Why did Apple cripple the 2014 Mac Mini?

[ixxx69]

No stating that a computer is crippled and then giving a rebuttal that the computer does everything someone needs it to is a VALID argument. Especially when the use case is presented.

That is a completely different discussion than someone saying "I don't have that problem".... Giving valid reasons why something isn't crippled is completely on topic. Now if you want to be narrow minded and only have people respond to threads if they agree with them, then what is the point about DISCUSSION forums?

If you can't see the difference between your example and what is going on in this thread, then I feel sorry for you sir.

I guess you're being pedantic about the word "cripple", but clearly in the context of the previous 40 posts, it's being used hyperbolically in place of "the removal of options" that the 2012 Mac Mini had.

Xraydoc's post boils down to "I like my new Mac Mini - its dual-core is faster than my old dual-core - I don't need a quad core." None of those apparent revelations are relevant to "Why did Apple cripple (i.e. limit/remove options from) the 2014 Mac Mini?"

This is the last I'll say about it, but this was never a discussion about whether there are people happy with their new Mac Mini or would find one useful for their needs. Several folks here have defended Apple for making those changes by addressing the topic - that was part of the discussion.

While I don't feel sorry for you, I'm at a loss as to why you can't see the difference between the topic being discussed and what Xraydoc posted.

FTR, I'm glad Xraydoc is happy with his MM, and while I am disappointed with the available configurations of the 2014 MM, I'd still consider purchasing one myself and even recommend it for certain uses.

 

[George Dawes]

George wrote above:
[[ Did a hard disk test and it verified - it's really smoking ! ]]

Could you run a Blackmagic Speed Test and post the results?

Well , I ran the tests on my 2011 256ssd + 750 gig hd then my new 2014 1tb Fusion Drive

I was staggered....

750 gig ; 29.9 Write , 29.6 Read
256 ssd ; 120 Write , 188.3 Read
1tb FD ; 453.8 Write , 710.8 Read !!!!!


GOOD GRIEF !!!

That FD is a monster !! Wonder what the 2tb's like ??

 

[Fishrrman]

George wrote above:
[[ That FD is a monster !! Wonder what the 2tb's like ?? ]]

I don't think you'd see much difference.

The "1tb" fusion drive is actually a 128gb SSD + 1tb HDD. So actually you're getting [what I believe to be] 1.125tb.

I will -guess- that the 2tb fusion drive substitutes a 2tb HDD instead of the 1tb, while retaining the 128gb SSD. 2.125tb total.

I sense that the speeds you're currently seeing are because the 128gb SSD isn't "full up" yet, and Blackmagic is "testing" mostly the SSD portion of the fusion drive.

BUT -- no matter how you slice it, 711mbps is a rip-roaring read speed by any of today's standards.

Up until the 2014 Minis were introduced, I was biased towards a "straight" SSD (i.e., no "fusion"). But the fact that Apple is now using PCI-e for the SSD has changed the game.

If I needed a new Mini -right now- (I don't), I'd definitely get the 1tb fusion option.
It looks to be VERY good.

 

[xraydoc]

I guess you're being pedantic about the word "cripple", but clearly in the context of the previous 40 posts, it's being used hyperbolically in place of "the removal of options" that the 2012 Mac Mini had.

Xraydoc's post boils down to "I like my new Mac Mini - its dual-core is faster than my old dual-core - I don't need a quad core." None of those apparent revelations are relevant to "Why did Apple cripple (i.e. limit/remove options from) the 2014 Mac Mini?"

This is the last I'll say about it, but this was never a discussion about whether there are people happy with their new Mac Mini or would find one useful for their needs. Several folks here have defended Apple for making those changes by addressing the topic - that was part of the discussion.

While I don't feel sorry for you, I'm at a loss as to why you can't see the difference between the topic being discussed and what Xraydoc posted.

FTR, I'm glad Xraydoc is happy with his MM, and while I am disappointed with the available configurations of the 2014 MM, I'd still consider purchasing one myself and even recommend it for certain uses.

You: "Why is the new Mac mini crippled?"

Me: "I don't believe it is. [Within constraints of the processor socket used, the dual core is probably good enough for most users.] Here's my experience."

