I spent 2 months on a base M2 Mac Mini

[AlmightyKang]

The project is over.

About 2 months ago now, a friend of mine sold me a base 8/256 Mac Mini M2 for a stupid low price which I couldn't turn down. It was his first ARM Mac after his old 16" Intel lap burner gave up. He bought an M3 iMac to replace the mini with so wanted to dump it off. I wasn't going to say no because I can sell it for more than I paid for it anyway 🤣

So my daily driver machine before that was a 2021 14" MBP with M1Pro + 16Gb RAM and 512Gb disk. This has been an absolutely amazing machine but I thought I'd see if I can get away with using a base thing should the day come I can't afford to keep spending loads of money on Apple crap. I've already got a Studio Display, magic keyboard and logitech MX Master so I just hooked them up to the M2 and used it.

Anyway findings so far. My use cases are fairly wide. I use the usual Apple apps (Mail, messages, safari, maps, photos, calendar, contacts, numbers, reminders, notes, apple music, weather, chess etc) for most things. On top of that I have some more specialist workloads. I wanted rid of Adobe from my existence from the photography side of things so I actually moved my stuff out of Lightroom and into Apple Photos and Pixelmator. This is perfectly adequate for my light editing needs from my phone and mirrorless camera. On top I do mathematical typesetting with LaTeX via TeXshop, fairly heavy stuff in R with RStudio, Maxima CAS, various bits of work on AWS from the Terminal and RDP into a windows box occasionally. The datasets I'm working with in R are around 1Gb a piece and it had no problem with that. I may transcode a video or two for my iPad so I can watch stuff somewhere else as well on top of this.

Conclusions:

• At a high level I can't actually tell the difference between the machines. They feel completely identical.
• There's probably a 5-10% gain in Handbrake if I use the VideoToolbox H.265 codec compared to the M1 Pro.
• I didn't really see or notice any memory pressure issues. Had a couple of yellow graphs but quite frankly I'm paying for the RAM so using it is a win actually using it.
• The storage bandwidth is a lot less but I honestly couldn't tell.
• Connecting bluetooth devices to it initially is a pain in the ass and I had to shove a PC keyboard and mouse into it.
• It was utterly boringly reliable and I had no issues at all.
• Good enough is good enough!

Alas I need to go back to the MBP now as the primary machine as I need to actually do some stuff while travelling but that is the only reason. I don't think that the memory paranoia resulting in moving to 16Gb is valid for most users. I mean I'd like 16Gb as a baseline but meh, it's fine.

Well that was boring. Sorry if you read to here and are asleep.

 

[jazzer15]

This is actually a really helpful post. I am currently on a 2020 intel mac i7 with a 1GB disk and added Ram for a total of 24GB. I find my uses these days to be reasonably pedestrian except for some basic video editing, some photo editing (less these days) and audio recording editing. I am not a power user of any of these things.

Anyway, I have been looking at a Mac mini and was afraid it might not be up to the task. I was actually looking at the M2 Pro, and based on your experience, I have to believe it would be more than sufficient.

Also, I have a relative who just uses the very basics (mail, MS office, Zoom, etc.) and I wasn't sure if a base mini would be sufficient for her over the long term. This seems to suggest it should be fine.

 

[jz0309]

The project is over.

About 2 months ago now, a friend of mine sold me a base 8/256 Mac Mini M2 for a stupid low price which I couldn't turn down. It was his first ARM Mac after his old 16" Intel lap burner gave up. He bought an M3 iMac to replace the mini with so wanted to dump it off. I wasn't going to say no because I can sell it for more than I paid for it anyway 🤣

So my daily driver machine before that was a 2021 14" MBP with M1Pro + 16Gb RAM and 512Gb disk. This has been an absolutely amazing machine but I thought I'd see if I can get away with using a base thing should the day come I can't afford to keep spending loads of money on Apple crap. I've already got a Studio Display, magic keyboard and logitech MX Master so I just hooked them up to the M2 and used it.

