comparable to the Mac Mini in
> >> price.  Plus you would also have to add a DVI compatible video card in
> >> the one PCI slot available.  So maybe the two systems are more
> >> comparable in price.
> >> ___
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >___
> >mythtv-users mailing list
> >mythtv-users@mythtv.org
> >http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
> >
> >
> 
> 
> --
> 
> --
> 
> 
> *Mark L. Cukier*, /Design Engineer/
> P&E Microcomputer Systems
> 710 Commonwealth Avenue
> Boston, MA 02215
> _
> e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> phone : (617) 353-9206 x19
> fax   :   (617) 353-9205
> _
> 
> visit us on the web at: http: //www.pemicro.com
> 
> ___
> mythtv-users mailing list
> mythtv-users@mythtv.org
> http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
> 

Here is a nice comparison with a complete micro-ATX system and the Mac
Mini in price.  They are both pretty comparable.  The PC can even be
made better by getting a cheaper 32 MB video card along with changing
a few other things while adding a sound card with SPDIF.

http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=9450

I guess then the argument for opportunity cost would be exandability
versus the advantage of having the MacOS with included software.

Any opinions

I do wonder about differences in noise levels of the two systems though.
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] Re: New Mac Mini

[Mark L. Cukier]

iTunes is free
Jon Bauerle wrote:
Don't forget, though, that with the Mac you also get iPhoto, iTunes, 
iMovie, etc.  :-)

On Jan 21, 2005, at 3:06 PM, John Thomas wrote:
No, you are correct.  The Shuttle system is barebone.  But the CPU, 40
GB drive and memory would be pretty comparable to the Mac Mini in
price.  Plus you would also have to add a DVI compatible video card in
the one PCI slot available.  So maybe the two systems are more
comparable in price.
___


___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
 


--
--

*Mark L. Cukier*, /Design Engineer/  
P&E Microcomputer Systems   
710 Commonwealth Avenue
Boston, MA 02215  
_
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
phone : (617) 353-9206 x19
fax   :   (617) 353-9205
_

visit us on the web at: http: //www.pemicro.com

___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] Re: New Mac Mini

[Andrew Close]

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 15:28:38 -0600, Jon Bauerle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Don't forget, though, that with the Mac you also get iPhoto, iTunes,
> iMovie, etc.  :-)

and OS X! 


6 GMail Invites available
Email me OFF-list only...
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] Re: New Mac Mini

[Jon Bauerle]

Don't forget, though, that with the Mac you also get iPhoto, iTunes, 
iMovie, etc.  :-)

On Jan 21, 2005, at 3:06 PM, John Thomas wrote:
No, you are correct.  The Shuttle system is barebone.  But the CPU, 40
GB drive and memory would be pretty comparable to the Mac Mini in
price.  Plus you would also have to add a DVI compatible video card in
the one PCI slot available.  So maybe the two systems are more
comparable in price.
___

___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] Re: New Mac Mini

[John Thomas]

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 14:08:46 -0500, David Levine
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 12:16:14 -0600, John Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > When I first read about the Mac mini, I was not convinced that it was
> > something that I could use to benefit my MythTV system at home.  I've
> > read the thread and it has been discussed that the Mini is not the
> > most powerful system out there.  True, it is a sexy looking device,
> > but I can't find the justification for paying that much money for
> > something that looks cool and will have limited functionality for my
> > purposes.
> >
> > I can see where a Mini-ITX Shuttle 64-bit system can blow this this
> > thing out of the water when it comes to purely hardware specs.  Plus
> > it's less than half the price.  Here's an example:
> > http://techbargains.pricegrabber.com/search_techspecs_full.php/masterid=3758934#description
> >
> > So if we are stricly talking about MythTV frontends, then maybe the
> > Mac Mini is not the way to go.  Maybe people are justifying the +$500
> > pricetag purely for the ability to have a system that integrates
> > MythTV and the MacOS (including the cool software).  Is that the
> > consensus here?
> >
> > I need some convincing. :-)
> 
> Well, I can't speak for the Mac Mini's suitability as a Myth frontend,
> but I do want to ask if the comparison with the Shuttle you pointed
> out is completely fair?  If I'm correct, that system doesn't come with
> a CPU, memory, harddrive, or DVI connector.  Also, I don't know enough
> to compare the video chipset with the Mac's ATI Radeon 9200.  Now, you
> might be able to add these features for less than $300, but I suspect
> not.  Of course, the Shuttle DOES have more exansion/upgrade options
> than the Mini.
> 
> And if I misread that page and the Shuttle DOES come with all of that
> for the $199 pricetag, I'd buy several tomorrow, so let me know! :)
> 
> 
> ___
> mythtv-users mailing list
> mythtv-users@mythtv.org
> http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
> 
> 
> 

