MAC MINI (NEW) UNDERWHELMING

[Stephen.R]

Yeah, that seems to be the case, I mean, I found the right spec at a few places, but they were "special order" (and didn't really have legit part numbers yet).
-

Yeah, I figured as much. Looks like it'll be the 64GB BTO for me then. Even if they magically become available for you guys overnight, it'd be months before anywhere here had them without a 5x price increase, and the 'return your old RAM for a trade in' programs aren't gonna be cost effective with international shipping involved either.

/Jokespiracy Hat on
Maybe Apple pre-purchased all the 32GB SO-DIMMs, thus ensuring scarcity, thus ensuring we'd have to buy from them.

 

[_Kiki_]

How about SSD upgradability ? Is the SSD is upgradable like in old Mac Pro?
or maybe is modular but not upgradable like iMac Pro? or maybe is soldered ?

 

[redheeler]

How about SSD upgradability ? Is the SSD is upgradable like in old Mac Pro?
or maybe is modular but not upgradable like iMac Pro? or maybe is soldered ?

The SSD is soldered.

 

[theluggage]

TB (any generation really, but particularly 3) gives you ridiculous flexibility.

Thunderbolt 3 as a 40Gbps external PCIe bus is ridiculously flexible. Having the ports serve multiple-duty as USB2/3 and DisplayPort outputs, however, is just ridiculous (unless you're building a mobile device with only space for one ultra-thin port). The CPU/Chipset only has a limited number of PCIe lanes, and every time you plug a DisplayPort or USB 2 device into a TB3 port you're wasting a couple of them.

Looking at the Mini, with only 2xUSB-A 3 and 1xHDMI, I'd probably end up using at least 2 of the TB3 ports for displays or USB2/3 devices. By comparison, the NUC in my previous post has enough dedicated HDMI, MiniDP, USB-A 3, USB-C 3 (including both an A and C port with 3.1gen2) to absorb all my so-called "legacy" devices while leaving the two TB3 ports free for stuff that actually needs TB3.

I'm not complaining about the connectivity on the Mini (its good that Apple haven't gone down the full TB3/USB-C-only route with their newer desktops) - but only a small fraction of customers are actually going to need 4xTB3 ports for TB3 so its not a good trump card to play against PC options with fewer TB ports but far better "legacy" connectivity.

An i3/128GB/8GB machine for $800 is just too much. I realize that's pice competitive spec-for-spec with a 2012 machine, but if you don't see the problem with that, I'm just at a lack for words.

Having an "i3" processor does sound cheapskate but Intel's "i" model numbers are meaningless so I'm reserving judgement until I see how the new entry-level Mini performs (c.f. other current models as well as the 2012). I quite agree that "as good as the 2012 quad model" would be pretty weak tea - but we'll see.

That said, have you seen the prices of 2012 Quad Mac Minis on eBay? There's nothing out there quite like the Mac Mini (the closest thing, the HP slice, is now about as outdated as the 2012 Mini, and it needs a power brick). Even the NUC I linked to looks like a bucket of spare parts alongside the Mini (plus, power brick again). I think we agree that its the obscene BTO upgrade prices for RAM and SSD that really wreck the new Mini (if it turns out that you can't put in your own RAM, forget it).

 

[Stephen.R]

its not a good trump card to play against PC options with fewer TB ports but far better "legacy" connectivity.

Most of that "legacy" connectivity can be supported by a single TB3 dock device (thats even ignoring that USB2/3 devices can be run from hub(s) on the USB 3.0 ports), and in 2 years time, it can be replaced by newer TB3 devices.

I've literally lived with the consequences of various 'legacy' ports and fewer 'future' ports. How useful do you think the USB2 or the FW800 ports were?

 

[macintoshmac]

My Coffee Lake i7 hackintosh (6 cores, 3.2 gHz), which only has the UHD630 gpu, comes in with Geekbench scores of 5770 (single core) and 25012 (multicore). The mini should have similar score, perhaps a bit higher (I'm using a SATA SSD instead of an m.2). Not too shabby.

