How powerful is your computer?
This is a question I've been asking myself recently, as I'm about to buy a new machine. I'm trying to keep my options open, so am juggling between three quite different models:
Option 1.
Sony Vaio VGN-AR51J 17-inch, 2.0Ghz, 250GB HD, Blu-Ray, £799
pros: Powerful processor, Blu-Ray player, nice big screen (for a laptop), not a bad graphics chip (for a laptop), it's a laptop (so I can move it from room to room), it's a Sony.
cons: It's a laptop (I originally wanted a fixed position machine to prevent having to keep plugging and un-plugging stuff), it's a budget computer (even though it's a Sony), it has no HDMI output (a major reason for purchase was to attach to hi-def projector downstairs), it's screen is small (compared to the other options), it has Vista.
Apple iMac 20-inch 2.0Ghz, 250 GB HD, £799
pros: Mac OS X Leopard (still the best), big glass screen, more powerful due to OS and no need for Anti-Virus (why does everybody forget the system drain used by AV when comparing?)), Built-in iLife and other functions, great keyboard & mouse, remote (though quite useless for desktop environment), good permanent media hub, mid-range model, looks amazing.
cons: Relatively poor graphics chip, fewer hardware features than Sony, pricey for a desktop, no Blu-Ray, can't move from room to room, is basically a laptop when judged by its components.
And here is the interesting option (one I hadn't really considered until a few days ago).
Apple Mac Mini 2.0 Ghz, 120 GB HD, BYOKDM, £499
pros: Cheaper by £300, stylish, compact, versatile (can use it for all my requirements), powerful (for it's size), Mac OS X Leopard, iLife, Remote (suddenly useful when placed under the telly), flexibility in screen size (can be used either with 19-inch computer monitor or 46-inch 1080p telly).
cons: Poor graphics chip, is basically a laptop, no screen or control device supplied, small hard drive.
When viewed as separate entities, the fight looks to be between the Sony and the iMac, especially when allied to the rumours that the Mac Mini is due to be 'retired' by Steve Jobs and Apple. But these rumours have been flying around since just after the Apple TV was introduced, and the Mini has had two hardware revisions since then.
I can see why. The Mini was touted to be the entry-level attraction for Mr Switcher when it was introduced. It traded on the fact that most people looking for a cheap way in to the Mac fold would already have a screen, keyboard and mouse and wouldn't necessarily be looking for the most powerful machine out there. But what I don't think they counted on was how much the Mini would appeal to existing Macheads who were starved of the 'Media Centre' type computers that were being offered by the PC manufacturers. It is an eminently versatile little machine, use it as a traditional desktop, an under the telly media and recording device, a quasi-portable hot-swap client or an 'Apple TV-on-steroids'. It may be less powerful that the more expensive Macs, but take a look at all the benchmarks and it is only the gaming that suffers for this. And compared to the Sony, well if my experience of OS X vs Windows so far is anything to go by, I suspect that it will be a lot more efficient to use day-to-day than the Sony.
And what about the lack of graphical grunt? The answer is simply that I don't care. It's quite possible that any Mini that I buy would be placed next to a hulking great Xbox 360 (great machine) and an elegant little Wii (ditto). Why would I need any gaming power from the Mini? I often use Handbrake to encode my DVD's, so I suppose I'll lose some minutes there, but I've been doing that with a G4 1.5 Powerbook for so long that I reckon it'll seem like a silicon powerhouse by comparison. Also, as far as it's green credentials go, the Mini is far more energy efficient than my other two options. And another advantage is that with its small desktop form-factor, it is far more practical to retire as a mail server, a remote storage machine, or a media server (which I think are all going to prove more and more useful in the home as time passes) when it's usefulness as a main computer has diminished.
This all, in fact leads me back to the central point of this blog: how powerful is your computer? I read a great Editor's introduction to Linux Format magazine the other day that posited that an old 800 Mhz machine dumped in the loft was capable of performing 800,00 calculations per second! An immensely powerful machine by any other standards than the resource-heavy, bloatware we call an operating system today.
Processor performance increase rate is slowing down these days. We should be approaching 4.5 Ghz or so by the old formula, but the fact is that nobody except gamers and developers (and dick-measurers) really wants or needs that much power from their appliance any more. As I mentioned in a previous blog, I recently revived an old PC from its XP/Vista torpor by putting Linux on it (now using Ubuntu: not very original I know, but there it is). This extremely cheap option is now my primary computer and serves me for 80-85% of my requirements.
Should I buy a new machine at all? The only reasons I can give to justify the purchase is that I want Leopard now that a lot of the issues have been ironed out (my four-year-old PowerBook will probably struggle with some of its features), I also cannot use some of the Intel-only Mac apps. If it were not for these reasons, I suspect that I would be completely happy with what I've got already.
I hope Apple doesn't get rid of the Mini. It's ominously overdue a speed-bump and the rumours of its demise are gathering apace. The main threat to its existence, ironically, is the aforementioned Apple TV, which is a vastly stripped-down consumer version of the Mini. This product has its charms, I suppose, but doesn't appeal to me at all; not least because its main raison d'etre, the movie downloads, are not even available in the UK yet.
But that Blu-Ray player is also quite alluring.................no! No! Stop it, you Vista-toting harlot!