No, you are correct.  The Shuttle system is barebone.  But the CPU, 40
GB drive and memory would be pretty comparable to the Mac Mini in
price.  Plus you would also have to add a DVI compatible video card in
the one PCI slot available.  So maybe the two systems are more
comparable in price.
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] Re: New Mac Mini

[Ian]

When I first read about the Mac mini, I was not convinced that it was
something that I could use to benefit my MythTV system at home.  I've
read the thread and it has been discussed that the Mini is not the
most powerful system out there.  True, it is a sexy looking device,
but I can't find the justification for paying that much money for
something that looks cool and will have limited functionality for my
purposes.
I can see where a Mini-ITX Shuttle 64-bit system can blow this this
thing out of the water when it comes to purely hardware specs.  Plus
it's less than half the price.  Here's an example:
http://techbargains.pricegrabber.com/search_techspecs_full.php/masterid=3758934#description
So if we are stricly talking about MythTV frontends, then maybe the
Mac Mini is not the way to go.  Maybe people are justifying the +$500
pricetag purely for the ability to have a system that integrates
MythTV and the MacOS (including the cool software).  Is that the
consensus here?
I need some convincing. :-)
 

That Shuttle system is sweet, but you're conveniently forgetting that it 
doesn't come with a CPU or ram.  Add those to your pricetag and see what 
you come up with.  :)

Then compare what power you need and how it will look and whether or not 
you want a little OSX box and then come your own conclusion.  Plus the 
ATI video on the macmini is better.  I'm not a macfanatic, just being 
realistic here.

___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] Re: New Mac Mini

[David Levine]

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 12:16:14 -0600, John Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> When I first read about the Mac mini, I was not convinced that it was
> something that I could use to benefit my MythTV system at home.  I've
> read the thread and it has been discussed that the Mini is not the
> most powerful system out there.  True, it is a sexy looking device,
> but I can't find the justification for paying that much money for
> something that looks cool and will have limited functionality for my
> purposes.
> 
> I can see where a Mini-ITX Shuttle 64-bit system can blow this this
> thing out of the water when it comes to purely hardware specs.  Plus
> it's less than half the price.  Here's an example:
> http://techbargains.pricegrabber.com/search_techspecs_full.php/masterid=3758934#description
> 
> So if we are stricly talking about MythTV frontends, then maybe the
> Mac Mini is not the way to go.  Maybe people are justifying the +$500
> pricetag purely for the ability to have a system that integrates
> MythTV and the MacOS (including the cool software).  Is that the
> consensus here?
> 
> I need some convincing. :-)

Well, I can't speak for the Mac Mini's suitability as a Myth frontend,
but I do want to ask if the comparison with the Shuttle you pointed
out is completely fair?  If I'm correct, that system doesn't come with
a CPU, memory, harddrive, or DVI connector.  Also, I don't know enough
to compare the video chipset with the Mac's ATI Radeon 9200.  Now, you
might be able to add these features for less than $300, but I suspect
not.  Of course, the Shuttle DOES have more exansion/upgrade options
than the Mini.