Anyway findings so far. My use cases are fairly wide. I use the usual Apple apps (Mail, messages, safari, maps, photos, calendar, contacts, numbers, reminders, notes, apple music, weather, chess etc) for most things. On top of that I have some more specialist workloads. I wanted rid of Adobe from my existence from the photography side of things so I actually moved my stuff out of Lightroom and into Apple Photos and Pixelmator. This is perfectly adequate for my light editing needs from my phone and mirrorless camera. On top I do mathematical typesetting with LaTeX via TeXshop, fairly heavy stuff in R with RStudio, Maxima CAS, various bits of work on AWS from the Terminal and RDP into a windows box occasionally. The datasets I'm working with in R are around 1Gb a piece and it had no problem with that. I may transcode a video or two for my iPad so I can watch stuff somewhere else as well on top of this.

Conclusions:

• At a high level I can't actually tell the difference between the machines. They feel completely identical.
• There's probably a 5-10% gain in Handbrake if I use the VideoToolbox H.265 codec compared to the M1 Pro.
• I didn't really see or notice any memory pressure issues. Had a couple of yellow graphs but quite frankly I'm paying for the RAM so using it is a win actually using it.
• The storage bandwidth is a lot less but I honestly couldn't tell.
• Connecting bluetooth devices to it initially is a pain in the ass and I had to shove a PC keyboard and mouse into it.
• It was utterly boringly reliable and I had no issues at all.
• Good enough is good enough!

Alas I need to go back to the MBP now as the primary machine as I need to actually do some stuff while travelling but that is the only reason. I don't think that the memory paranoia resulting in moving to 16Gb is valid for most users. I mean I'd like 16Gb as a baseline but meh, it's fine.

Well that was boring. Sorry if you read to here and are asleep.

Thanks for posting, very useful, but you will get a lot of hate responses ... so be prepared

 

[ric22]

Thanks for posting, very useful, but you will get a lot of hate responses ... so be prepared

Why would he get any hate for his post?

 

[AlmightyKang]

Why would he get any hate for his post?

I've been on the Internet since about 1990.

Once I wrote a post on Usenet thanking someone for something. This spawned a 80 message long flamewar about wasting usenet resources on thanking people, which was ironic.

Some people are just, well, people.

 

[StralyanPithecus]

Still running in a Mac mini M1 8GB Ram, no problems at all running all my software, Windows 11 in the other hand, 8GB Ram on my Surface Pro 7 Plus and this thing is struggling with life. 16 GB Ram is the minimum for windows 11 these days, maybe Microsoft needs to start forcing PC makers to create a "special" chip for all their spying on users, so it doesn't eat all the PC resources? 😋

 

[jz0309]

Why would he get any hate for his post?

Because according to a lot of MR users no one nowadays can do any meaningful things on a Mac with minimal (8/256) configuration …

 

[AlmightyKang]

Because according to a lot of MR users no one nowadays can do any meaningful things on a Mac with minimal (8/256) configuration …

I think they just overspent and are trying to justify it 😂

 

[eicca]

If I didn’t run Logic projects I would already have an 8/256 model. Unless you know for a fact that you need more RAM, the 8/256 is factually sufficient.

I used an INTEL 8/256 MBA for work for years and even that was just fine.

 

[Howard2k]

8/256 is obviously fine for the vast majority because it’s Apple’s default. The flawed logic otherwise is crazy.

 

[ThailandToo]

Because according to a lot of MR users no one nowadays can do any meaningful things on a Mac with minimal (8/256) configuration …

I don’t think that’s true at all. The point from me is usually look at what causes bottlenecks in Apple products like past iPhones, iPads and Macs. Some devices had too little drive space for the end user before the machine’s useful life gave out.

With a Mac, can easily throw on a 4TB external SSD but it’s less convenient on the MacBooks and useless for iPhone and iPad. But look at the RAM situation on so many past Apple products- the RAM is the bottleneck and gives out or Apple quits supporting that device due to the lack of RAM.

There are real world usage tests online where one can see using just ten browser tabs can slow a Mac down with only 8GB of RAM. Most of those show that 16GB runs great with much more resources. So the point is that to ensure one’s Mac lasts as long as it should and that RAM isn’t the constraint that makes it useless before any other constraint the buyer should always upgrade to 16GB or more RAM.

Apple is counting on people who spend a ton of money to max out their Macs which will literally run anything currently out in terms of software for the next ten years or more. But Apple will probably cut minimum RAM to 16GB for a lot of Macs to get OS upgrades in the future. This is be like with the iPhone and iPad, the RAM will not be enough for the real world usage.