You: "Dude, why are you posting off topic?"


Your posts complaining about my posts are even further off topic. Don't like my posts, feel free to ignore them. Geez.

 

[Cheffy Dave]

I'd bet they'd really be happy with the low-end 2014 Mini with a Fusion drive, which would only cost $150 more than the 2012 i5. I really wanted a Fusion drive in my 2012, but that wasn't an option. You had to first bump up to the 2.3 i7, which was $800, then add the fusion drive.

I went for the 2.3 i7 with no Fusion as that was the extent of my funds at the time. I thought I would add an SSD later, but that's looking problematic at this point. I don't want to deal with selling my computer, but if you put a mid level 2014 Mini with a Fusion drive on a table in front of me with my computer next to it and said "pick", I'd probably go for the 2014. It would be faster for my day to day tasks. And yes, that's just considering my uses. I'd say there's a substantial minority out there that really needs that quad-core, if you were that person who really needed that, wouldn't you have already bought one?

Amen!

 

[suzyj]

Years ago my first car was a Toyota Corolla. Lovely little 2 door with an 1100cc motor and 4-on-the-floor gearbox. Cost me $3000. Got me around wonderfully.

These days Toyota Corollas are much bigger, with more feature, more power, more gears, more price.

I'm glad Apple has resisted the urge for spec creep and kept the mini as a basic entry level machine, while using the latest parts to keep power and cost to a minimum. It's the computer equivalent of my first car - plenty good for most people.

As others have said, if you're keen on having more, there's always the iMac or Mac pro.

It's certainly good enough for me. I've bought two of them for media use.

 

[phrehdd]

Years ago my first car was a Toyota Corolla. Lovely little 2 door with an 1100cc motor and 4-on-the-floor gearbox. Cost me $3000. Got me around wonderfully.

These days Toyota Corollas are much bigger, with more feature, more power, more gears, more price.

I'm glad Apple has resisted the urge for spec creep and kept the mini as a basic entry level machine, while using the latest parts to keep power and cost to a minimum. It's the computer equivalent of my first car - plenty good for most people.

As others have said, if you're keen on having more, there's always the iMac or Mac pro.

It's certainly good enough for me. I've bought two of them for media use.

First, I am glad it is good enough for your purposes. In reality, the new offering places the Mac Mini in an even more limited role. It wasn't long ago that the Quad Minis made for excellent all around servers. This is now gone. For those of use using applications that take real advantage of multi-core systems, this has been reduced from quad to only dual. The list goes on. So yes, the new offerings for many people are certainly LESS than what came out in 2012. Let's also look at the fact that the RAM is soldered in, the drives are not so easily DIY replaceable now. - The latter is another items now missing that was previously available and useful for many.

For those that just need a low end system, the new Minis certainly fills the slot nicely. For those either having had quad Minis or looking to get a first time Mini with a bit of power, flexibility for self upgrade et al, will have to now look elsewhere. Given the choice between the 2012 quad 2.6 and the offerings of the new Minis, I would without hesitation pick up the quad 2.6 because it does fit my uses (which includes media).

 

[lowendlinux]

The dual core mini will be fine as a server.

 

[George Dawes]

What mainstream apps actually make use of quad cores anyway ?

One's a normal light user / home office user would use ??

I was reading where it's not cores but threads that matter and the whole core things is much like the old megahertz myth thing , they gave an old amiga as an example ;

http://scalibq.wordpress.com/2012/06/01/multi-core-and-multi-threading/

I think this whole multi core thing is hype , I have a 2007 mac pro quad core 2.66 w/ 4870 and my mac mini 2011 dual core is miles faster at everything I do on it. My new 2014 mac mini is even faster !

 

[Manatlt]

I got the base model for the 2014 mini. It was slow as *******. Soooo slow it was driving me insane. I upgraded the HDD to an SSD. The mini suddenly is now very fast.

The mini isn't crippled, but what is crippling the mini is that standard 5400rpm HDD. That cannot be your startup disk for your Mac. Stupid Apple for crippling the performance of the 2014 mini with that HDD.

 

[George Dawes]

Yes , the ssd or fusion drive seem like the best options for the MM 2014

Shame the ssd is still SO expensive !