And if I misread that page and the Shuttle DOES come with all of that
for the $199 pricetag, I'd buy several tomorrow, so let me know! :)
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] Re: New Mac Mini

[Craig Partin]

I think the mini would make a nice kitchen machine.  Hook it up to an
LCD monitor and install myth.  It could be a frontend for media use,
so you could play along with cooking shows etc., but also be a regular
desktop as well.  I think the $500 would only be justified if it was a
dual use machine.  It is too much money to be just a frontend.


On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 12:16:14 -0600, John Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 14:55:03 +1100, Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 06:42:04PM -0500, Magnus Meinfretr wrote:
> > > On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 16:28:30 -0500, Mike Frisch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > At 1.25GHz or 1.42GHz, my guess is that it does *not* have enough
> > > > horsepower to decode HDTV.
> > >
> > > What you forget is this is a 1.25GHz PowerPC G4.  This is not a
> > > Pentium 4 or an Athlon.  Don't fall into the mental trap of thinking
> > > the GHz ratings even compare.
> >
> > But don't believe your Mac-loving friends that an X GHz PPC is better
> > than a 2X or 3X GHz P4. It isn't true, or at least depends on your
> > application.
> >
> > I did some benchmarking for a particular application earlier this year
> > and found that a G3-class PPC (specifically an IBM 750FX, as used in
> > some of the iBooks) was roughly equal to a Pentium III for a given
> > MHz, or possibly slightly SLOWER. That was for integer networking work,
> > which is clearly different to video processing.
> >
> > > This is probably (conservatively) at least as fast as a 2GHz Pentium 4
> > > for all intents and purposes.  Any code that makes good use of the
> > > Altivec instructions could very well be beyond current x86 performance
> > > potential.
> >
> > But is Altivec better than MMX + SSE + SSE2 + 3DNow?
> >
> > Hamish
> > --
> > Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > 
> > ___
> > mythtv-users mailing list
> > mythtv-users@mythtv.org
> > http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
> >
> >
> >
> 
> When I first read about the Mac mini, I was not convinced that it was
> something that I could use to benefit my MythTV system at home.  I've
> read the thread and it has been discussed that the Mini is not the
> most powerful system out there.  True, it is a sexy looking device,
> but I can't find the justification for paying that much money for
> something that looks cool and will have limited functionality for my
> purposes.
> 
> I can see where a Mini-ITX Shuttle 64-bit system can blow this this
> thing out of the water when it comes to purely hardware specs.  Plus
> it's less than half the price.  Here's an example:
> http://techbargains.pricegrabber.com/search_techspecs_full.php/masterid=3758934#description
> 
> So if we are stricly talking about MythTV frontends, then maybe the
> Mac Mini is not the way to go.  Maybe people are justifying the +$500
> pricetag purely for the ability to have a system that integrates
> MythTV and the MacOS (including the cool software).  Is that the
> consensus here?
> 
> I need some convincing. :-)
> 
> 
> ___
> mythtv-users mailing list
> mythtv-users@mythtv.org
> http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
> 
> 
>
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] Re: New Mac Mini

[John Thomas]

On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 14:55:03 +1100, Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 06:42:04PM -0500, Magnus Meinfretr wrote:
> > On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 16:28:30 -0500, Mike Frisch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > At 1.25GHz or 1.42GHz, my guess is that it does *not* have enough
> > > horsepower to decode HDTV.
> >
> > What you forget is this is a 1.25GHz PowerPC G4.  This is not a
> > Pentium 4 or an Athlon.  Don't fall into the mental trap of thinking
> > the GHz ratings even compare.
> 
> But don't believe your Mac-loving friends that an X GHz PPC is better
> than a 2X or 3X GHz P4. It isn't true, or at least depends on your
> application.
> 
> I did some benchmarking for a particular application earlier this year
> and found that a G3-class PPC (specifically an IBM 750FX, as used in
> some of the iBooks) was roughly equal to a Pentium III for a given
> MHz, or possibly slightly SLOWER. That was for integer networking work,
> which is clearly different to video processing.
> 
> > This is probably (conservatively) at least as fast as a 2GHz Pentium 4
> > for all intents and purposes.  Any code that makes good use of the
> > Altivec instructions could very well be beyond current x86 performance
> > potential.
> 
> But is Altivec better than MMX + SSE + SSE2 + 3DNow?
> 
> Hamish
> --
> Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> 
> ___
> mythtv-users mailing list
> mythtv-users@mythtv.org
> http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
> 
> 
> 

