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
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 wi
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
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
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 c
> > 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
___
m
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 w
>
> 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 mail
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
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 binar
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
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 pic
--- 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
v
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
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,
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
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...
___
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 al
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.
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 ju
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 p
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.
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 enoug
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
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 megahe
> -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 would
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 tune
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 leas
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
comp
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
c
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
>
> 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
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 agai
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 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 t
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+/1Gby
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
> 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
>> hous
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
39 matches
Mail list logo
