MAC MINI (NEW) UNDERWHELMING

[J.Gallardo]

...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).



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...



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...?)

I'm the one who shouted "4 TB3 Ports!!!"...
It's the only distinctive thing in new Mac Mini I found (also in iMacPro & MacBookPro). As I couldn't find ANY motherboard offering that, I thought it could be relevant to someone (not for me; I don't need them for now).
But theluggage has given us a lot of info. I've learnt some, and think he's right...

(...but I still wonder if something "marvellous" can be done with four Th3... or Apple is just future-proofing the Mini, to stay unchanged for other four years...)

 

[MRrainer]

The Hades Canyon NUC tops out at 32GB.
Also only has two TB3 ports.
Better GPU, so targeted at "light gamer" users.

The new Mini is perfect for people like me who like raw CPU performance (VMs) and screen estate but are not interested in games (or VR/AR) at all.
Clearly, people who host MacMinis in datacenters had some influence when it came to decide on the 64GB max RAM thing.

This Mini is unlikely to be updated any time soon, I'm afraid. Who knows what kind of systems Apple builds in six years?
(the 2018 is the first real update since the 2012, if we're honest).

For me, I'll need new display(s), too (30" DL-DVI display via adapter to 2012 Mini + 24" via HDMI).
I like the screen real-estate of the 30", so it'll either be the LG 5k display or one of those 39" wide displays with 1600 pixels of vertical space. Both ain't cheap.

Put's the total bill above 3k and right into current iMac territory. I suspect the next iMac will offer eight-core options, bringing it close to iMacPro territory in price.

 

[wallysb01]

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.

I believe i3 performance will be pretty much fine as well.

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.

Exactly. The $1100 machine hits a good spec-spot, but its kind of expensive and adding RAM via Apple's BTO, then adding a decent and fast external storage option (not the $50-$100 HDD POSes that would be slow and probably not hold up to regular usage) gets you into the $1500 range pretty quickly. For that, you really should have a headless computer with fewer compromises than the mini.

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.

Without a dGPU, that's a terribly narrow market then and this product is doomed. Headless serving or app-hosting doesn't typically require macOS. The 'needs decent CPU' developer or music production use is going to be cross competitive with laptops and soon iMacs with similar performance. Intentionally avoiding the traditional home desktop market via price and standard configuration is just a perplexing choice.

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]
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.

On the first point, yes the kneecapping of a laptop is much worse, but remember the iMac has never seen 128GB SSDs standard. They have always opted for the spinners or fusion drives. 128GB SSDs weren't even an option. There was a reason for this. Its because its too small.

One the second point, its not a $200 jump for the i5, its a $200 jump from i3 + 128 to i5 + 256, or $300 from i3 to i7. I'd argue those are the only upgrades that are not a total rip off.

 

[Stephen.R]

this started because someone else was touting "4 TB3 Ports!!!" as a killer feature of the Mini compared with PC alternatives.

And I agree with that sentiment. More high-speed multi-purpose ports is better than fewer. high-speed multi-purpose ports can provide single-purpose port capability for those who need them.

another $100 and quite a big box because it contains a full TB3 controller

I never quite get these arguments. I'm going to drop just south of $4K on computer and displays, a $100 box to let me keep an extra 40gbps port free is hardly a concern. If you're buying multiple monitors [*and*] concerned about the bandwidth left on just 2 TB3 ports, you can afford a $100 breakout box to save one port.

Additionally, https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT206587 specifically does mention using DisplayPort MST.

after buying a Mac Mini because it was so small, neat and had an integrated PSU

Personally I'm buying a Mac Mini because it's the only 'pro' focussed desktop Apple make that isn't ridiculously over-qualified in the graphics department, for what I need. I'd buy their new Mac Pro if there was a "minimal GPU" option available on that, but it isnt out yet.

We're talking about putting two monitors on a desk, and you're worried about a box the size of a mouse behind them?

 

[Falhófnir]

Most people's biggest complaint was that they moved from 35W quad core to 28W dual core chips with the 2014. They've not only reversed that and put the latest available in, but actually moved to proper 65W desktop parts too!

Second biggest complaint: No longer end-user upgradable. New mini enables RAM upgrades at the very least.

Third biggest complaint: Slow HDD or Fusion drives. New Mini lineup is all SSD based.

The only thing they've not really hit the right note on is the price, and even that isn't truly exorbitant when you compare it to some other models in their lineup tbh.

 

[Stephen.R]

The new Mini is perfect for people like me who like raw CPU performance (VMs) and screen estate but are not interested in games (or VR/AR) at all.

This is exactly my situation. I had planned to get a new iMac before the minis were released (and expecting iMacs in their place with 8th gen CPUs).

