The new Mac mini is almost certainly coming

[Cape Dave]

First of all no computer should have a 5400rpm boot drive period. Secondly the only way you might think its ok is if you never had an SSD as your boot drive.

I picked up a current mac mini on craigslist last week. It had the stock 5400rmp hard drive in it. The kid said he was selling it because it was too slow. I knew better. While we were trying to get his personal files off of it the mini dragged along slow as molasses. It was just a joke. I got it home and slapped an ssd in there and its light years faster at every single thing. Its unbelievable really. Your computer is constantly accessing the hard drive all the time to do tons of little tiny things and an SSD makes it non existent. I refuse to use a spinning hard drive any more for a boot drive. Won't do it. Never again and you know what, I don't have to because SSDs are now very cheap. Why punish yourself when you can get one for under $100 on amazon all day long. Even the cheapest crappiest SSD is going to improve performance of your OS 10 fold. No, an SSD is a must today.

As far as I'm concerned, any computer sold today without a solid state boot drive is crippled from the start and should be avoided. The cost of adding an ssd must be calculated from the start.

FINALLY! Someone who understands. Spinners in general make me sick. And a 5400 "boot" drive makes me need to go to the hospital. YUCK. Get with the program Apple and ALL computer makers. The SSD is here!

Selling, or trying to sell ANYONE a computer with a 5400 spinner is an insult. Period. End of story. I rest my case. Your witness.

 

[haravikk]

First of all no computer should have a 5400rpm boot drive period.

So no sweeping generalisations then? I already pointed out that I have two minis with 5400rpm drives and have no issue with them for what they're used for (casual desktop use, i.e - browsing, e-mail, office apps, that sort of thing). While they might boot up faster with an SSD, they both have 4gb of RAM which seems to be enough to keep apps loaded for instant access, the 8gb minimum of the new iMac model should be even more capable of doing that.

Secondly the only way you might think its ok is if you never had an SSD as your boot drive.

I have an SSD as my boot drive on my main machine; sure it's fast, but that doesn't mean it's necessary for every user. Not least of all because SSD capacities are still lower for the same price; maybe a light desktop user doesn't need capacity anymore than they really need the best performance, but with so much HD content I think capacity is still the better thing to have overall.

Your computer is constantly accessing the hard drive all the time to do tons of little tiny things and an SSD makes it non existent.

This is why we have RAM buffers, and cache memory on spinning hard drives, to queue data so that it can write at the earliest opportunity. If your system is doing so much that these aren't enough, then while an SSD will certainly help, I'd have to question why that's the case to begin with.


Don't get me wrong, SSDs are great if you can actually benefit from the performance, but if you have plenty of RAM and don't use your computer for anything properly demanding, then there's just no need to sacrifice capacity and cost for performance you may not even notice. It's the same argument for people complaining about the new iMac model "only" having a dual core processor; your entry level mac user isn't going to need a quad core processor, especially when a dual core Intel processor actually runs four threads (so is effectively quad-core in many workloads anyway); the MacBook Air processors are in fact very good, and in a desktop chassis they ought to be able to run at turbo boosted speeds a lot more often.

 

[drsox]

So no sweeping generalisations then? I already pointed out that I have two minis with 5400rpm drives and have no issue with them for what they're used for (casual desktop use, i.e - browsing, e-mail, office apps, that sort of thing). While they might boot up faster with an SSD, they both have 4gb of RAM which seems to be enough to keep apps loaded for instant access, the 8gb minimum of the new iMac model should be even more capable of doing that.


I have an SSD as my boot drive on my main machine; sure it's fast, but that doesn't mean it's necessary for every user. Not least of all because SSD capacities are still lower for the same price; maybe a light desktop user doesn't need capacity anymore than they really need the best performance, but with so much HD content I think capacity is still the better thing to have overall.


This is why we have RAM buffers, and cache memory on spinning hard drives, to queue data so that it can write at the earliest opportunity. If your system is doing so much that these aren't enough, then while an SSD will certainly help, I'd have to question why that's the case to begin with.