 

[dogslobber]

I got the base model for the 2014 mini. It was slow as *******. Soooo slow it was driving me insane. I upgraded the HDD to an SSD. The mini suddenly is now very fast.

The mini isn't crippled, but what is crippling the mini is that standard 5400rpm HDD. That cannot be your startup disk for your Mac. Stupid Apple for crippling the performance of the 2014 mini with that HDD.

Unless you got 16gb of memory then you're stuck with barely adequate memory. Or you got the 16gb version in which case Apple seriously gouged your wallet. Either way, you suffer ;-(

 

[Manatlt]

Unless you got 16gb of memory then you're stuck with barely adequate memory. Or you got the 16gb version in which case Apple seriously gouged your wallet. Either way, you suffer ;-(

I have 12 tabs open, iTunes open, Maps, Messages and Mail open and the mini isn't getting slow. Unless you are gonna do boot camp (but I use MS Remote Desktop) there isn't really a need for more than 4GB. Also my mini is used for Kodi/XBMC.

 

[dogslobber]

I have 12 tabs open, iTunes open, Maps, Messages and Mail open and the mini isn't getting slow. Unless you are gonna do boot camp (but I use MS Remote Desktop) there isn't really a need for more than 4GB. Also my mini is used for Kodi/XBMC.

1gb of that is for video ram, leaving 3gb. Seriously, only 4gb in a machine where you're condemned to run Yosemite is no future proofing at all. But as long as you're happy...

 

[paulrbeers]

1gb of that is for video ram, leaving 3gb. Seriously, only 4gb in a machine where you're condemned to run Yosemite is no future proofing at all. But as long as you're happy...

It only uses 1GB IF necessary. It dynamically allocates memory as it needs. Even though OSX might say it has 1GB (or is it 1.5GB?), it only uses what is needed at any given time.

 

[OneMike]

I just don't get it. Very cynical move by Apple to remove user upgradability and cripple the mini with such low specs.

Surely this move alienates the very core of users who buy the mini and rave about it.

Went to best buy last night and happened to try out the new mini. The base model.

Other than not being able to upgrade it. It's a fine computer for most People. As the store was empty in that section I spent a good 10 minutes with it testing scenarios.

I sold my 2012 i7 quad core 16gb dual drive Mac mini this week. Great machine, but overkill for many buying today as refurb. Not all but some.

 

[sequoiamac]

They move everything to cloud based storage and remove optical drives and use smaller ssd. They treat them as appliances without user friendly upgradable components nowadays, That's the part I'm disappointed with. At least, you can install Mac os x on a usb flash drive or similar.

 

[Yebubbleman]

I just don't get it. Very cynical move by Apple to remove user upgradability and cripple the mini with such low specs.

Surely this move alienates the very core of users who buy the mini and rave about it.

I don't know why people are wasting your time with nonsense conspiracy theories about Apple crippling the Mac mini to encourage use of the cloud. How does that even make any sense anyway?

Anyway, here's the technical explanation:

The processors used in the Ivy Bridge and Sandy Bridge era Mac minis all used the same mobile socket and didn't require any special re-engineering to employ the quad-core mobile CPUs instead of the dual-core mobile CPUs and vice versa. Haswell's CPUs change this up a bit as the dual-core mobile CPUs and the quad-core mobile CPUs use different CPU sockets. This would require a greater effort to re-engineer and would likely hike the price of the quad-core mini up that much more than it was in the Ivy Bridge era.

Should Apple have JUST engineered a quad-core Haswell Mac mini? Could they have? Absolutely. Why didn't they? They probably couldn't maintain the profit margin AND the price points the way they were in the Ivy Bridge era if they had done so. Plus, I'd imagine that their research would suggest that, for a vast majority of those buying a Mac mini, the dual-core models were sufficient.

As for the soldered on RAM, couldn't tell you. There may be a technical explanation why it and the lowest-end 21.5" iMac have soldered on RAM (where the other 21.5" iMac models do not). Them making it more difficult to crack open can probably be attributed to the fact that the only reason why they made it easier to open to begin with was to access the RAM, which was removable/replaceable. They have never wanted you to remove or replace the hard drives.