If one wants to buy a new Mac every year, and they do nothing but basic word processor and Internet browsing, they’re going to be great. But if one wants to buy a MacBook that will not see a constraint for many years to come, or they need to do intensive work on their Mac, they need more than 8GB now and way more in the future.

I think this is AAPL’s business model. For all those who don’t spend the money and think they need a new Mac every few years, AAPL will sell 8GB base spec Macs. It has to be the only way Apple can survive selling Macs. Otherwise, there would be literally no constraint on the current M-series silicon Macs. The exception on currently sold Macs are the SSD and RAM which are user upgradable at time of purchase.

It’s not elegant to Velcro an SSD to the top of a MacBook but like I said it solves the storage bit. But that RAM just limits the Mac forever. The M1 to M3 even in base configurations seems to run anything albeit just slower than Max variants.

8GB of RAM will be the vast majority of Macs bottleneck at some point of the useful life of the Mac. For some it will be the SSD. And for very few it will be the SoC. AAPL sells more 8GB RAM Macs than any other knowing full well that in time that Mac will be dumped into a landfill while the user is required to buy a new Mac due to it not having been sold with sufficient RAM to last a reasonably long time for such technology.

So why not put 1TB of SSD and 16GB of RAM in every Mac and have people pay to unlock it at some point. The cost for Apple to go from 512GB of SSD to 1TB is around $4.20. The cost to bump the RAM from 8GB to 16GB is around $1.27. For the people who refuse to pay more for extra RAM or storage, Apple wanting to be an amazing steward for the environment could unlock the extra for a $200 fee in the future. Let’s say one has to wait three years minimum to unlock more RAM and SSD space, that means Apple gets an extra $200 for RAM a few years later so a MacBook doesn’t end up in the landfill. Would AAPL do that? Or does Tim want to ensure selling another Mac!!!

 

[jazzer15]

If I didn’t run Logic projects I would already have an 8/256 model. Unless you know for a fact that you need more RAM, the 8/256 is factually sufficient.

I used an INTEL 8/256 MBA for work for years and even that was just fine.

What are you using? I also run Logic projects, but they are generally smaller projects with only a small number of tracks.

 

[Zdigital2015]

Because according to a lot of MR users no one nowadays can do any meaningful things on a Mac with minimal (8/256) configuration …

There is a small, but very vocal contingent of commenters here on MacRumors that are on a very zealous campaign (I'm being kind) who are so upset that Apple is not bowing to their demands (minimum 16GB/512Gb) that they end up infiltrating almost every RAM related thread and take over said thread to convert the unwashed who don't have the same view point. They'll be here shortly, I'm sure, to hold us all hostage.

 

[Zdigital2015]

The project is over.

About 2 months ago now, a friend of mine sold me a base 8/256 Mac Mini M2 for a stupid low price which I couldn't turn down. It was his first ARM Mac after his old 16" Intel lap burner gave up. He bought an M3 iMac to replace the mini with so wanted to dump it off. I wasn't going to say no because I can sell it for more than I paid for it anyway 🤣

So my daily driver machine before that was a 2021 14" MBP with M1Pro + 16Gb RAM and 512Gb disk. This has been an absolutely amazing machine but I thought I'd see if I can get away with using a base thing should the day come I can't afford to keep spending loads of money on Apple crap. I've already got a Studio Display, magic keyboard and logitech MX Master so I just hooked them up to the M2 and used it.

Anyway findings so far. My use cases are fairly wide. I use the usual Apple apps (Mail, messages, safari, maps, photos, calendar, contacts, numbers, reminders, notes, apple music, weather, chess etc) for most things. On top of that I have some more specialist workloads. I wanted rid of Adobe from my existence from the photography side of things so I actually moved my stuff out of Lightroom and into Apple Photos and Pixelmator. This is perfectly adequate for my light editing needs from my phone and mirrorless camera. On top I do mathematical typesetting with LaTeX via TeXshop, fairly heavy stuff in R with RStudio, Maxima CAS, various bits of work on AWS from the Terminal and RDP into a windows box occasionally. The datasets I'm working with in R are around 1Gb a piece and it had no problem with that. I may transcode a video or two for my iPad so I can watch stuff somewhere else as well on top of this.