Don't get me wrong, SSDs are great if you can actually benefit from the performance, but if you have plenty of RAM and don't use your computer for anything properly demanding, then there's just no need to sacrifice capacity and cost for performance you may not even notice. It's the same argument for people complaining about the new iMac model "only" having a dual core processor; your entry level mac user isn't going to need a quad core processor, especially when a dual core Intel processor actually runs four threads (so is effectively quad-core in many workloads anyway); the MacBook Air processors are in fact very good, and in a desktop chassis they ought to be able to run at turbo boosted speeds a lot more often.

Completely disagree. SSD as boot drive should be mandatory. It's nothing to do with performance - it's all to do with zero wait time for accessing files. All my system drives have been SSD since 2007. Never go back.

 

[Oracle1729]

How are they crippling OSX? What functionality have they taken away from OSX or scaled back to make it seamless with iOS?

If anything, they are making their desktops lean more towards their laptops. I always hated the removal of the optical drive from the desktops. It's not a portable machine. It doesn't need to be less than a pound & wafer thin. I much prefer the mid-2010 MC270XX/A mini that was unibody & had an optical drive.

I didn't say crippling OSX, I said their desktop software. Compare the current versions of pages, numbers, keynote to the old versions.

They've also basically stopped development of their other desktop software, Aperture, iPhoto, etc. It seems they don't want to show a better desktop than iPad.

 

[Kentuckienne]

For post number 1988 (I think), I checked the too 10 tunes from 1988 (US). They were apparently mostly about the Mini, for example: "Got my mind on you" (George Harrison); "Faith"; "Need you tonight"; "Never gonna give you up"; "Sweet child of mine"; "Roll with it." I know Kentuckienne can work with these. No refresh is likely soon, but the power of 2000 has temp yet to be tested.

What, and miss out on your versions? You can do the songs, go for it! I can't be the only one with a bad brain ^d^d^d^d^d^d^d creative bent. I will offer this:

You picked a fine time to leave me Tim Cook
'Cause I need to replace
My G4 PowerBook
I want me a Mini
But I can't get any
By Apple I have been forsook
You picked a fine time to leave me Tim Cook.

 

[G4er?]

I hear that Apple is going to incorporate features from both the new Mac Pro and the new low cost iMac.



Round design of the Mac Pro but tortoise shell plastic because it is slow.

 

[Kentuckienne]

It's starting to feel as if Apple does in fact have a round, cylindrical shaped object in mind for the mini's future ... and it rhymes with Crash Pan ...

 

[evilsofa]

Some of you who are talking about what a Mac Mini is or isn't are forgetting or don't know about a major role for them: servers. As in, racks of hundreds of Mac Minis:

 

[jbarley]

Some of you who are talking about what a Mac Mini is or isn't are forgetting or don't know about a major role for them: servers. As in, racks of hundreds of Mac Minis:

Image

You mean like the the ones shown in post #1637?

 

[con19m31]

Completely disagree. SSD as boot drive should be mandatory. It's nothing to do with performance - it's all to do with zero wait time for accessing files. All my system drives have been SSD since 2007. Never go back.

Fully agree. I've had my first SSD for only a few days now, and I will not buy another computer without one. Massive difference.

 

[DesertSurfer]

There is a rumor of a new 27" iMac on the "3rd iMac 27" Coming!" thread, with retina display starting at $2199. That would be a good time, if true, to introduce the high end Mac Mini with 4K driver and dGPU, along with the new Thunderbolt display.

 

[Kentuckienne]

There is a rumor of a new 27" iMac on the "3rd iMac 27" Coming!" thread, with retina display starting at $2199. That would be a good time, if true, to introduce the high end Mac Mini with 4K driver and dGPU, along with the new Thunderbolt display.

Yeah, but they're saying this fall. I can't wait, so I'll keep the 2012 I got and go ahead and add an SSD and upgrade to 16 GB. I know, I know, but I don't want to mess with adding more RAM later and I've never complained about not having enough. I wish I'd gone ahead and bought this machine last fall, instead of waiting to see if they'd release a new mini by Christmas... by Feb ... by June ... I would have got a lot of use out of it.

