maybe once u will understand that not everyone on earth needs 16gigs of ram... but just maybe
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.
Returning my 2014 mac mini
- Thread starter ymarker
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
maybe once u will understand that not everyone on earth needs 16gigs of ram... but just maybe
Don't defend any thing apple using the macbook pro. the retina macbook pro costs more then 2x that of a quad core mac mini 1999 vs 799.
Apple decided to money grab quad core users of mac os pure and simple.
What is the cheapest new mac quad core ?
you can buy a macbook pro for 1999 and if you need really decent cpu add 300 cost = 2299. Then you are stuck running it clamshell if you want real monitors. Say a pair of 21 inch 1080 p's.
your next choice is buy a 21 inch imac for 1499 add 200 for the better cpu = 1699 add 200 for 16gb ram = 1899
add 200 for a pcie booter 2099/
then spend on a second screen which apple does not sell a match to.
so if it is in your office and you want to impress your clients you could buy a stock imac and use it for the second screen of you can add 2 screens and flank the imac cost 2500 or more.
So if you want /need the new quad apple has forced you to pay 2x to 3x the price of the 2012 mini.
Last edited:
But what of all the people buying soldered in 4gigs of ram in thei new minis, and once they load some software, or expand their usage, and find that they have to get rid of their 1 year old mini?
In my experience, the 16 gig folks benefit greatly from quad core, so the new machines are obviously a double downer. But the folks who bought 4-gigs of ram, who see nothing but beach balls when they begin going beyond web browsing in OS x.10, will realize they bought a piece of soldered junk. Where as, in the past, they or someone else they know, would add some ram and they would still love their machine.
Your argument for soldered in fails for the "consumer" who wants to begin actually utilizing their new macs beyond the basics.
Hopefully Apple feels the pain for their short sighted decision, and reverses course. I know I will do my best to educate everyone about how little Apple thinks of their "consumers". I know my family will listen to me
But what of all the people buying soldered in 4gigs of ram in thei new minis, and once they load some software, or expand their usage, and find that they have to get rid of their 1 year old mini?
In my experience, the 16 gig folks benefit greatly from quad core, so the new machines are obviously a double downer. But the folks who bought 4-gigs of ram, who see nothing but beach balls when they begin going beyond web browsing in OS x.10, will realize they bought a piece of soldered junk. Where as, in the past, they or someone else they know, would add some ram and they would still love their machine.
Your argument for soldered in fails for the "consumer" who wants to begin actually utilizing their new macs beyond the basics.
Hopefully Apple feels the pain for their short sighted decision, and reverses course. I know I will do my best to educate everyone about how little Apple thinks of their "consumers". I know my family will listen to me
AFAIK middle and top tier mac mini got 8gigs by default - 8 gigs is plenty even for advanced users.. so what are u talking about? that very entry machine destined for browsing and very light usage does have 4gigs by default? is that really something apple should burn in hell for? dont think so (of course I agree that user expendability would be better, but I dont see that soldered ram as gloomy as others)
2012 mini 2.6, 960 M500 SSD, 16GB RAM. . .
My experience says you're wrong. Right now I have Safari opened to this forum (obviously) and I've got the Activity Monitor open. Memory Usage is 5.99GB. How would 4GB work now?
I just opened Aperture 3 and iPhoto to fiddle with pictures, none of which have been opened in either app, just thumbnails. Memory Usage is 8.88GB. Not so good for an 8GB machine me thinks.
Closed Aperture, left iPhoto open, Mail is open. Opened iTunes, time for some Miley Cyrus (lossless CD rip) while I'm fiddling. Memory Usage is 9.11GB. Sorry non-expandable 8GB machine.
Closed everything except Safari, opened Bridge CS6 and opened a Canon 5D3 image in PS6 ("advanced user"). Memory Usage is 9.52GB.
No mini should have less than 8GB RAM if it is to be used for even the simplest of tasks. Every mini needs 16GB RAM or the ability to expand to 16GB. I rest my case.
you should study little more how os x works with RAM... I do have 4gigs macbook air, no problem surfing, light photo editing, hell I can even play starcraft 2 on it and no swapping and lagging...
You, kind sir, are absolutely 100% totally completely RIGHT! The computer will do more longer and run better with 16GB. I find it hard to believe that in 2014 any human being is arguing for anything less. It is pitiful.
This is especially true if you sell the machine at some point in the future. Or give it to a friend. If it has only 4GB, then by all means give it to an ENEMY.
Last edited:
Agreed. Apple may not do what we want, but they are not stupid. They have made deliberate choices with their hardware. The 2014 Mini means that Apple wants only people able to pony up $2K to have a quad-core headless Mac. The only question for Apple users who want a quad-core headless machine is: should I pay $2K for a Mac Pro, buy a 2-core Mini and pay what Apple wants for it and accept lower performance, or pursue other options?
Why is Apple ceding some markets entirely to other platforms? I mean servers, gaming, etc.? I don't know, but given their product placements this year, which seem to be designed to cause upselling, I believe it must come down to lack of perceived profit. Apple is apparently willing to give up sales, even entire market segments, than possibly take lower margins.