Conclusions:

• At a high level I can't actually tell the difference between the machines. They feel completely identical.
• There's probably a 5-10% gain in Handbrake if I use the VideoToolbox H.265 codec compared to the M1 Pro.
• I didn't really see or notice any memory pressure issues. Had a couple of yellow graphs but quite frankly I'm paying for the RAM so using it is a win actually using it.
• The storage bandwidth is a lot less but I honestly couldn't tell.
• Connecting bluetooth devices to it initially is a pain in the ass and I had to shove a PC keyboard and mouse into it.
• It was utterly boringly reliable and I had no issues at all.
• Good enough is good enough!

Alas I need to go back to the MBP now as the primary machine as I need to actually do some stuff while travelling but that is the only reason. I don't think that the memory paranoia resulting in moving to 16Gb is valid for most users. I mean I'd like 16Gb as a baseline but meh, it's fine.

Well that was boring. Sorry if you read to here and are asleep.

I'm doing my daily computing with an M1 13" MBP 8GB/512GB and it's been doing just fine with the mid-level workload that I throw at it. I read your post and I did not fall asleep, I think it is a good read.

 

[eicca]

What are you using? I also run Logic projects, but they are generally smaller projects with only a small number of tracks.

Currently using a 2010 Mac Pro. My projects aren’t too huge either tracks-wise, but I run some orchestral and drum kit samplers that need a little more memory headroom.

What I’ll probably do is get a 16 or 24 GB RAM M2/M3 Mac Mini with the 256GB SSD and boot/run from a Thunderbolt 4 SSD. Cuz screw you Apple. Not paying $800 for 2TB of your ripoff storage.

 

[smirking]

Some people are just, well, people.

I think that's pronounced "Internet gotta Internet."

I got stuck on a base M1 for a period of time a ways back myself and discovered that in the places where it mattered the most, the performance differential was hardly noticeable. Even when the memory pressure was red, it did a good job of prioritizing what I needed the most so my real world consequences were kept minimal.

 

[Allen_Wentz]

8/256 is obviously fine for the vast majority because it’s Apple’s default. The flawed logic otherwise is crazy.

There is nothing "obviously fine for the vast majority because it’s Apple’s default". That is nutso logic when RAM needs have always increased. Always. Whatever reasons Apple has for the RAM placed in its base machines, it is not because it is "obviously fine for the vast majority" long term. Forty years of history suggest otherwise.

LikeThailandToo said:
"If one wants to buy a new Mac every year, and they do nothing but basic word processor and Internet browsing, they’re going to be great. But if one wants to buy a MacBook that will not see a constraint for many years to come, or they need to do intensive work on their Mac, they need more than 8GB now and way more in the future."

We all know the great Mac OS will make most workflows run adequately even under 8 GB RAM. However all you folks crowing about how some workflow works today when talking about spec'ing out a new box are seldom looking at the right time frame. Any intelligent analysis looks at the life cycle of the box. Choosing intended life cycle time frame first, then analyzing is essential. What one did in 2023 is only relevant as a starting point to help forecast what may be happening in 2029 or longer for many of us.

One buys a new box to compute with. IMO one attempts to optimize the computing over a chosen life cycle when choosing a new box. RAM is an essential component of optimal computing; everyone should read up on Apple's Unified Memory Architecture prior to telling others how to configure a new box. Sure Mac OS allows sub-optimal usage, but why seek out sub-optimal operation?

Mac OS and apps always take advantage of more RAM as time goes on, always, for 40 years now. My personal experience confirms that, which is why I am generally adamant that low RAM choices are usually wrong for anything but short life cycles. In just a few years Apple went from offering a max of 16 GB RAM on laptops to offering a max of 128 GB; hmm...

 

[iHorseHead]

16 GB Ram is the minimum for windows 11 these days

My work PC has 8GB of RAM and it works just fine.

 

[smirking]

However all you folks crowing about how some workflow works today when talking about spec'ing out a new box are seldom looking at the right time frame.

I've grossly overloaded a base level M1 so excessively I should have been charged with computer abuse. It not only worked, but it had only minor effects on my workflow.

