and who will get #4000?
I guess will see......next because I'm 3999
I guess I didn't push it fast enough.
and who will get #4000?
i guess will see......next because i'm 3999
Or are you?
Good luck to you, if huge power and performance is what you crave, and mucking around with computers is your thing, and you are prepared to put in the time.
Being just an ordinary average Joe, something that just works is fine by me. It would not be worth the hassle.
Ive been hoping that the mac mini comes before Yosemite. Looks like my luck phased out. Hate hate hate the UI on Yosemite.
I think I will hate it too. Back to Win 7, I guess. THAT was a slick looking OS.
Yes, that is very true about holding value and another plus in the Apple column.
I think the issue of non-upgradable machines is an interesting and predictable move by most manufacturers.
I hated it at first but in the past 2 months of using it I've grown to like it. Safari is much faster and the overall performance seems really good. The memory compression is much better and slicker the way it works.
Once you get use to the flat icons it's still the same solid OS.
The memory compression is one reason why I'm still on Mountain Lion. Once you get the Apple kool-aid out of your system, memory is cheap, cheap cheap. My 2011 MPB has 16 gigs in it ($80 and 5 minutes work for the upgrade back in 2011). Why would anyone want to burn *any* CPU cycle on memory compression when ram is dirt cheap? Especially when Apple specializes in underpowered CPUs to begin with.
That's also why I'm still on the 2011 machine. Soldered RAM = deal breaker for me. Then again, since Yosemite is so ugly, switching back to windows and having 20 times the computer performance for the same money is looking to be a win-win move.
I think I will hate it too. Back to Win 7, I guess. THAT was a slick looking OS.
Guys, what other computer hasnt been updated since 2012?
I think the mac mini is dead.
The memory compression is one reason why I'm still on Mountain Lion. Once you get the Apple kool-aid out of your system, memory is cheap, cheap cheap. My 2011 MPB has 16 gigs in it ($80 and 5 minutes work for the upgrade back in 2011). Why would anyone want to burn *any* CPU cycle on memory compression when ram is dirt cheap? Especially when Apple specializes in underpowered CPUs to begin with.
That's also why I'm still on the 2011 machine. Soldered RAM = deal breaker for me. Then again, since Yosemite is so ugly, switching back to windows and having 20 times the computer performance for the same money is looking to be a win-win move.
With PC's you can buy standardized hardware. $350 at newegg gets you an Asus Z97 Deluxe motherboard. It has built in wifi AC, NFC, Bluetooth. Dual Gigabit LAN, and a very impressive list of features. And it's all easily upgradable. For what Apple gives you in a $2000 iMac that is not very upgradable, it is just embarrassing for Apple.
The fastest 6 core K series i7 desktop CPUs are at best 20% or so faster than the fastest quad i7s in Macs, once you start using multiple Xeon CPUs, you're in the same price range as the Mac Pro and even then, you're getting maybe 3 or 4 x the performance at most and that relies of software being heavily multi-threaded.
20 X faster? Yeah right!
Well, aside from the fact that the i7-4960X is quite a bit faster than you seem to think...
The benchmark on the i7 CPU in the mac mini isn't that much slower than something like an ancient i7-3770k. But you're not factoring in Apple's piss-poor form over function engineering. My desktop can chug along at 100% CPU load all day without a problem, and it's whisper-quiet. As soon as I even think about running something on the mac mini, the little jet-engine of a fan inside spins up and the CPU speed throttles back. So yes, it's 80% as fast as long as I don't actually use the CPU power. The instant I do, it slows way, way down.
Aside from that my cheap pc RAM is way beyond the over-priced, budget-grade SO-DIMMS Apple uses.
When I'm actually doing something non-trial, the tiny SSD for the OS just don't come close to enough capacity. My 3.5" 10k RPM HDD sure is a lot faster than 2.5" 5400 RPM drive.
So yes, because of Apple's obsession with tiny at the expense of performance, my PC is easily 20 times the performance of a comparable mac. It's also about 30 times the volume of a mac mini. But only double the footprint, so who cares?
Processor cycles available are plenty, plenty, plenty. Why would anyone want to bother having excess memory when the CPU is idling most of the time anyway? Especially when Apple specializes in optimizing resource usage to begin with.Once you get the Apple kool-aid out of your system, memory is cheap, cheap cheap. [...] Why would anyone want to burn *any* CPU cycle on memory compression when ram is dirt cheap? Especially when Apple specializes in underpowered CPUs to begin with.
That's what people said when IDE controllers started to become soldered. Or USB controllers. Or graphic chips. Or CPU's. Or ...That's also why I'm still on the 2011 machine. Soldered RAM = deal breaker for me.
kkthxbye.Then again, since Yosemite is so ugly, switching back to windows and having 20 times the computer performance for the same money is looking to be a win-win move.