I very much like my Apple hardware. But the bugs in iOS8, denial of the new connectivity features to my Mini, and the whole product lineup this year make me wish I hadn't gone all-in on the Apple ecosystem. I detest Google, so I don't have many other choices. But I'm not a happy camper. I'm at the point where I will run my current Apple hardware until it dies, and consider the options I have for each product at that time.
The reason is becasue in spite of some setbacks with the latest update, it is STILL the best, fastest, best looking, quietest most flexible SMALL computer that runs OSX. Not the cheapest, not the fastest, but the best overall box.
NUC sucks. GigaByte Pro etc are jet engines (anyone can manage thermals with a 50,000 RPM fan) Zotac, well who really knows. They do not seem to be a major player. I imagine the powerful ones are loud.
So, if small, silent, fast AND OSX is what a person wants, the mini is STILL the best. Albeit more expensive than I think it needs to be.
And hackintosh? Really, that is the biggest joke out there. Unless you love instability and unreliability built right in to your computer. In that case it is perfect for you.
After seeing the specs I nearly cried out "WHY?!". I don't blame anyone with any computer knowledge to not but a new Mini even if they usage doesn't dictate the little power it has.
I thought to myself, if I owned Apple why would I do this? Why would I dumb it down and knock the price down instead of a SLIGHT bump in power at the same price point?
Only conclusion I came too (since I run other multi billion dollar companies on the weekend /sarcasm) is to kill it off. Dumb it down, make it cheap, get a bit more money out of the line and then end it, leaving very few people that will actually miss it. Whats to miss anyway?
OR next year introduce the ALL NEW 2015 Mini. It will be 100 dollar bump in price but don't worry, it will have 2012 specs to back it up.
I thought to myself, if I owned Apple why would I do this? Why would I dumb it down and knock the price down instead of a SLIGHT bump in power at the same price point?
Only conclusion I came too (since I run other multi billion dollar companies on the weekend /sarcasm) is to kill it off. Dumb it down, make it cheap, get a bit more money out of the line and then end it, leaving very few people that will actually miss it. Whats to miss anyway?
OR next year introduce the ALL NEW 2015 Mini. It will be 100 dollar bump in price but don't worry, it will have 2012 specs to back it up.
Fortunately I was able to pick up a NIB quad core Mini before the prices skyrocketed.
If I hadn't, I would have just ordered a new Mini w/ the 16GB upgrade.
Why?
Because I've been able to extend the lifespan of my previous Macs by adding 3rd party RAM when performance started to degrade. Not to mention, I was still able to sell those machines for a very nice price on CL.
That won't be an option with these $499 Mini's. Hopefully in a few years some clever person will figure out a reasonable way to refurbish them with more memory and save them from the landfill.
If I hadn't, I would have just ordered a new Mini w/ the 16GB upgrade.
Why?
Because I've been able to extend the lifespan of my previous Macs by adding 3rd party RAM when performance started to degrade. Not to mention, I was still able to sell those machines for a very nice price on CL.
That won't be an option with these $499 Mini's. Hopefully in a few years some clever person will figure out a reasonable way to refurbish them with more memory and save them from the landfill.
Read my post carefully and you'll see that I'm very specifically talking about quality, then I expressly mention that Apple hardware ALWAYS COSTS MORE.
If you're going to argue with something I say, be clear on what I'm saying first.
In Apple terms, the mac mini is an entry to Mac OSX world and it comes at a price lots of people are willing to pay.
Having said that the 1.4Ghz model is a joke (a $500 PC would be better) and the upper model for those that have money to waste (an iMac would be more suitable).
For me, the i5 with improved Iris GPU is the only model of interest. Putting storage aside, the only difficult decision for most people will be to appreciate whether they should max out at 16GB or just live with 8GB.
Having said that the 1.4Ghz model is a joke (a $500 PC would be better) and the upper model for those that have money to waste (an iMac would be more suitable).
For me, the i5 with improved Iris GPU is the only model of interest. Putting storage aside, the only difficult decision for most people will be to appreciate whether they should max out at 16GB or just live with 8GB.
I was clear on what you are saying. I just disagree with it.
Let me say it another way; a lot of musical work is done on macs. I built custom mac mini quad cores for more then one mixer/musician/engineer.
They like 2 screens 21 inches. They like a quad core. They like a big fusion drive 500gb ssd and 1tb hdd. They like to add a few usb3 externals.
I could get a 2012 mac mini for 700 and add a 500gb ssd for 250 add ram for 100. Total spent 1050. your machine is 2x the price and not as good for them.
I know I don't, so if you point me to a white paper, I'll read it.
Of course, if you're running on a machine with more than 4gigs of memory to write this, I won't take you seriously.
modern OSs will often aggressively use as much available RAM for caching as it can. These might include data that you won't use again for a long time. Just because xx GB of ram is "used" doesn't really mean it's being actively utilized. 8 GB is *plenty*. I've used 8 GB on Windows for development, virtual machines, gaming and have never felt like I had too little RAM. I certainly hope OS X isn't worse in this department.
of course os x memory management is not worse.. it is exactly as you wrote, os x takes as much memory as it can.. it is able to use 16gigs of RAM while surfing and doing some simple tasks - just to cache everything... as I wrote before, I do have 4gigs RAM macbook air - no swapping even after 7days withou restart - used for web surfing, itunes, messaging, light gaming.. 8 gigs is plenty for average user and will be even after several years.