 

[BJonson]

Some of you who are talking about what a Mac Mini is or isn't are forgetting or don't know about a major role for them: servers. As in, racks of hundreds of Mac Minis:

Image

That is awesome. So much better than the old days.

 

[Crosscreek]

That is awesome. So much better than the old days.

Image

here is the new ones.

 

[jbarley]

here is the new ones.

I'd have to guess that plugging in all the external cables on that system would be a major problem, considering all 4 sides are boxed in.

 

[ThisIsNotMe]

Almost time to give up on the Mini and invest in NUC.
Cannot wait much longer for a HTPC with 4K capabilities.

 

[Cape Dave]

Fully agree. I've had my first SSD for only a few days now, and I will not buy another computer without one. Massive difference.

Another one on board! All in on SSD. It is not even debatable.

----------

Almost time to give up on the Mini and invest in NUC.
Cannot wait much longer for a HTPC with 4K capabilities.

Yup. If Apple waits too long, it is like a slap in the face. And they lose customers. Good customers.

 

[mojolicious]

Another one on board! All in on SSD. It is not even debatable.

*checks Apple site*

Gosh, I had absolutely no idea that there were no storage options on the i5. You can have any colour you like, as long as it's a 500GB 5400rpm HDD. Ridiculous.

The non-server i7 defaults to a 1TB HDD. That can be changed to a 1TB Fusion drive (so presumably it's actually 1.128TB?) or a 256GB SSD for £160.

The server defaults to 2x 1TB HDD, which can be swapped for 1x 256GB SSD (£80) or 2x 256GB SSD (£480). No Fusion option.

So...

• In the non-server the SSD is priced at 'HDD + £160'.
• In the server a single SSD is priced at '2xHDD + £80'.

This suggests that the HDD is valued at £80, and the SSD is valued at £240.

But, if you want the 2xSSD option, the second SSD will cost you £400.

US prices are different again:

• In the non-server the SSD is priced at 'HDD + $200'
• In the server a single SSD is priced at '2xHDD + $200'

Unless they're leaving you with one of the HDDs in the server model, Apple are charging you the same money regardless of whether they're 'reclaiming' one or two HDDs from your Mini?

The second SSD costs a further $400.

'Horribly expensive' is a given but it also seems completely arbitrary, with nonsensical pricing points which aren't even remotely aligned from market to market.

 

[mojolicious]

Of course they might simply be letting the pricing structure slip because they know there's a new Mini coming out any day now, sold in 'zero storage' configuration with a pair of screwless, sledless, slide-in 2.5" SATA bays hidden behind a quick release side panel...

Arriving next Tuesday, I heard...

 

[evilsofa]

Does anyone know what Apple uses for 256GB SSDs in recent builds of the late 2012 Mac Minis? I think I remember reading awhile back that they were originally Crucial M4 SSDs with slightly customized firmware, but would they still be using those now? I checked EveryMac but they didn't get into that detail.

 

[squirrrl]

Arriving next Tuesday, I heard...

I think we are going to get to 3000 before the new mini arrives.

 

[Jambalaya]

*checks Apple site*

Gosh, I had absolutely no idea that there were no storage options on the i5. You can have any colour you like, as long as it's a 500GB 5400rpm HDD. Ridiculous.

.. snipped ..

It is a surprise there isn't an SSD option, say 128 or max 256 but there is a strong argument it's easy to add storage externally. The Base Mini is simplified to hit a low price point but I do take your point about the i7

 

[haravikk]

Completely disagree. SSD as boot drive should be mandatory. It's nothing to do with performance - it's all to do with zero wait time for accessing files. All my system drives have been SSD since 2007. Never go back.