Would you mind sharing detailed specs for your hack Mac in a PM? I am great on everything else, but choosing a mobo is a pain. I did it back in the day, ran that hack for a solid 5 years before purchasing an MBP which I run to this day. Considering between a Mini or a hack Mac now, since the mini in my country is 1.5x the cost of the hack.

 

[theluggage]

I've literally lived with the consequences of various 'legacy' ports and fewer 'future' ports. How useful do you think the USB2 or the FW800 ports were?

Oh, not this again! FW800? You forgot to mention VGA, RS232, ExpressCard, ADB and 20mA current loop, by the way - how am I going to connect my straw man?!

When it comes to USB 2/3 A connectors, HDMI and DisplayPort/MiniDisplayPort 'legacy' is correctly pronounced "open-quote-legacy-close-quote" (or do the 'air quotes' sign if you're speaking in person). They're not legacy. (FW800 was legacy when it was dropped in 2012 and is thoroughly obsolete now - although that doesn't mean that nobody uses it, just that its more acceptable to require a dongle).

Apart from a handful of devices that actually use Thunderbolt or use/supply more power than can be delivered by USB-A, the majority of new peripherals still come with USB-A, HDMI or DisplayPort/MiniDisplayPort connections (even most USB-C stuff comes with a USB-A cable). In terms of USB there's no performance advantage whatsoever from using a type C port (its still just a single lane each way of USB3.1 - USB 3.2 will double-up the lanes but it isn't here yet). In terms of DisplayPort/HDMI, using USB-C just adds an unnecessary active adapter (actually a DP-to-HDMI converter in the case of HDMI) to cause more compatibility problems. DisplayPort 1.4 support was only added to TB3 (and hence USB-C on all computers that use Intel controllers) this year - so that will probably bring another set of adapter issues.

TB3 docks are expensive. Cheaper USB-C docks have serious bandwidth limitations - everything on one of those docks is sharing the same pair of USB3.1 lanes, and if you plug in a 4k@60Hz display everything else gets downgraded to USB-2. TB3 is a significant improvement over TB1/2 (if you don't mind connecting your RAID array to a wobbly little plug that falls out with a hard stare), but everything else about USB-C is just a bunch of old books bound together in a new cover.
[doublepost=1541269326][/doublepost]

How about SSD upgradability ?

All newly released Macs are using the T2 processor to control & encrypt the SSD - so even if it weren't soldered in (it is) its always going to be an Apple proprietary SSD.

 

[Stephen.R]

Oh, not this again! FW800? You forgot to mention VGA, RS232, ExpressCard, ADB and 20mA current loop, by the way - how am I going to connect my straw man?!

You've kinda lost me, or you misunderstood what I said. My point is that having lots of single-use ports (i.e. display port, fw800, usb-a, hdmi, etc) and very few multi-purpose ports (i.e. thunderbolt 1/2, thunderbold3/usb-c) means you're crippling future use.

When it comes to USB 2/3 A connectors, HDMI and DisplayPort/MiniDisplayPort 'legacy' is correctly pronounced "open-quote-legacy-close-quote" (or do the 'air quotes' sign if you're speaking in person). They're not legacy. (FW800 was legacy when it was dropped in 2012 and is thoroughly obsolete now - although that doesn't mean that nobody uses it, just that its more acceptable to require a dongle).

Hey, I *have* a FW800 drive plugged into the TB1 dock I used with the previous MBP, (via a TB3>2 adapter), *and* an eSATA drive array. I'm perfectly aware that these devices are in use.

So let's call them single-use ports, because they all carry just a single protocol.

Apart from a handful of devices that actually use Thunderbolt or use/supply more power than can be delivered by USB-A, the majority of new peripherals still come with USB-A, HDMI or DisplayPort/MiniDisplayPort connections (even most USB-C stuff comes with a USB-A cable). In terms of USB there's no performance advantage whatsoever from using a type C port (its still just a single lane each way of USB3.1 - USB 3.2 will double-up the lanes but it isn't here yet). In terms of DisplayPort/HDMI, using USB-C just adds an unnecessary active adapter (actually a DP-to-HDMI converter in the case of HDMI) to cause more compatibility problems. DisplayPort 1.4 support was only added to TB3 (and hence USB-C on all computers that use Intel controllers) this year - so that will probably bring another set of adapter issues.