When I first read about the Mac mini, I was not convinced that it was
something that I could use to benefit my MythTV system at home.  I've
read the thread and it has been discussed that the Mini is not the
most powerful system out there.  True, it is a sexy looking device,
but I can't find the justification for paying that much money for
something that looks cool and will have limited functionality for my
purposes.

I can see where a Mini-ITX Shuttle 64-bit system can blow this this
thing out of the water when it comes to purely hardware specs.  Plus
it's less than half the price.  Here's an example:
http://techbargains.pricegrabber.com/search_techspecs_full.php/masterid=3758934#description

So if we are stricly talking about MythTV frontends, then maybe the
Mac Mini is not the way to go.  Maybe people are justifying the +$500
pricetag purely for the ability to have a system that integrates
MythTV and the MacOS (including the cool software).  Is that the
consensus here?

I need some convincing. :-)
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] Re: New Mac Mini

[Hamish Moffatt]

On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 06:42:04PM -0500, Magnus Meinfretr wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 16:28:30 -0500, Mike Frisch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > At 1.25GHz or 1.42GHz, my guess is that it does *not* have enough
> > horsepower to decode HDTV.
> 
> What you forget is this is a 1.25GHz PowerPC G4.  This is not a
> Pentium 4 or an Athlon.  Don't fall into the mental trap of thinking
> the GHz ratings even compare.

But don't believe your Mac-loving friends that an X GHz PPC is better
than a 2X or 3X GHz P4. It isn't true, or at least depends on your 
application.

I did some benchmarking for a particular application earlier this year
and found that a G3-class PPC (specifically an IBM 750FX, as used in
some of the iBooks) was roughly equal to a Pentium III for a given
MHz, or possibly slightly SLOWER. That was for integer networking work, 
which is clearly different to video processing.

> This is probably (conservatively) at least as fast as a 2GHz Pentium 4
> for all intents and purposes.  Any code that makes good use of the
> Altivec instructions could very well be beyond current x86 performance
> potential.

But is Altivec better than MMX + SSE + SSE2 + 3DNow?


Hamish
-- 
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] Re: New Mac Mini

[Jack Trout]

I havent done any Break downs lately as I dont work with macs much
anymore. but I used to run a video editing lab for a school and as far
as video compression wise g4's outstripped p4's in most ways as
processor speed isnt the only factor in a risc enviroment, but its
quite easy to show that megahertz to megahertz in PC Vs Mac is not a
true sign power as a 400mhz g4 was still at least twice as fast as a
600mhz g3 in video compression



On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 15:22:59 -0600, Steve Frank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Frisch
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 10:23 AM
> > To: Discussion about mythtv
> > Subject: [mythtv-users] Re: New Mac Mini
> >
> >
> > On 11-Jan-05, at 5:37 PM, Marc Nicholas wrote:
> >
> > > I wouldn't jump to that conclusion until you've seen the
> > output. Just
> > > because there's an ATI 9200 chipset on the board, doesn't mean that
> > > the analog stage is the same as that from XYZ PC video card vendor.
> > > And that's one thing that often makes or breaks analog TV.
> > >
> >
> > I will make that conclusion based on the fact that I have yet
> > to see a decent S-Video or composite video output in the
> > number of years they've been available.  I still think a scan
> > converter is a better solution.
> >
> > > Now finding one in a store before the end of this month is
> > going to be
> > > tough to prove that ;-)
> >
> > Better order now!
> >
> >
> 
> I will reintroduce a question I've had, what about using Firewire for
> video out on Myth? My HDTV set has firewire In, and the Mini has this
> nice firewire port.
> 
> 
> ___
> mythtv-users mailing list
> mythtv-users@mythtv.org
> http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
> 
> 
>
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