You completely disagree, but you also seem to have completely missed my point; I'm not saying that SSD's can't be a benefit, what I'm saying is that the benefit to entry level users isn't strong enough compared to the extra cost or the sacrifice on capacity; users who are aware of the advantages can easily pay the extra cost to get the improved speed, and I expect the majority of users here are aware of the differences, so can and will make that decision when they purchase their Macs.

But for the user who just wants a computer to get online, do some light office work, get content on their iOS device (maybe use the new Continuity features of Yosemite) etc., the speed advantages of the SSD are going to be largely invisible to them as OS X does a pretty good job of preloading apps, and with 8gb of RAM that will do as good a job of accelerating the system as the SSD does.

I mean, even a relatively slow 5400rpm laptop drive still has an average seek time of 15ms, and a sustained read speed of 150mb/sec. While an SSD's "seek" time is largely non-existent and typical speeds are up to 500mb/sec, you'll only notice the difference if you're loading huge files that need that kind of sustained speed, or your drive has a lot of random reading/writing of small files going on. But like I say, a system with plenty of RAM shouldn't be doing a lot of random reading and writing, so the performance of a 5400rpm drive is still plenty for the kind of users that an entry level Mac Mini or iMac is intended for.

Besides which, there's just no point in increasing price or crippling capacity for the entry level model when it can easily be left up to the customer whether they want to make that sacrifice. I mean, there are people using Mac Minis as servers; if that means holding a lot of content then an SSD will cripple functionality, even if it might have better overall performance. Likewise with media centre type uses of Mac Minis, where all you're doing is hosting a lot of music or HD movie files, in which case capacity is far more important than an SSD as they're no point in a media centre being a tiny bit more responsive if it can't hold your media library.

 

[drsox]

You completely disagree, but you also seem to have completely missed my point; I'm not saying that SSD's can't be a benefit, what I'm saying is that the benefit to entry level users isn't strong enough compared to the extra cost or the sacrifice on capacity; users who are aware of the advantages can easily pay the extra cost to get the improved speed, and I expect the majority of users here are aware of the differences, so can and will make that decision when they purchase their Macs.

But for the user who just wants a computer to get online, do some light office work, get content on their iOS device (maybe use the new Continuity features of Yosemite) etc., the speed advantages of the SSD are going to be largely invisible to them as OS X does a pretty good job of preloading apps, and with 8gb of RAM that will do as good a job of accelerating the system as the SSD does.

I mean, even a relatively slow 5400rpm laptop drive still has an average seek time of 15ms, and a sustained read speed of 150mb/sec. While an SSD's "seek" time is largely non-existent and typical speeds are up to 500mb/sec, you'll only notice the difference if you're loading huge files that need that kind of sustained speed, or your drive has a lot of random reading/writing of small files going on. But like I say, a system with plenty of RAM shouldn't be doing a lot of random reading and writing, so the performance of a 5400rpm drive is still plenty for the kind of users that an entry level Mac Mini or iMac is intended for.

Besides which, there's just no point in increasing price or crippling capacity for the entry level model when it can easily be left up to the customer whether they want to make that sacrifice. I mean, there are people using Mac Minis as servers; if that means holding a lot of content then an SSD will cripple functionality, even if it might have better overall performance. Likewise with media centre type uses of Mac Minis, where all you're doing is hosting a lot of music or HD movie files, in which case capacity is far more important than an SSD as they're no point in a media centre being a tiny bit more responsive if it can't hold your media library.

Maybe the main point here is that OSX does a better job of managing its need for system files than Win7 or Xp. System files are exactly what an SSD should speed up (lots of pseudorandom accesses to small files). If OSX can do this by look-ahead, then OK.

 

[jonathanbruce]

Is the next MacMini going to be upgradeable ? i.e.. changing memory modules and swapping out the Hdd.
If not I might as well get the current one.
I'm only interested in it for as an iTunes server, especially since it has 4 usb3 ports on it, I have 2x My Book Thunderbolt Duo 4TB drives and the Lacie Little Big Disk 2 Thunderbolt for my MacPro.
I'm certainly not using my MacPro for iTunes.

BTW in all my machines I have an SSD as my "Boot" drive.