So, again you've missed my point completely. I'm not talking about how many devices use native TB3 right now. I'm saying that TB3 can support older protocols through adapters, *and* support newer protocols, because it has a very high (relative to other things) bandwidth built in, already.

As for A-vs-C, it's simply not true that there is no difference. A number of A-to-C cables on sale here (and even included with things like SSDs/enclosures/etc) are 5gbps. I don't think I've actually seen any that say they support 10, whereas with USB-C I've basically seen either a charge cable (and only does 480mbit) or full 3.1Gen2 10gbps.

TB3 docks are expensive. Cheaper USB-C docks have serious bandwidth limitations - everything on one of those docks is sharing the same pair of USB3.1 lanes, and if you plug in a 4k@60Hz display everything else gets downgraded to USB-2. TB3 is a significant improvement over TB1/2 (if you don't mind connecting your RAID array to a wobbly little plug that falls out with a hard stare), but everything else about USB-C is just a bunch of old books bound together in a new cover.

So... use one of the TB3 ports to drive two 4K@60hz displays, use the 2 USB3.0 ports to drive a couple of cheap USB3 hubs (and even dedicate one to USB2 if you want), and you still have three more TB3 ports left to give you high speed data connectivity.

As I've been saying the whole time - TB3 gives you flexibility, now and in the future. I'll take that (and the associated adapter purchases) any day, over a bunch of single-use ports.

 

[Omega Mac]

Yeah, on the CPU side it certainly seems like this is one really serious upgrade.

Venturebeat had an article on the new Mac mini yesterday:

"Equipped with an optional six-core 3.2GHz Intel Core i7 processor, a $1,099 Mac mini could go toe-to-toe on CPU performance with Apple’s latest eight-core Mac Pro, a machine that sells for $3,799 and up."

First Mac mini 2018 benchmarks suggest Mac Pro speeds, unlike MacBook Air

I think they figured out many were using the 2012 i7 Quads because they gave Pro like performance in some areas and have run with that for now (as a bridge for pro's, so that mac mini and iMac Pro). Not forgetting Apple showcased film industry among other industry applications, using mac mini boxes in and I am not sure they were latest gen either unless they had some serious pro field trials.

It looks like Apple have carried through what they did with iMac pro a little here on the mac mini line and have catered to that market. It's looking like they've made the Mac Mini the little brother of the Pro line, now it's time for the pro line Big Brother to appear. Any day now

...unless of course as I have suggested for some time, they will also release Mac Mini Pro line and that's the new Mac Pro!

In summary this Mac Mini update looks to be have been aimed at the semi-pro and pro market.

 

[theluggage]

My point is that having lots of single-use ports (i.e. display port, fw800, usb-a, hdmi, etc) and very few multi-purpose ports (i.e. thunderbolt 1/2, thunderbold3/usb-c) means you're crippling future use.

But - unless you're talking about a tablet or 12" MacBook that only has room for a couple of ports - that's not the trade-off - but the number of TB3/USB 3.1 gen 2 ports is actually limited by the number of spare PCIe lines and the cost of TB controllers, not the number of MiniDP/HDMI outputs (which can come more-or-less straight from the GPU) or USB 2/3g1 (which most chipsets can support a dozen of).

Many users are going to have a couple of displays (which don't need to block TB3/3.1g2 ports) and a bunch of mouse/keyboard dongles, phones, printers, memory sticks, MIDI devices, Audio interfaces, CD drives etc. (pick a few) which barely need USB 3, let alone Thunderbolt or 3.1g2.

Show me a machine with, say, 8 TB3 ports and you might have a point (the Intel Hades Canyon NUC has 2 TB3 and 15 assorted single-use ports, that's not uncommon on other desktop PCs - so lets concede that 8 multi-purpose ports might be just as good). But that's not going to happen quickly because full TB3 ports need expensive controllers and use up PCIe lines.