I do think it's perfectly reasonable to say that the base model will still be capable well into the foreseeable future. Ideal? Probably not, but for the needs of people who tend to buy the base model it should pass.

 

[Howard2k]

There is nothing "obviously fine for the vast majority because it’s Apple’s default". That is nutso logic when RAM needs have always increased. Always. Whatever reasons Apple has for the RAM placed in its base machines, it is not because it is "obviously fine for the vast majority" long term. Forty years of history suggest otherwise.

LikeThailandToo said:
"If one wants to buy a new Mac every year, and they do nothing but basic word processor and Internet browsing, they’re going to be great. But if one wants to buy a MacBook that will not see a constraint for many years to come, or they need to do intensive work on their Mac, they need more than 8GB now and way more in the future."

We all know the great Mac OS will make most workflows run adequately even under 8 GB RAM. However all you folks crowing about how some workflow works today when talking about spec'ing out a new box are seldom looking at the right time frame. Any intelligent analysis looks at the life cycle of the box. Choosing intended life cycle time frame first, then analyzing is essential. What one did in 2023 is only relevant as a starting point to help forecast what may be happening in 2029 or longer for many of us.

One buys a new box to compute with. IMO one attempts to optimize the computing over a chosen life cycle when choosing a new box. RAM is an essential component of optimal computing; everyone should read up on Apple's Unified Memory Architecture prior to telling others how to configure a new box. Sure Mac OS allows sub-optimal usage, but why seek out sub-optimal operation?

Mac OS and apps always take advantage of more RAM as time goes on, always, for 40 years now. My personal experience confirms that, which is why I am generally adamant that low RAM choices are usually wrong for anything but short life cycles. In just a few years Apple went from offering a max of 16 GB RAM on laptops to offering a max of 128 GB; hmm...

Yes, time time, this time the 8GB isn’t going to cut it longer term. It’s been said many times before over the years that 8GB is too little for the masses, but this generation of machines is where we’ll find out that those machines being sold today are landfill bound in the very near future.

It could turn out that way, and it certainly will eventually, but I don’t think we’re there yet.

Apple knows how its devices handle memory, it knows that the vast majority of the base have 8GB, it would be foolish for Apple to hold onto that for too long. It could happen, but the consequences would be dire and I’m sure Apple understands that. Computers are not the same today as they were 40 years ago, and with storage being so fast then paging is simply nowhere near as punishing as it used to be. That has without doubt extended the life of 8GB machines.

 

[picpicmac]

Well that was boring.

You're going to break the whining-on-the-internet industry if you keep this up!

 

[ric22]

8/256 is obviously fine for the vast majority because it’s Apple’s default. The flawed logic otherwise is crazy.

I'm not sure being default makes it automatically fine for everyone. 😅 They don't supply those $300 Chromebook RAM/storage specs because it's enough for 99%, but because it drives a LOT of upgrades, which incur a ~1,000% markup. 😕

The storage irritates me more than the RAM, personally, as it requires faffing around with multiple SSD's, with more complex backups. Even my elderly mum hits storage limits with family pics and vids.

 

[Howard2k]

I'm not sure being default makes it automatically fine for everyone. 😅 They don't supply those $300 Chromebook RAM/storage specs because it's enough for 99%, but because it drives a LOT of upgrades, which incur a ~1,000% markup. 😕

The storage irritates me more than the RAM, personally, as it requires faffing around with multiple SSD's, with more complex backups. Even my elderly mum hits storage limits with family pics and vids.

If it wasn’t the right fit for the vast majority (and not “everyone”) then they (Apple) would see it in returns and poor feedback. Surely, right? This forum would also be filled with disgruntled purchasers who cannot get their basics done in an acceptable timeframe. But it’s not.

Are we seeing that? I don’t think we are.

 

[galad]

It enough for the vast majority, but it's still a big issue for many. How is Apple going to expand for example the gaming market on Mac when they still sell 8 GB machines that can barely play current games because there isn't enough RAM?

 

[smirking]

It enough for the vast majority, but it's still a big issue for many. How is Apple going to expand for example the gaming market on Mac when they still sell 8 GB machines that can barely play current games because there isn't enough RAM?

I don't think anyone who's interested in the kind of gaming you're talking about is going to buy an 8GB anything.