This Mini is unlikely to be updated any time soon, I'm afraid. Who knows what kind of systems Apple builds in six years?

You don't think this is a sign they're going to pay more attention to it? There's clearly a push towards more 'pro' focussed macs than in recent years - iMac Pro, 2019 Mac Pro + Displays, shoe-horning 32GB into the MBP , and now the Mini.

For me, I'll need new display(s), too (30" DL-DVI display via adapter to 2012 Mini + 24" via HDMI).
I like the screen real-estate of the 30", so it'll either be the LG 5k display or one of those 39" wide displays with 1600 pixels of vertical space. Both ain't cheap.

I want the screen real estate, and considered a 34" ultrawide (3440x1440 i think?). I asked a friend who has one (different brand, same size/res) and he admitted text can get blurry. it's great for games.. Not as great for work I think.

I'm going with 2 of the Dell 24" 4K's. Higher PPI, greater overall screen real estate, (i suspect) easier multi-window management, and the flexibility to rotate one or both 90º if necessary.
[doublepost=1541356099][/doublepost]

The only thing they've not really hit the right note on is the price

I think the problem is, people keep thinking of the mini as "a cheap, basic computer for mum and dads who have their last computer's monitor and keyboard still". I can't be the only one that sees they've basically pivoted this to be a developer/pro focused machine.

 

[theluggage]

We're talking about putting two monitors on a desk, and you're worried about a box the size of a mouse behind them?

If there was some tremendous advantage to connecting displays via TB3, then that might not be an issue. But there isn't - at the end of the day its still plain old Displayport over different wires - with unnecessary extra boxes, more cable clutter and more things to go wrong. The Mac Mini is lovely, small, neat and self-contained, but if you're going to start adding on a dongle here, a hub there and external storage (because internal storage costs a fortune) then there comes a point where you might as well have a bigger box with everything you need inside.

...of course, Apple doesn't offer that.

 

[pl1984]

You don't think this is a sign they're going to pay more attention to it? There's clearly a push towards more 'pro' focussed macs than in recent years - iMac Pro, 2019 Mac Pro + Displays, shoe-horning 32GB into the MBP , and now the Mini.

I hope they do. I feel this update was very strong. I wonder if Apple is starting to pay more attention to the Mac line because there's speculation iPhone sales may be slowing.

 

[Stephen.R]

If there was some tremendous advantage to connecting displays via TB3

The benefit is the flexibility. You can't offer all the various single-port connections people might want to use, in enough combinations, for everyone to be 'happy'.

The Apple model of old was similar to what you describe (as I mentioned earlier, re: 2011 MBP) - most of the pre-TB3 models followed a similar pattern. 1 or 2 TB1/2, One HDMI, One FW800, 2 or 3 USB2, An SDXC, maybe ExpressCard, maybe Ethernet.

Sure, lots of options for lots of different things. So long as you only have one of those things.

more things to go wrong

I've had a number of failures of machines (most times causing me work downtime of some kind). It's currently almost a toss-up between MBP discrete GPU failure, MBP fan failure, and external HDD controller failure for which has happened most often. I think GPU takes the cake at.. 5 or 6 in ~10 years. Of course not in the running are also the failed optical drive, half-broken headphone port, etc.

If you stick all those single-use ports on a Mac Mini, you've just moved all that circuitry that would be in easy to replace little docks and hubs, into the computer, where failure means replacing the main board.... if you can afford it. If they still provide hardware spares.

 

[theluggage]

The Hades Canyon NUC tops out at 32GB.

That's plenty of RAM in something that doesn't even pretend to be a workstation-class machine (and those specs may have been written before bigger SODIMs were released).

Also only has two TB3 ports.

...but, as discussed above, it also has 2xHDMI, 2xMiniDP, 4xUSB 3, 1xUSB-A 3.1g2, 1xUSB-C 3.1g2 and a SD card slot so you won't need to "waste" those 2 thunderbolt ports connecting displays or USB drives that gain no advantage from using a TB3 port. Unless you're really not going to be using USB/HDMI/DisplayPort devices in the near future...

But no, its not perfect - I suspect it will be hot and noisy (because i7 and semi-dGPU) and I'm not sure the ~$1100 model is spectacularly better than the $1100 Mac Mini.... But you can have 32GB RAM and 2TB of internal SSD for a fraction of the cost of a Mini...

 

[redheeler]

Without a dGPU, that's a terribly narrow market then and this product is doomed. Headless serving or app-hosting doesn't typically require macOS. The 'needs decent CPU' developer or music production use is going to be cross competitive with laptops and soon iMacs with similar performance. Intentionally avoiding the traditional home desktop market via price and standard configuration is just a perplexing choice.

