As crazy as it sounds, we actually got lucky that it's "only" $999. The real conversion works out to around $1,050. And Apple usually charges a good $50-$100 ABOVE conversion the past few years.
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.
New Mac Mini is out. Is (almost) everyone happy now?
- Thread starter Marhowl
- Start date
-
- Tags
- mac mini
- Sort by reaction score
As crazy as it sounds, we actually got lucky that it's "only" $999. The real conversion works out to around $1,050. And Apple usually charges a good $50-$100 ABOVE conversion the past few years.
Not getting with that price. £800 for an i3 is laughable. Sticking with my 2014 mini. Although, it was never my main computer.
It appears that the new Mac Mini is using 8100, 8500, and 8700, which are desktop CPUs.
We will wait for official confirmation. Even the guy who presented it said that Mac Mini does not have mobile CPU.
[doublepost=1540979912][/doublepost]
Now on second though, I do not know if there is any benefit from using desktop CPUs, when mobile counterparts are almost equally capable in performance. Plus, they need much less power and run cooler, therefore this redesigned cooling system would keep them pretty cool while being quiet. With these desktop CPUs, that can get really hot especially under the heavy load, I do not know how will thermals hold up, and if it will sound like the jet airliner is taking off from your table.
Yes you can, connecting three monitors is possible, but you won't have the 4th laptop screen that you have now:
https://www.apple.com/mac-mini/specs/apple website said:
No. AFAIK that module was never officially available and only 2-3 pilot / test units are known „in the wild“.
Yes.
I just don't understand how anybody w/ any knowledge of the computing landscape can look at an $800 base price for a paltry non-HT quad-core i3 CPU, 8GB RAM, and 128GB of storage and say, "Hey, YEAH, spot on!!" Unless he were throwing it in a Delorean w/ Doc Brown to head back to 1985.
Even when it wasn't soldered, it was sporting an unnecessarily Apple-proprietary connector. Now we have NVMe M.2 drives that are plummeting in price daily, and Apple is still asking the same increase in pricing they did in 2013 to go to 256 ($200)..512 ($400)..1TB ($800). Meanwhile, you can get a 2TB NVMe Samsung for under $700.
Love your profile pic.
Why would that be amazing? Broken record, I know, but it is ridiculously cost-prohibitive. The mini is about a low-cost option for those converting from PC (originally anyway) or not wanting to drop as much as on an iMac or MacBook or Mac Pro. At least at the low end it is/was; and if you wanted more grunt, you could add it. Now the starting point is so high for so little, and the increases are so steep for upgrades, it doesn't make much fiscal sense for anybody, IMO, low end or high.
I wouldn't even allow that base price is mediocre/passable. I have always had a hard time recommending a mini to my clients because even when the base is $499 o4 $599, by the time you up the specs a little bit and/or add on some items, you might as well go ahead and get a base iMac, which gives you a really high-quality display too. Starting at $800 for a garbage config now skews that recommendation even further toward iMac. Which really sucks, because hardware-wise, it is a nice, if overdue, upgrade.
Interestingly, I got the impression that Apple is targeting this towards Pro-Level Users. And not as a primary machine. They mentioned several use cases, like creating a build farm, off-loading rendering onto it, they added the option for a 10GB Nic, which is only really datacenter relevant.
I think Apple is throwing this out there as compute pod. I don't think they even intend for it to end up on a lot of consumer's desks. Kind of cool, actually, if you're into that kind of thing. This would have been a perfect thing to announce along side a new Pro.
Heck, imagine a new Mac Pro that you can insert Mini's into to add capacity. Basically a blade chassis. That would be awesome actually. Not consumer friendly, but I'd buy the crap out of it.
I think Apple is throwing this out there as compute pod. I don't think they even intend for it to end up on a lot of consumer's desks. Kind of cool, actually, if you're into that kind of thing. This would have been a perfect thing to announce along side a new Pro.
Heck, imagine a new Mac Pro that you can insert Mini's into to add capacity. Basically a blade chassis. That would be awesome actually. Not consumer friendly, but I'd buy the crap out of it.