So... use one of the TB3 ports to drive two 4K@60hz displays

Not unless Apple have quietly added support for multiple displays on one DisplayPort

use the 2 USB3.0 ports to drive a couple of cheap USB3 hubs

Still not as good as plugging devices into top-level USB ports - and another external box.

I'll take that (and the associated adapter purchases) any day, over a bunch of single-use ports.

OK, well, I'd rather be able to plug standard displays in without needing quirky active adaptors, not wasting 2 PCIe lines on a USB audio interface that barely needs USB2 and take the risk that, sometime in the future, I'll need more than two TB3 ports (...which can be daisy chained).

Frankly, I wouldn't buy a new machine without some sort of Thunderbolt 3 (or at least USB-C) but I'm pretty sure that USB-A, DisplayPort and HDMI are going to outlive this years' model computers. Its not like the good old days of the 80s and 90s when speeds and capacities were doubling every year.

I don't think I've actually seen any that say they support 10

https://www.startech.com/Cables/usb-c/usb-a-usb-c-cable-50cm~USB31AC50CM - we're not going to complain about needing to buy a new cable are we?

 

[wallysb01]

Having an "i3" processor does sound cheapskate but Intel's "i" model numbers are meaningless so I'm reserving judgement until I see how the new entry-level Mini performs (c.f. other current models as well as the 2012). I quite agree that "as good as the 2012 quad model" would be pretty weak tea - but we'll see.

Its not so much what the raw performance is, its the performance relative to other options at the time of release and in comparison to the price. i3 is bottom-middle desktops, that's all the i3 really signifies. Its the stuff that's in sub-$500 Dells. Now, I know the Mac Mini has various other things in there that have some value added, but at what cost is it worth while for your typical customer in the market for one of these? I got to think most mini users don't really give a hoot about a T2 chip, for example.

That said, have you seen the prices of 2012 Quad Mac Minis on eBay? There's nothing out there quite like the Mac Mini (the closest thing, the HP slice, is now about as outdated as the 2012 Mini, and it needs a power brick). Even the NUC I linked to looks like a bucket of spare parts alongside the Mini (plus, power brick again). I think we agree that its the obscene BTO upgrade prices for RAM and SSD that really wreck the new Mini (if it turns out that you can't put in your own RAM, forget it).

Sure, this Mac Mini is kind of a class of its own. I compare it a lot to the HP Z2 mini. But even that Z2 has more user-accessibility and expandability, making it a bit more 'workstation' like than the Mini. And yes, definitely forget the mini as a good solution for anything that needs >16 GB of RAM or decent internal storage, unless you are absolutely wedded to macOS for some reason. I mean, $2300 (with education discount) for a headless desktop with an i7/32GB/1TB and no dGPU? What serious f- is Apple thinking? I'm sure that's a nice machine and all, holy cow. For a GPU-less computer, you should really be in Xeon Processors by then. Even configuring everything directly from HP, you can get a significantly better deal (like 15% less) on those HP Z workstations of various form factors. And of course, if you're up for it, if you buy your own RAM/SSDs you can save probably another 15%. And if you move into more ordinary desktops, those configurations could be had for like $1200. Its face-palm inducing. If the starting price and every marginal upgrade was like $100 cheaper, we'd have something. But the money grab from Apple just seems to keep getting more and more aggressive with each passing year.

 

[MarkN]

I'm just curious. Are these complaints about the 2018 Mac mini new, or is there a similar thread for all the previous releases of the Mac mini???

 

[redheeler]

I'm just curious. Are these complaints about the 2018 Mac mini new, or is there a similar thread for all the previous releases of the Mac mini???

There were plenty of complaints about the 2014 Mac mini refresh, and rightfully so. This Mac mini refresh could be better, but it's great compared to what we got in 2014.

 

[MarkN]

There were plenty of complaints about the 2014 Mac mini refresh, and rightfully so. This Mac mini refresh could be better, but it's great compared to what we got in 2014.

I guess the upgrades could always be better. Is the main complaint about the price or hardware component choices other than the gpu?

 

[wallysb01]

I guess the upgrades could always be better. Is the main complaint about the price or hardware component choices other than the gpu?