As for why there are no dual-drive options (beyond a Fusion Drive), my guess is that Apple wants to phase out the use of the 2.5" drives as soon as possible; though I'm not sure why they couldn't just leave the PCIe connector and add two SATA slots for those wanting to do a server configuration. Then again, USB 3 and Thunderbolt/Thunderbolt 2 give you comparable or faster data transfer speeds to SATA, so it's probably moot.

Apple probably stopped shipping a dedicated server version as, beyond the second drive there wasn't any value to including the OS X server license. It's $20 and damn easy to download, install, and run the initial configuration of.

 

[magbarn]

Well , I ran the tests on my 2011 256ssd + 750 gig hd then my new 2014 1tb Fusion Drive

I was staggered....

750 gig ; 29.9 Write , 29.6 Read
256 ssd ; 120 Write , 188.3 Read
1tb FD ; 453.8 Write , 710.8 Read !!!!!


GOOD GRIEF !!!

That FD is a monster !! Wonder what the 2tb's like ??

That same speed as the 1TB FD I would reckon...

Anyways, that's some pathetic 256gb SSD performance on your old mini. Your drive is either ancient, needs a TRIM run, or filled up... My newly bought 2012 refurb with Samsung 840 Pro 256gb + 2TB HDD runs at 500+ writes and 450+ reads all day long... (with TRIM also enabled) Granted the 2014 is capable of PCIe SSD speeds which are faster than SATA SSD's, but it's pretty hard to tell the difference between a 500 speed SSD vs a 700 speed one. OTOH, a 188 read SSD is super slow by today's standards.

 

[mmomega]

People seem to be forgetting that the vast majority of people who buy the Mac Mini have no need for quad core, nor lots of ram, nor upgradability. The vast majority of Mac Mini purchases will do nothing more strenuous than maybe us Safari, iTunes and Mail at the same time.

My personal logic behind the move is that it allows them to share parts with the MacBook Air.

Most likely true, I have right at 20 Mac Mini's in use and 19 of them are base model dual core.
I'll be picking up another 6 within 3 months and again, bottom of the barrel base models.

 

[ixxx69]

I don't know why people are wasting your time with nonsense conspiracy theories about Apple crippling the Mac mini to encourage use of the cloud. How does that even make any sense anyway?

Agree. They want to sell hardware. But only a few people have those kind of nonsense conspiracy theories.

Anyway, here's the technical explanation:

The processors used in the Ivy Bridge and Sandy Bridge era Mac minis all used the same mobile socket and didn't require any special re-engineering to employ the quad-core mobile CPUs instead of the dual-core mobile CPUs and vice versa. Haswell's CPUs change this up a bit as the dual-core mobile CPUs and the quad-core mobile CPUs use different CPU sockets...

That is not correct. I don't know if you just read that around here or you're the one who keeps reposting it. There are a number of Haswell i5 dual and i7 quad mobile chips that share the same socket and chipset... they're essentially the same lineup as Ivy Bridge used in the previous Mac Minis. Apple switched the 2014 MM to an ultra-low power version of the Haswell mobile line that isn't available in a quad core version. That was Apple's decision (for better or worse) - it was not forced on them by Intel. No "special engineering" required.

As for the soldered on RAM, couldn't tell you. There may be a technical explanation why it and the lowest-end 21.5" iMac have soldered on RAM (where the other 21.5" iMac models do not). Them making it more difficult to crack open can probably be attributed to the fact that the only reason why they made it easier to open to begin with was to access the RAM, which was removable/replaceable. They have never wanted you to remove or replace the hard drives.

I'd lean toward it's a cost-thing and helps a bit with reliability. And they don't think it hurts if it pushes buyers to either get a more expensive Mac upfront (the "I don't want to be stuck with 4GB RAM, so I better get the one with 8GB just in case" ploy), and/or get their next Mac sooner rather than upgrade their old one.

As for why there are no dual-drive options (beyond a Fusion Drive), my guess is that Apple wants to phase out the use of the 2.5" drives as soon as possible; though I'm not sure why they couldn't just leave the PCIe connector and add two SATA slots for those wanting to do a server configuration. Then again, USB 3 and Thunderbolt/Thunderbolt 2 give you comparable or faster data transfer speeds to SATA, so it's probably moot.