The lack of a built-in dGPU means that making the i5 standard at $799 and i7 + 256 GB at $1,099 makes even more sense. Apple doesn't have the part or engineering costs associated with a dGPU to worry about.

For those that do need a more powerful dGPU, eGPU is doable over Thunderbolt 3, and has some advantages over a built-in mobile-class dGPU (no added heat inside the mini which could result in thermal throttling of the CPU, desktop-class GPU performance possible, user-upgradable enclosure possible).

On the first point, yes the kneecapping of a laptop is much worse, but remember the iMac has never seen 128GB SSDs standard. They have always opted for the spinners or fusion drives. 128GB SSDs weren't even an option. There was a reason for this. Its because its too small.

When Apple released the 2013 Mac Pro with a 256 GB SSD and no HDD bay, Apple made it clear that small-form-factor pro-focused desktop Macs wouldn't bother with a Fusion drive offering. Average home users are still a target user base for the iMac.

One the second point, its not a $200 jump for the i5, its a $200 jump from i3 + 128 to i5 + 256, or $300 from i3 to i7. I'd argue those are the only upgrades that are not a total rip off.

It's a $300 jump from the i3 + 128 GB to i5 + 256 GB, not $200. If you want to split the difference, that's $150 for the i5 and $150 for the 256 GB SSD. Still not worthwhile for a CPU that should be standard.

 

[Stephen.R]

I hope they do. I feel this update was very strong. I wonder if Apple is starting to pay more attention to the Mac line because there's speculation iPhone sales may be slowing.

I don't think it's as simple as that. An iPhone or an iPad is only as good as the apps that run on it. There has been a clear drop in frequency of hardware releases focused on the people who make those apps, until recently.

I don't think the iPhone has to "be less profitable" for Apple to cater to Mac using professionals.

Like I said - I think if anything this is the beginning of Apple focussing more on "Pro" Mac users, with potentially fewer options available for "home" or "office" Mac users.

 

[pl1984]

I don't think the iPhone has to "be less profitable" for Apple to cater to Mac using professionals.

I whole heartily agree but the timing does seem curious.

 

[jerwin]

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.

all those messy cables could have been avoided had radio shack embraced sidecars!

 

[Falhófnir]

I think the problem is, people keep thinking of the mini as "a cheap, basic computer for mum and dads who have their last computer's monitor and keyboard still". I can't be the only one that sees they've basically pivoted this to be a developer/pro focused machine.

I think they somewhat had to with 80% of people opting for MacBooks, and a further 15% for iMacs. The lower end is still a decent enough price to be a basic use computer too, provided you attach an external HDD for storing files, photos etc.

 

[MRrainer]

...but, as discussed above, it also has 2xHDMI, 2xMiniDP, 4xUSB 3, 1xUSB-A 3.1g2, 1xUSB-C 3.1g2 and a SD card slot so you won't need to "waste" those 2 thunderbolt ports connecting displays or USB drives that gain no advantage from using a TB3 port. Unless you're really not going to be using USB/HDMI/DisplayPort devices in the near future...

But no, its not perfect - I suspect it will be hot and noisy (because i7 and semi-dGPU) and I'm not sure the ~$1100 model is spectacularly better than the $1100 Mac Mini.... But you can have 32GB RAM and 2TB of internal SSD for a fraction of the cost of a Mini...

The "i7 Business" Hades Canyon I looked at is about 1500 vs. 2000 "equivalent" Mini setup.
So, 25% Apple Tax, if you want.

But then, I'd have to pay the Windows Tax (Office, maybe even Visio, because I use OmniGraffle), which is a subscription these days (or coming close to it).
Or use Linux and not have these things. Not sure if CentOS or Suse would run on this and support all the hardware correctly. And be stable.

That said, due to its Vega GPU, the NUC8 does have one advantage: it can address 4 times 4k at the same time:
https://www.intel.com/content/dam/s.../mini-pcs/nuc-kits/NUC8i7HNK_TechProdSpec.pdf

Or 2x5k.

 

[theluggage]

It's currently almost a toss-up between MBP discrete GPU failure, MBP fan failure, and external HDD controller failure
....
If you stick all those single-use ports on a Mac Mini, you've just moved all that circuitry that would be in easy to replace little docks and hubs, into the computer, where failure means replacing the main board....

None of the failures you mention have anything to do with whether you're using TB3/USB-C ports or "single use ports". The video signal you get out of a TB3/USB-C port is a just DisplayPort output from the internal GPU fed to the TB controller chip - sending that to a MiniDP port would be less complicated. If your GPU fails, the video out on your TB3 ports fail too. Unless you've been using eSATA, "external HDD controllers" are located in (duh!) the external HDD enclosure - whether its connected via USB 2, USB 3 or TB3. The regular Intel chipset provides enough USB2/3 lines to feed plenty of 'dedicated' USB ports without extra controllers.