The main complaint is, depending on who you are, price of the base model, price of the BTOs, lack of dGPU, lack of user, do it yourself upgrades (for sure the SDD isn't and I'm guessing RAM isn't either). I do think that for a heck of a lot of people this computer fits what they wanted from a mac mini, its just the prices have all jumped up a bit more than people were expecting (even for Apple).

 

[gavroche]

As long as it can handle the thermals , very good update

This. And my (uneducated) hunch is that this is the reason for not having better graphics card. Results in throttling down. So instead, let those that really want it go external.

Personally... I'm going to pick one up. Unfortunately, I have no monitor, so got to fund that as well. Perhaps I can find a buyer for my 27" imac with recently added ssd and ram (that Apple kindly informed me is not os upgradeable... like a week after I put the ssd and ram in).

 

[redheeler]

The main complaint is, depending on who you are, price of the base model, price of the BTOs, lack of dGPU, lack of user, do it yourself upgrades (for sure the SDD isn't and I'm guessing RAM isn't either). I do think that for a heck of a lot of people this computer fits what they wanted from a mac mini, its just the prices have all jumped up a bit more than people were expecting (even for Apple).

I understand why some hate the base price increase, but unlike most of Apple's other products, this is one I actually don't mind. It means Apple can charge a bit more for decent hardware, as opposed to the 2014 Mac mini. Anyone who purchased the $499 model thinking it was a good deal usually found out it was slow and underpowered from the very start.

As for the SSD, yes, 128 GB is a bit on the small side. But external expansion is easy and not too inconvenient on a desktop. For a lot of users a slower external drive for data storage makes more sense than a larger internal SSD.

The CPU/GPU is where I think Apple isn't offering as much value as they should be. The switch to desktop processors means that iGPU and efficiency both took a hit compared to the mobile quad-core i5 we were expecting at $799. Since desktop processors are less expensive than mobile, Apple could've easily provided the i5 + 128 GB SSD at $799 and i7 + 256 GB SSD at $1,099, which would also make the i7 easier to obtain as a retail config.
[doublepost=1541303223][/doublepost]

This. And my (uneducated) hunch is that this is the reason for not having better graphics card. Results in throttling down. So instead, let those that really want it go external.

Personally... I'm going to pick one up. Unfortunately, I have no monitor, so got to fund that as well. Perhaps I can find a buyer for my 27" imac with recently added ssd and ram (that Apple kindly informed me is not os upgradeable... like a week after I put the ssd and ram in).

The older 27" iMacs all have Target Display Mode... So yes, you do have a monitor.

 

[Stephen.R]

Not unless Apple have quietly added support for multiple displays on one DisplayPort

TB3 supports 2x DP1.2 streams.

Still not as good as plugging devices into top-level USB ports - and another external box.

which can be daisy chained

So.. your USB2 printer need a dedicated port on the machine, but TB3 can just daisy chain and share the bandwidth. Sure, makes sense.

so lets concede that 8 multi-purpose ports might be just as good

Which 8? Given that the mac Mini already has 4 single-use ports (Ethernet, HDMI, 2x USB3), what 4 more are you gonna add, to make up for the loss of 2 TB3 ports? How do you cover all the various use-cases for customers with single-use ports?

Personally I'd prefer if they'd actually left out the HDMI, and put more TB3/USB-C ports (or as a tradeoff, one or two TB2 ports, so you could just use them as native DP).

 

[Easttime]

I'm just curious. Are these complaints about the 2018 Mac mini new, or is there a similar thread for all the previous releases of the Mac mini???

Tongue in cheek, right?

 

[wallysb01]

I understand why some hate the base price increase, but unlike most of Apple's other products, this is one I actually don't mind. It means Apple can charge a bit more for decent hardware, as opposed to the 2014 Mac mini. Anyone who purchased the $499 model thinking it was a good deal usually found out it was slow and underpowered from the very start.