RE: [mythtv-users] Re: New Mac Mini

[Steve Frank]

 

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Frisch
> Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 10:23 AM
> To: Discussion about mythtv
> Subject: [mythtv-users] Re: New Mac Mini
> 
> 
> On 11-Jan-05, at 5:37 PM, Marc Nicholas wrote:
> 
> > I wouldn't jump to that conclusion until you've seen the 
> output. Just 
> > because there's an ATI 9200 chipset on the board, doesn't mean that 
> > the analog stage is the same as that from XYZ PC video card vendor. 
> > And that's one thing that often makes or breaks analog TV.
> >
> 
> I will make that conclusion based on the fact that I have yet 
> to see a decent S-Video or composite video output in the 
> number of years they've been available.  I still think a scan 
> converter is a better solution.
> 
> > Now finding one in a store before the end of this month is 
> going to be 
> > tough to prove that ;-)
> 
> Better order now!
> 
> 

I will reintroduce a question I've had, what about using Firewire for
video out on Myth? My HDTV set has firewire In, and the Mini has this
nice firewire port.
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] Re: New Mac Mini

[James Armstrong]

George Styles wrote:
It would still make a great frontend.
On Jan 11, 2005, at 10:59 PM, Robert La Ferla wrote:
I was just looking at the specs again.  Correct me if I'm wrong but I
don't think the Mac Mini has any PCI slots.  So where would you put
the TV tuner card?  Is there a USB/Firewire tuner?  Still a great
computer but I don't think it can be a HTPC quite yet.

Doesn't need any PCI slots. This thread is mainly about it being a 
Frontend for playback only.

___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] Re: New Mac Mini

[Mike Frisch]

On 12-Jan-05, at 10:33 AM, Justin Kim wrote:
At 6:42 PM -0500 1/11/05, Magnus Meinfretr wrote:
What you forget is this is a 1.25GHz PowerPC G4.  This is not a
Pentium 4 or an Athlon.  Don't fall into the mental trap of thinking
the GHz ratings even compare.
This is probably (conservatively) at least as fast as a 2GHz Pentium 4
for all intents and purposes.  Any code that makes good use of the
Altivec instructions could very well be beyond current x86 performance
potential.
   I don't know about that.  It's not just the processor.  The mini
has a rather slow 167MHz bus, so I'd guess most 2GHz P4 desktop
systems would be considerably faster in most tasks.  The mini is
probably more than sufficient for email, web, and Sims/Quake 3 level
games, but I wouldn't buy it to do anything processor-intensive.
As a Mac user, I would agree the 2GHz is *much* faster for most tasks.  
Don't get me wrong, I am sure the Mini Mac would make a great standard 
defintion MythTV frontend and probably do other HTPC related tasks, but 
a powerhouse, it is not.

Mike.
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] Re: New Mac Mini

[George Styles]

It would still make a great frontend.
On Jan 11, 2005, at 10:59 PM, Robert La Ferla wrote:
I was just looking at the specs again.  Correct me if I'm wrong but I
don't think the Mac Mini has any PCI slots.  So where would you put
the TV tuner card?  Is there a USB/Firewire tuner?  Still a great
computer but I don't think it can be a HTPC quite yet.

There are USB DVB-T cards... not sure if Linux supports them yet, they didnt 
when I last looked ~ 6 months ago...