Apple's string of dGPU failures were due to manufacturing defects that made the solder on the actual GPU chips crack - how they were connected to external devices had nothing to do with it. OK, so you could use an eGPU to remove that potential fault - but at the moment those are (a) eye-wateringly expensive and (b) huge. You'd only do that because you need more graphics power - if your onboard GPU fails its probably cheaper to replace the mainboard than buy an eGPU.

Of course, if you can live without MacOS (or with a Hackintosh) there's a solution: get a custom-built mini PC built around a Mini-ITX or Micro-ATX motherboard with a PCIe graphics card - everything's in one box that doesn't take up much more desk space than that Blackmagic eGPU but every single component (Motherboard, CPU, RAM, GPU, drives) is individually replaceable/upgradeable with a screwdriver. What you won't get is more than 1 or 2 Thunderbolt/USB-C sockets (because the inconvenient truth is that TB3 is a laptop/all-in-one 'thing' that isn't very useful on a full-sized PC with internal expansion and plug-in PCIe GPUs that have DisplayPort/HDMI outputs). Bad news is that they still tend to come with PS/2 keyboard/mouse sockets which even infuriates me so you're not gonna be happy

 

[Miat]

I'd honestly say the i3 + 256 would be a better value for most than the i5 + 128.

An i5/128GB combo is not an option for the Mini. The i5 comes with a 256GB.

Ah memories. I also remember so many hours using a Commodore 64... using cassette tape storage... 3.5 and 5 1/4" floppies.

I am old enough to remember when punch cards and hand cranked calculators were still used in the workplace. It has been an amazing technological journey over that five decades, and in many ways it is only really starting, we have only picked the low hanging fruit so far.

Personally I'm buying a Mac Mini because it's the only 'pro' focussed desktop Apple make that isn't ridiculously over-qualified in the graphics department, for what I need. I'd buy their new Mac Pro if there was a "minimal GPU" option available on that, but it isnt out yet.

Maybe one way they are going to differentiate between the Mini and Pro is in the onboard graphics grunt.

 

[Stephen.R]

None of the failures you mention

You missed my point.

Your complaint about external boxes (eg tb3 to dp or tb3 docks/breakout boxes) is “more to go wrong”.

Jam all those single use ports inside the Mac Mini and that is “more to go wrong” on the man board.

Replacing a tb3 accessory is a lot less hassle than replacing a main board.

Unless you've been using eSATA, "external HDD controllers" are located in (duh!) the external HDD enclosure

My point wasn’t that it’s because of the connection, my point was that I’ve had a lot of items fail (hot climate), when you brought up “more things to go wrong”.

if your onboard GPU fails its probably cheaper to replace the mainboard than buy an eGPU.

If it’s supported. Have you tried finding reliable Mac hardware spares outside the US after apple deems a product “obsolete”? I have. It’s not fun.

 

[Partron22]

I'm not seeing the "underwhelming" part here.
I can get decent internal SSD. - although 128 is downright stingy, and 256 is barely adequate.
I can get more memory than I need.
I can get up to six fairly zesty cores.
I can run large displays.
I have lots of plugs on the back for connecting more stuff.
I can use a real keyboard.
For a thousand bucks, I should get an 1/8th" mic input, but that's kludgeable
No big honking hi res screen to go bad and render the whole thing useless.

 

[philipma1957]

If I stay at base and go bestbuy I spend about 856 after taxes.

I have multiple discounts and net to about 680.

I grabbed two oyen digital 1tb tb3 externals for 140.

So I have lots of storage space and 2 more tb3 ports.

I think I can get away with the i3. Maybe add 8gb after market ram.


Or buy from the Apple veteran military store.

Get the base upgraded to the i7 and I am at 1050 plus tax or 1123 net .

Tough call but I am stuck on bestbuy as I think the i3 is good.

 

[jerwin]

The lower end is still a decent enough price to be a basic use computer too, provided you attach an external HDD for storing files, photos etc.

Would it be too cynical of me to suggest iCloud instead? Mmm-- all those delicious rents going straight to Apple's balance sheet!

 

[fokmik]

I think Apple could make not just the RAM user upgradable, but the SSD also, but it's ok since you can have external ssd or gpu but not the RAM
i wonder whats the future? RAM to be external too ? since we have external storage now, external gpu

 

[opeter]

Soon you won't need a computer at all, because everything will be external.

 

[Miat]

Ether-computing, come on down!