Understood, but the i5-4260U had an MSRP of $315. Now, I'm sure Intel was giving those chips away for a heck of a lot less, but the i3-8100 retails for around $120-130... That 4260u might have just been a bad chip, low base clock, only duel core, the HD5000 graphics and that's probably why Apple was getting a good deal on them, but the price gap is nearly 3x. The second reason that machine was bad was the 5200 RPM spinner and the solder ram. The HDD could be replaced though and we're probably looking at a situation were RAM is still not officially 'user-replaceable' for the 2018 Mac Mini. (Its kind of buried and looks to be an awkward reach to get it in/out, so I doubt Apple is going to want you digging in there. That's just not their MO.)

As for the SSD, yes, 128 GB is a bit on the small side. But external expansion is easy and not too inconvenient on a desktop. For a lot of users a slower external drive for data storage makes more sense than a larger internal SSD.

Its not that convenient to have nearly every non-system file on an external disk IMO. And I'm the kind of guy that has external RAIDs and cloud backups and all that. This just isn't something most average users get a feel for, moving base user directors to a different volume and then knowing they can essentially never touch that volume and they need to back it up too! Its do able for sure, but lets be honest, the techy-friend is going to have to explain this a few times and its still going to get f-ed up periodically. For $800, people shouldn't really be dealing with this.

The CPU/GPU is where I think Apple isn't offering as much value as they should be. The switch to desktop processors means that iGPU and efficiency both took a hit compared to the mobile quad-core i5 we were expecting at $799.

We'll see, but I suspect the base CPU will be fine. I'm guessing we'll just some iGPU complaints though. And processor upgrade prices (which will only change the CPU not the iGPU), aren't too awful. Its the SSD/RAM ones that are.

Since desktop processors are less expensive than mobile, Apple could've easily provided the i5 + 128 GB SSD at $799 and i7 + 256 GB SSD at $1,099, which would also make the i7 easier to obtain as a retail config.

I'd honestly say the i3 + 256 would be a better value for most than the i5 + 128. Most folks are not CPU limited these days, but the lack of turbo boost might make that i3 feel less 'snappy' than the i5. A lot of people don't need >8 GB of RAM, but its absolutely absurd that adding another 8GB of RAM is $200 or another 128GB of SSD storage is $200. SSD prices have tanked and RAM prices have finally started a slow decline, but Apple hasn't acknowledged this in the least.

 

[theluggage]

TB3 supports 2x DP1.2 streams.

...only if you connect a TB3 display (of which there are only a handful on the market, including 5k displays that use both streams anyway). Or a TB-to-dual-DisplayPort adapter (another $100 and quite a big box because it contains a full TB3 controller - older/cheaper ones still rely on DisplayPort daisy-chaining which doesn't work on Macs) or a TB3 dock (...after buying a Mac Mini because it was so small, neat and had an integrated PSU... Docking stations are for laptops - if your desktop needs one, something has gone wrong).

So.. your USB2 printer need a dedicated port on the machine, but TB3 can just daisy chain and share the bandwidth. Sure, makes sense.

Now you're being silly: TB3 has 100x the bandwidth of USB2, and far lower latency. Half the point of Thunderbolt is that it has more than enough bandwidth to support multiple devices on one port. Meanwhile, printers may not be a good example, but there are plenty of USB2/3 devices (which don't have bandwidth or latency to spare) that are best connected to a top-level port rather than a hub. Step 1 in USB troubleshooting is to connect it directly to the computer and not a hub...

Which 8? Personally I'd prefer if they'd actually left out the HDMI, and put more TB3/USB-C ports

You misunderstand - I was suggesting that if/when computers start offering 8+ TB3/USB-C ports, dropping single-use ports would be less of an issue.

We've strayed off he point here - the argument about whether its OK to just have TB3/USB-C ports belongs in a MacBook forum. I'm not unhappy with the port offering on the Mac Mini - this started because someone else was touting "4 TB3 Ports!!!" as a killer feature of the Mini compared with PC alternatives.

Some of those alternatives - like the Intel Hades Canyon NUC - may only have 2xTB3 but because they also have a shedload of "single-use" ports they'd still have 2xTB3 free for sexy future devices after I'd connected up all of my non-TB3 devices. On a Mini, I'd still be able to connect all of my stuff, but I'd be lucky to have even 2 TB3 ports available for expansion - unless I added a hub (which starts to defeat the point of getting a Mini).

