[CS-FSLUG] Wow. Windows Virtualization without a Window

[Timothy Butler]

> Given how slow Mac OS X and it's sofware runs on my Mac Mini even
> after a upgrading the ram to 1GB, I'm not too inclined to run Windows
> in top in a virtual machine no matter how integrated it is. I tried
> FireFox on my mini earlier and Apple's own OS X page caused it to bog
> down to the point where it was almost freezing, and the flickering was
> horrible. Even if the machine is a Core Solo, that should still be at
> least as fast as a Pentium 4, and with 64MB of video memory and 1GB of

Not really (hence why I recommended against the Solo). Mac OS X is  
multithreaded, so it takes advantage of the Core Duo's dual cores.  
The other thing to keep in mind is that while the Core 2 series is a  
new architecture, the Core series is really just an improved Pentium  
M, so a single Core Solo at 1.8 GHz is better, but not extremely  
better, than a Pentium III @ 1.5 GHz (had such a thing existed). The  
magic of reviving the PIII's architecture comes out when you have two  
cores, and hence get speeds of quite a bit more than the average P4.   
Take a look at:

	http://www.123macmini.com/news/story/455.html

	http://www.geekpatrol.ca/2006/03/mac-mini-geekbenched/

	The base Mac mini is now a 1.66 GHz Core Duo and the upgraded one is  
a 1.83 GHz Core Duo.


	The Core 2 Duo is even more impressive. Take a look at this  
comparison of 1G and 2G MacBooks:

	http://www.geekpatrol.ca/2006/11/macbook-core-2-duo-performance/

	Now, the Solo should still be faster than a Mac mini G4, which  
wasn't exactly a speed demon, but is quite useable. Were you using a  
universal version of Firefox? Most seem to find Firefox less  
desirable than Safari even when they are both on an even playing  
field, so I'd imagine Firefox (PPC) running on a Solo would be slow.

> RAM that is just absolutely awful. I felt like I could barf up my
> heart when I found out that my 2 or 3 month old $700 CAD (+ > $200 RAM
> upgrade) Mac was running this slow on universal and intel binaries,
> all this time I thought most of them were still PPC apps and things
> would get much faster after a few free software updates.

	You might run Cinebench and compare it to the results I mentioned  
above. If it runs slower than the results that were posted, you might  
have some other type of problem.

> As far as upgrading goes, what Apple hardware do you think has a good
> price to performance ratio? I would have thought my Mini would be so,
> but for a total expense of ~$1000 on the thing by now I haven't seen
> any amazing performance come out of it.

	A Mini isn't going to be a performance monster. It is Apple's base  
model and uses notebook parts to keep it so small. However, the newer  
Mac minis should be fairly speedy. The only Mac system under a CAD 
$1000 is the Mac mini, I do believe.

	The only Intel Macs I've worked with much are the MacBook Core Duo  
2.0 GHz (not Core 2) and the iMac. Either one has very acceptable  
speeds (read: faster than my current Dell or Macs), but for the most  
part, they have the same hardware as the newer Minis.

	I'd probably go with the 1.83 GHz Core Duo Mac mini. If you can  
scrounge up the extra cash, a Core 2-based system (confusingly, the  
first Core processors to actually use the new Intel Core  
architecture), such as a MacBook or iMac, will be probably the best  
choice. Of course, I'd bet that Jobs will announce Core 2 Duo Mac  
minis at MacWorld at the beginning of January, so I'd probably adopt  
a wait-and-see approach for a little while. Of course, I'd guess  
Leopard will up the x86 performance ante somewhat too...


	-Tim


---
Timothy R. Butler | "Because philosophy arises from awe, a philosopher
tbutler at ofb.biz   | is bound in  his  way to  be a lover of myths  and
www.uninet.info   | poetic fables. Poets and philosophers are alike in
timothybutler.us  | being big with wonder."
                                                      -- Thomas Aquinas