Less to do with wanting to phase anything out, and more to do that they don't see any need for it in a device that isn't meant to ever be opened. Either HDD, Fusion, or SSD - that covers all the bases.

 

[SlCKB0Y]

Many mini users are not power uses

What is a "power user"?

----------

All of those aren't crippling by definition. Disappointing, but not crippling. It isn't like Apple put 1GB of RAM into it with an Atom Processor and relied on network storage....

If I have a requirement for upgradeable RAM, multiple internal storage devices etc, then yes, the 2014 mini cannot meet those requirements at all and is crippled.

----------

There is a range of 2014 Mac Minis, with up to the same maximum of 16 GB of Ram, and HDD, Fusion or SSD, available to suit a range of needs, dreams and means……

Yea, and how much does Apple charge per GB of extra RAM and SSD space? Then compare this to the price of the commodity parts which could be used in the 2012 and remind what your point is exactly?

 

[George Dawes]

That same speed as the 1TB FD I would reckon...

Anyways, that's some pathetic 256gb SSD performance on your old mini. Your drive is either ancient, needs a TRIM run, or filled up... My newly bought 2012 refurb with Samsung 840 Pro 256gb + 2TB HDD runs at 500+ writes and 450+ reads all day long... (with TRIM also enabled) Granted the 2014 is capable of PCIe SSD speeds which are faster than SATA SSD's, but it's pretty hard to tell the difference between a 500 speed SSD vs a 700 speed one. OTOH, a 188 read SSD is super slow by today's standards.

I agree

I was getting c 300 write / read ( still not amazing ) when I first bought my original ssd mini but since then the hd is almost full ( isn't that the point of having a big hd ? )

The ssd in the 2011 mac does seem to be a bit crappy though , the one used in the new fusion drives is much faster by all accounts.

The one in my original 2011 mini is an SSD TS256C , apparently made by Toshiba and not very fast in the grand scheme of things...how do you enable TRIM and what does it do ??

 

[cocacolakid]

Though the update was underwhelming, and not the upgrade that geeks wanted, Apple didn't cripple the Mac Mini for 2014.


https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1681773/

They did cripple the 2014 mini. It's dual core instead of quad core. 70% slower in tests. They glued the ram so it's not upgradeable and the blocked the second hd bay so a user cannot insert a second drive. What part of that is not crippling the mini? None of those moves benefits the user. For Apple to still claim they make the best products in the world and then sell the 2014 mini is the very definition of hypocrisy.

 

[magbarn]

I agree

I was getting c 300 write / read ( still not amazing ) when I first bought my original ssd mini but since then the hd is almost full ( isn't that the point of having a big hd ? )

The ssd in the 2011 mac does seem to be a bit crappy though , the one used in the new fusion drives is much faster by all accounts.

The one in my original 2011 mini is an SSD TS256C , apparently made by Toshiba and not very fast in the grand scheme of things...how do you enable TRIM and what does it do ??

If it's a stock Apple drive then you don't need to do anything with it as TRIM is automatically enabled. Unfortunately Apple-Toshiba SSD's aren't known for speed (in-fact I exchanged a MBA 13 in the past for another one in my 2 week return window to get rid of the Toshiba and I got lucky to get a much faster Samsung SSD in the 2nd unit)

3rd party SSD's have to have it enabled through an app or terminal commands- it's kinda of a hack for Yosemite BTW. Many of the noobs here are scared to do it, but I have TRIM enabler running on 3 different Mac's in my household on Yosemite with nary a problem. SSD's DON'T like to be full AT ALL. I would at least provision 10% or for best performance at least 25% free so the controller can do it's thing with TRIM/Garbage collection to keep it running at top shape. A full SSD runs much slower and wears out much faster. A regular spinner HDD tolerates being full better.

PS One of the reasons I'm not a fusion drive fan as you have no control on how full the SSD buffer drive is. At least you have the cable and space for the PCI-E so in the future you can purchase an Apple or 3rd party PCIe SSD stick and upgrade yours up to a 1TB PCI-e SSD + 2TB HDD!