:)
g
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] Re: New Mac Mini

[Curtis Stanford]

It would still make a great frontend.
On Jan 11, 2005, at 10:59 PM, Robert La Ferla wrote:
I was just looking at the specs again.  Correct me if I'm wrong but I 
don't think the Mac Mini has any PCI slots.  So where would you put 
the TV tuner card?  Is there a USB/Firewire tuner?  Still a great 
computer but I don't think it can be a HTPC quite yet.

___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] Re: New Mac Mini

[Justin Kim]

At 6:42 PM -0500 1/11/05, Magnus Meinfretr wrote:

>What you forget is this is a 1.25GHz PowerPC G4.  This is not a
>Pentium 4 or an Athlon.  Don't fall into the mental trap of thinking
>the GHz ratings even compare.
>
>This is probably (conservatively) at least as fast as a 2GHz Pentium 4
>for all intents and purposes.  Any code that makes good use of the
>Altivec instructions could very well be beyond current x86 performance
>potential.

   I don't know about that.  It's not just the processor.  The mini
has a rather slow 167MHz bus, so I'd guess most 2GHz P4 desktop
systems would be considerably faster in most tasks.  The mini is
probably more than sufficient for email, web, and Sims/Quake 3 level
games, but I wouldn't buy it to do anything processor-intensive.

   Also, I think you may be overestimating AltiVec to some extent. 
It's very good at the tasks it's designed to do, but doesn't instantly
make your machine a supercomputer.  I remember when the G4 came out. 
Folks were talking about how AltiVec would make 3D accelerators
obsolete -- we all know how that worked out.

Justin
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] Re: New Mac Mini

[Peter Dash]

> 
> The DVI port should, just as with other Apple products, connect
> directly to the DVI port on most modern HDTV monitors.  And OS X
> should properly detect the monitor and offer all of the available
> resolutions.  I've not yet run Linux on a new world Mac so I don't
> know how well this would work under Linux.
> 

I was using mythtv with gentoo PPC on an ibook G4 before the OS X
frontend was properly stable (which it is now and working very nicely
thank you). Linux on new world macs works fine - the only problems I
ever had were to do with laptop specific stuff like properly sleeping
when closing the ibook or whatever.

The performance is pretty much the same under both with the latest OS
X frontend as well.
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] Re: New Mac Mini

[Marc Nicholas]

It's physically too small for full PCI slots. There are a lot of USB tuners,
and at least one Firewire unit. And then you also have direct digital
connectivity from Firewire STBs etc.


-marc


On 1/12/05 12:59 AM, "Robert La Ferla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I was just looking at the specs again.  Correct me if I'm wrong but I
> don't think the Mac Mini has any PCI slots.  So where would you put the
> TV tuner card?  Is there a USB/Firewire tuner?  Still a great computer
> but I don't think it can be a HTPC quite yet.
> 
> 
> ___
> mythtv-users mailing list
> mythtv-users@mythtv.org
> http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
> 


___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] Re: New Mac Mini

[David Whyte]

I think the whole buzz is because it would make a great frontend only
machine.  It is a beautiful size.  And if it was a little cheaper, I
would take the plunge.  It seems such a waste though; buying such a
*powerful* (not talking solely processing terms here) machine and
using it purely for myth!


On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 00:59:04 -0500, Robert La Ferla
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was just looking at the specs again.  Correct me if I'm wrong but I
> don't think the Mac Mini has any PCI slots.  So where would you put the
> TV tuner card?  Is there a USB/Firewire tuner?  Still a great computer
> but I don't think it can be a HTPC quite yet.
> 
> 
> ___
> mythtv-users mailing list
> mythtv-users@mythtv.org
> http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
> 


-- 
GMAIL is 'da bomb babyYEAH
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] Re: New Mac Mini

[Magnus Meinfretr]

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 16:28:30 -0500, Mike Frisch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> At 1.25GHz or 1.42GHz, my guess is that it does *not* have enough
> horsepower to decode HDTV.