The Mini may look a lot more attractive if/when Apple or third parties come out with some matching "stackable" peripherals (maybe a TB3 enclosure with a couple of M.2. drives, a pair of DisplayPorts and some USB...?)

 

[Cave Man]

Some of those alternatives - like the Intel Hades Canyon NUC - may only have 2xTB3 but because they also have a shedload of "single-use" ports they'd still have 2xTB3 free for sexy future devices after I'd connected up all of my non-TB3 devices. On a Mini, I'd still be able to connect all of my stuff, but I'd be lucky to have even 2 TB3 ports available for expansion - unless I added a hub (which starts to defeat the point of getting a Mini).

To me, these are really important points. Both of my printers, Time Machine drive, my scanner and my Apple keyboard are USB devices. With the limitations that Apple has imposed upon us, we are headed back to the days of messy desktops. I still remember my Tandy Color Computer 3 setup.

 

[gavroche]

[doublepost=1541303223][/doublepost]
The older 27" iMacs all have Target Display Mode... So yes, you do have a monitor.

Ah... good to know. It can at least tide me over to get a better monitor later. I'm curious to see what is out there in the $500-700 budget. I'll have to go by Best Buy or Frys and take a peek. It's something you can't evaluate just online me thinks... want to see in person.
[doublepost=1541345027][/doublepost]

I still remember my Tandy Color Computer 3 setup.

Ah memories. I also remember so many hours using a Commodore 64... using cassette tape storage... 3.5 and 5 1/4" floppies.. if I remember correctly, the Tandy might have been the first that I had seen cd-rom drive on... and I was so confused what it was. (I also vividly remember seeing a 1GB HD for the first time... and it was over $1000. And thought... how could u possibly need that much storage.
But oh... those bezels!

 

[theluggage]

Its not so much what the raw performance is, its the performance relative to other options at the time of release and in comparison to the price. i3 is bottom-middle desktops, that's all the i3 really signifies.

I think the significance here is that the $799 "i3" model is 4 core and the $1099 "i5" model is 6 core, and they're desktop class processors. The rest follows from Intel's line-up: there is no 4-core i5 they could have used - the desktop i5s start at 6 core. 4-core i3s are a new phenomenon. None of the desktop processors have Iris/Iris Pro graphics either (makes sense outside Apple - if graphics is important on a desktop machine you'd use a discrete GPU). The "interesting" i5/i7 + AMD Vega M chipsets (as used in the NUC) are billed as mobile chips (and seem to top out at 4-core).

In that respect, the Mac Mini makes sense if its pitched at music, development and server-ish use with the emphasis on CPU power and connectivity rather than graphics. I suspect that the real-world performance of the "i3" will turn out to be pretty decent.

That's all moot, though, because of the inadequate default RAM/SSD capacities and high upgrade prices: unless one of the two base models hits the spot for you (and they might: i'd consider the $1099 one if it turns out you can add RAM, especially once someone comes out with a matching "storage" slice) - forget it.

 

[redheeler]

Its not that convenient to have nearly every non-system file on an external disk IMO. And I'm the kind of guy that has external RAIDs and cloud backups and all that. This just isn't something most average users get a feel for, moving base user directors to a different volume and then knowing they can essentially never touch that volume and they need to back it up too! Its do able for sure, but lets be honest, the techy-friend is going to have to explain this a few times and its still going to get f-ed up periodically. For $800, people shouldn't really be dealing with this.

The base-model 2018 Mac mini is no longer aimed at average home users like past Mac minis, but rather the type of user who would know how to add inexpensive external storage and find benefit from the hex-core i5.

If this were a discussion about the 2018 MacBook Air, then yes, your point about the 128 GB SSD is absolutely valid. 128 GB SSD should be a thing of the past on Apple laptops, as should charging a $200 premium for up-to-date hardware with a 2560x1600 sRGB Retina display.
[doublepost=1541347465][/doublepost]

And processor upgrade prices (which will only change the CPU not the iGPU), aren't too awful.

The biggest price difference comes between the i5 and the i7, according to Intel. The i5 isn't worth $200 over the i3, especially when it could be made standard at $799.