I think it becomes more of a conundrum because of the soldered in and proprietary parts. Take, for example, the 2014 mini. I used to be able to buy a medium spec'd Mini and buy my own RAM and Hdd upgrades for way cheaper than it cost me to buy it from Apple. Now that Apple has soldered RAM and gone to proprietary SSD form factors, you can't really do that anymore. Apple has ensured and locked in profit margin for those who want a 16GB system with 1TB of storage, for example.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Mac Mini / Intel NUC shock
- Thread starter Padaung
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I think it becomes more of a conundrum because of the soldered in and proprietary parts. Take, for example, the 2014 mini. I used to be able to buy a medium spec'd Mini and buy my own RAM and Hdd upgrades for way cheaper than it cost me to buy it from Apple. Now that Apple has soldered RAM and gone to proprietary SSD form factors, you can't really do that anymore. Apple has ensured and locked in profit margin for those who want a 16GB system with 1TB of storage, for example.
While I agree that the soldered RAM sucks, one needs to ask themselves if they really need 16GB of RAM on a dual core processor machine. With RAM compression in OSX, I'm able to run a Windows VM and OSX just fine on my MBA and my Mid-model 2014 Mini with "only" 8GB of RAM. I have 16GB of RAM in my quad-core 2012's and rarely need it (only if I am running multiple VM's on them at a time).
My use case is four kids and two adult accounts all logged in at once. With 8GB, it was horrible. 16GB in my 2012 i7 server worked quite well.
Couple that with a SSD and hopefully it'll last for a long while to come.My 2009 Mini server, on the other hand, will probably need to be replaced in the next year or two. Even with 8GB and a SSD, it's definitely slow.
My use case is four kids and two adult accounts all logged in at once. With 8GB, it was horrible. 16GB in my 2012 i7 server worked quite well.
My 2009 Mini server, on the other hand, will probably need to be replaced in the next year or two. Even with 8GB and a SSD, it's definitely slow.
Are you going to run a server with a dual core processor with that kind of overhead? And as for as the 2009, it's a core2duo, regardless of RAM it's going to be slow by today's standards.... I have a 2009 Macbook Pro that I just gave away because it was too slow for 90% of the stuff I wanted to do it with it and it had nothing to do with the RAM (it was always green according to Activity Monitor).
Well, it's more functioning as a family computer than a server. I have a 1TB SSD and 1TB spinning drives in it, the kids take turns using it, and I've also added the USB 3 to Thunderbolt adapter to have an iTunes video library on it. About the only "server" function is it sharing the videos with the Apple TVs via a dedicated iTunes account. The increased RAM is due to the fact of there being 7 accounts potentially logged in at once. We tried it with 8GB, and was constantly paging in/out. 16GB made it much better.
That's the way to do it. I just got two 2012 i7Q (R) - Server and 2.6Ghz version for about $1200 incl Parallels 10.
For now I'm done with Apple. I might be back after they land from iCloud back to Earth...
Last edited:
Custom factory built with a warranty vs home built isn't a fair comparison for price. However, I would buy a slower Mac mini for cheaper and upgrade more often. Likely every 3 years, re-sell the old one toward a refurb with warranty will save a bit of money.
6 months later I still think I did the right choice.
Albeit the mini is essentially 3 years old it runs like a wind, and will even improve further when I some time in the future ditch the HDD's and go SSD only. An awesome little machine.
Huh, I'm surprised you didn't do it yet.. it's a day and night difference.6 months later I still think I did the right choice.
Albeit the mini is essentially 3 years old it runs like a wind, and will even improve further when I some time in the future ditch the HDD's and go SSD only. An awesome little machine.
I didn't even bother to go inside, external SSD through thunderbolt is plenty fast for me and very convenient/easy to upgrade. The only thing I wish to have is TB2 port.
Yeah, go figure!
I know, and it's for sure on my to-do list getting an external SSD for the OS and apps, while keeping the two internal hdd's for file storage.
I only have one thing to say about Apple and NUC price difference.
My 2012 Mac Mini is worth more today after 3 years of use than what I paid for it.
My 2012 Mac Mini is worth more today after 3 years of use than what I paid for it.
But this is the point, if one does need/want a maxed out machine, Apple's increasingly locked down approach is forcing people into a situation where the specs have to be bumped initially; aftermarket is often simply not possible anymore. It's annoying. Especially in desktop machines.
This was the point I was raising, I'm glad you understood. I feel that only a few people would buy a maxxed out Mini, but the point is that I would if the price wasn't so high. I have paid the Apple premium before and would again - I love OS X and I have invested in a lot of Mac only software so I wish to continue using Macs. However, with it costing close to £1000 extra to get the Mac I'd like I may as well buy the software again for Windows and I'd still save money.
Previously I've bought a mid-range Mac and upgraded the ram myself . As mentioned by others this is no longer possible by the user nor at a later date in-store, it has to be done at purchase so to spec a Mac for my future use over the next 4-5 years I would want to max the ram at purchase. The disk drive can still be updated by the user, but from the tutorials I've read it is much easier and quicker to put the parts into a NUC than it is to swap Mac Mini drives. Installing Windows (10) is now (at last!) a very simple operation. If a person has the skills to swap a Mac Mini drive, they can build a NUC.
It is possible to buy a pre-configured NUC from resellers and this pushes the price up, but it is normally a premium of £100-£150 - not the extra £930 required for a maxxed out Mac Mini.