What you forget is this is a 1.25GHz PowerPC G4.  This is not a
Pentium 4 or an Athlon.  Don't fall into the mental trap of thinking
the GHz ratings even compare.

This is probably (conservatively) at least as fast as a 2GHz Pentium 4
for all intents and purposes.  Any code that makes good use of the
Altivec instructions could very well be beyond current x86 performance
potential.

The DVI port should, just as with other Apple products, connect
directly to the DVI port on most modern HDTV monitors.  And OS X
should properly detect the monitor and offer all of the available
resolutions.  I've not yet run Linux on a new world Mac so I don't
know how well this would work under Linux.

I'm very interested in this box and I'll probably get it regardless of
whether or not I can run Myth on it.
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] Re: New Mac Mini

[Marc Nicholas]

On 1/11/05 4:28 PM, "Mike Frisch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>> If it has the horsepower to decode HDTV, this could be a very
>> interesting little box indeed.
> 
> At 1.25GHz or 1.42GHz, my guess is that it does *not* have enough
> horsepower to decode HDTV.

Apple are claiming that a 1GHz+/1Gbyte RAM/AGP video G4 will playback HDTV
until Final Cut Express HD. Obviously that's 'native' code, but it gives us
something to aim at with Myth frontend.

--marc


___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] Re: New Mac Mini

[Marc Nicholas]

On 1/11/05 3:29 PM, "Mike Frisch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 02:20:26PM -0600, Adam Bodnar wrote:
>> You actually will be able to hook it into a TV.
>> 
>> Apple DVI to Video Adapter
>> 
>> Plug Mac mini into the S-video or composite video port of your TV or
>> stereo receiver to view your slideshows and movies anywhere in the
>> house.
>> 
>> http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore?productLearnMore=
>> M9267G/A
> 
> This will just give terrible S-Video out the same way Nvidia and ATI do
> now (not sure which video is on the Mac Mini).

I wouldn't jump to that conclusion until you've seen the output. Just
because there's an ATI 9200 chipset on the board, doesn't mean that the
analog stage is the same as that from XYZ PC video card vendor. And that's
one thing that often makes or breaks analog TV.

Now finding one in a store before the end of this month is going to be tough
to prove that ;-)

-marc


___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] Re: New Mac Mini

[Phil Bridges]

> On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 02:20:26PM -0600, Adam Bodnar wrote:
>> You actually will be able to hook it into a TV.
>>
>> Apple DVI to Video Adapter
>>
>> Plug Mac mini into the S-video or composite video port of your TV or
>> stereo receiver to view your slideshows and movies anywhere in the
>> house.
>>
>> http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore?productLearnMore=M9267G/A
>
> This will just give terrible S-Video out the same way Nvidia and ATI do
> now (not sure which video is on the Mac Mini).
>



ATI Radeon 9200 graphics chip with 32MB dedicated DDR SDRAM
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] Re: New Mac Mini

[Adam Bodnar]

It has a ATI 9200 Radeon with 32mb of ram which is really what I think
may not allow it to work well for MythTV.

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 15:29:52 -0500, Mike Frisch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 02:20:26PM -0600, Adam Bodnar wrote:
> > You actually will be able to hook it into a TV.
> >
> > Apple DVI to Video Adapter
> >
> > Plug Mac mini into the S-video or composite video port of your TV or
> > stereo receiver to view your slideshows and movies anywhere in the
> > house.
> >
> > http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore?productLearnMore=M9267G/A
> 
> This will just give terrible S-Video out the same way Nvidia and ATI do
> now (not sure which video is on the Mac Mini).
> 
> I am thinking about a Mac Mini and scan converter instead.  Anybody
> recommend one that has better performance than typical video out?
> 
> 
> ___
> mythtv-users mailing list
> mythtv-users@mythtv.org
> http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
> 
> 
>
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users