I meant the build-to-order pricing. If you are adventurous and can replace storage yourself, you can obviously save some money.
Honestly, for what I use a Mac for my dual core 2015 MacBook Pro does it really well. I have two 8 Core Ryzen boxes that I don't even use the full potential of. A six core with with more storage is going to be a better option for me vs buying the i7.
It's for security reasons. So that if an FBI agent wants your data, he has to steal the whole Mac with it.
Sorry man, you're going to need to upgrade to enjoy the new pink mode.
There is no way 2014 Mini will not be supported in the next iteration of Mac OS.
Wouldn't that kind of application be better fulfilled by a machine with some flexibility? At the very least, some internal drive bays and PCI-E.
To answer OP's question - yes I'm happy with it. Even despite the price.
Desktop class CPU's, upgrade able RAM, and thunderbolt really seal the deal for me. I wish this was announced a few months ago though, as I wouldn't have bought a 5,1 Mac Pro.
I can see this being used for home servers in a nice way. Expandable storage via Thunderbolt 3 is great, as well as eGPU options. Maybe in a few more years when my 5,1 ***** the bed.
Desktop class CPU's, upgrade able RAM, and thunderbolt really seal the deal for me. I wish this was announced a few months ago though, as I wouldn't have bought a 5,1 Mac Pro.
I can see this being used for home servers in a nice way. Expandable storage via Thunderbolt 3 is great, as well as eGPU options. Maybe in a few more years when my 5,1 ***** the bed.
No, the mini's are your flexibility. It's basically a hyper-converged approach. Need more capacity, add another blade (mini). The Chassis could handle additional IO and such.
I have a 2014 iMac 21.5, 8GB of RAM and am very disappointed that nothing was mentioned about them during the keynote because my machine is dying. Of course, it's my fault - I'm testing new-age NLEs and imaging programs and it's struggling. My plan was to purchase a new iMac with more than 8GB, and attach my usual externals. I'm good at reading specs, horrible at the interpretation. Would a Mac Mini fill in? I need it to last for a while as I save for my iMac Pro.
Uh, riiiiiiiight....
Yes, I agree it's good hardware and a welcome improvement, and I'm happy w/ it from that standpoint, but the price does matter. I can't find any justification for why it would need to be $200-300 (33–60%!!) more than the previous base models while still only sporting 8GB RAM & 128GB SSD. Yes, it's better than the previous 4GB and HDD, but that's simply in line with the industry as a whole— the smallest 970 EVO NVMe is twice the size @ 250GB and is available at Amazon for $88. You can't tell me that 4GB more RAM and a 128GB SSD justify a $200-300 price hike compared to 4 years ago.
I am beyond happy and Christmas has come two months early for me. This is great! Is it perfect? Hell no. No one expects perfection I don't think. If they do, they need to lower their expectations just a bit.
I was feeding into the doubt by many including my tech friends on another chat I go on that the Mac mini was finished. I am glad they and I were proven wrong.
I was feeding into the doubt by many including my tech friends on another chat I go on that the Mac mini was finished. I am glad they and I were proven wrong.
Can't innovate, my— wait, did somebody already say this??
Haha, I think there's a pretty good distance between what we got and perfection...enough so that we could have gotten a heckuva lot closer to perfection if Apple had tried.
TechConnect article that mirrors my concerns
It's not the i3 that's laughable. It's the storage / RAM you're getting for the price.
The i3 is barely worse than the i5 would have been, they just used that one so the difference to the i7 seems bigger.
What's ridiculous here is that you're getting a 128 GB SSD with no second slot and no user upgrade options for a price people are buying budget gaming laptops for.
Another way to look at it, this is 1000 Euro less than the entry level iMac 5k 2017 with a 256 GB SSD.
That comes with peripherals, a 5k screen, a dedicated GPU, user accessible RAM, twice the storage and better speakers.
The i3 / i5 difference is negligible in this case, since both have four physical cores and very similar clock speeds.