I'm not sure where Apple is taking us with its computers. It is currently very slow at refreshing the various lines, along with questionable design decisions - one USB port on the Macbook; SD card at the rear of the Mac Mini and iMac - seriously???, bespoke graphics cards for the Mac Pro, no Retina Macbook Air. Soldered on ram I can accept (in laptops) for space saving and efficiency reasons but for goodness sake make the upgrade price sensible. Soldered ram in desktops is not required. I also think we will enter a world where we no longer expect multiple devices for a discrete job (phone, tablet, laptop, desktop), the boundaries are and will continue to merge. However, my feeling is that Apple's current strategy is to keep the boundaries very clear.
I guess Apple has hit the conundrum described in The Innovator's Dilemma (a great read btw).Computers no longer provide the growth it requires. iPhone profit will one day plateau, along with a competitor taking the wind from their sails (or sales
), hence the search for their next big thing and Apple dipping its toe into the wearables market and is rumoured to be developing a car - a market that is currently ripe for disruption (in my opinion).
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
I've debated the NUC Vs Mac Mini question too for a future Machine. I run Win 10 on my Mini in a VM and it works very well except it's a data cap sucker. It always updating and uploading in the background which I don't like.
The alternative to the Mac Mini for quad core and still user upgrade of ram is an iMac. I swore I would never go for an AIO but in order to stick with OS X and still be able to run VMs I will probably have to bite the bullet next fall and invest in an iMac with BTO SSD if they aren't standard by then.
Spending so many years running Windows at work I just can't go back to it as a full time machine anymore. Still leaves a bad taste in my mouth from ever time I wanted to take a sledge hammer to my PC.
The alternative to the Mac Mini for quad core and still user upgrade of ram is an iMac. I swore I would never go for an AIO but in order to stick with OS X and still be able to run VMs I will probably have to bite the bullet next fall and invest in an iMac with BTO SSD if they aren't standard by then.
Spending so many years running Windows at work I just can't go back to it as a full time machine anymore. Still leaves a bad taste in my mouth from ever time I wanted to take a sledge hammer to my PC.
Except that the only thing that isn't User upgradable with the 2014 compared to the 2012 is the RAM. You have never been able to upgrade the CPU (well not since the 2009's came out anyway). And as I made the point earlier in this thread, the CPU gap between the Mid-Mini and the high end i7 isn't worth upgrading. So go with a BTO of the Mid + 16GB of RAM if it really worries you. The hard drive really isn't all that much harder to upgrade with the 2014 over the 2012 (I've done them both) and if you can get the PCIE cable and one of the PCIE SSD's on Ebay, it is a simple drop in....
For those of you not concerned about have only 16gb of RAM, just wait. A new OSX is coming out and their track record post SL is not what it was pre SL.
iLife and iWork? people use that? hmm, learn something new everyday. I thought that was just bloatware. just keeding
iLife and iWork? people use that? hmm, learn something new everyday. I thought that was just bloatware. just keeding
For those of you not concerned about have only 16gb of RAM, just wait. A new OSX is coming out and their track record post SL is not what it was pre SL.
iLife and iWork? people use that? hmm, learn something new everyday. I thought that was just bloatware. just keeding
You have no idea.... Since OSX 10.9 (Mavericks), Apple has been using RAM Compression that has greatly reduced the necessity for RAM. Yes with Lion and Mt. Lion, things started to get out of hand, but with Mavericks the tide has turned and it is much better.
Edit: And I haven't seen many complaints from the El Capitan Beta testers about high RAM usage compared to Yosemite
I think ram usage is better utilized in El Capitan from what I'm seeing.
Also Windows 10 uses ram compression now and doesn't require as much to run a virtual machine.
Oh. I have a good idea. I understand RAM compression and it can still be fubared. The more headroom you give engineers, the less they care about resources until they start to run out.
I love the implementation of memory compression, but I have been in this business far too long to not have a cynical view of "future proofing".
But if you want to tell me I don't know anything, go ahead. I don't care. have a nice day.
PS, I very much like the fact that Intel seems to be pushing the NUC market. This kind of engineering research will get us to appple TV size desktops with rendering and gaming capabilities in 5 years if I were a betting man.
I love the implementation of memory compression, but I have been in this business far too long to not have a cynical view of "future proofing".
But if you want to tell me I don't know anything, go ahead. I don't care. have a nice day.
PS, I very much like the fact that Intel seems to be pushing the NUC market. This kind of engineering research will get us to appple TV size desktops with rendering and gaming capabilities in 5 years if I were a betting man.
If you have been in the business so long, then you understand that there is no such thing as future proofing.
As everyone said, for a maxed out machine the NUC is cheaper.
If you look at the Base Mac mini and try to find a comparable NUC, they NUC seems to turn out to be the more expensive option.
If you look at the Base Mac mini and try to find a comparable NUC, they NUC seems to turn out to be the more expensive option.
You are absolutely right. Maxed out Macs are horrendously priced due to their margins on BTO items like RAM. You used to be able to get around the RAM issue just by installing your own, but now they've closed that door on the Mini with soldered RAM.
To be fair, Apple's SSD is PCIe which is normally more expensive and much, MUCH faster than a SATA SSD. Also their hardware is small, elegant, and well-built. I can appreciate the solid machined hunk of anodized aluminum that is the Mini's case. The NUC's case is just a pile of screws holding together injection molded Chinese plastic.
I'm not pretending that those make up the price difference. I'm just saying there's more than specs to some people.
Also, do you sell your stuff when you are done with it? If so, you should consider total cost of ownership (TCO), not just initial purchase price. After a few years Macs hold their value quite well, but custom assembled PCs are nearly worthless. A Mac Mini will sell for hundreds. The best I ever did was my second Mac Mini, a Core Solo. I bought that below retail (B&H Photo sells Macs at a discount), upgraded it over a couple of years, and then sold it for more than my initial purchase price. So the total cost of ownership was less than the price of the upgrades (a new HDD and RAM).