The SSD takes care of all the over provisioning it needs for GC to work. No hard drive like to be full and you don't need to save a quarter of you drive on top of the manufacturers provision to keep the drive healthy and fast.
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.
Why did Apple cripple the 2014 Mac Mini?
- Thread starter yahoodlums
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
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.
That's more or less the same thing I said, but with more specifics. They're using the same chips found in the 13" Retina MacBook Pro for the two higher end models and the low-end chip from the MacBook Air on the lower end model. Point being, it's not the same socket as the CPUs that are used in the Haswell 15" MacBook Pros and they don't want to engineer logic boards with two different sockets. Fair enough that there are dual-core Haswell CPUs that share the same socket as the quad-core Crystalwells that the 15" MacBook Pro uses. Sort of moot as Apple doesn't use them in anything.
Apple dropped the top of the range quad core model, for whatever reason. Only a few people needed such grunt, and there are other computers in the Mac line up for those who seriously do.
The Mini range is all dual core now. On test they are a little quicker, and in use they have proven to be at least as good as their predecessors.
The RAM cannot be upgraded, but up to 16 GB (soldered, not glued) can be had as an option. The previous Mini came with 4 GB, and up to 16 GB could be installed by the user….. so not really much change there.
Add in better / up to date connectivity, improved graphics, and lower power consumption; though its processing speed has changed little, the 2014 Mini has moved with the times.
The price (in $US) of the bottom of the range 2014 Mini is the same as I paid for my original Mini, with 0.25 GB of RAM, a 20 GB HDD and 2 USB 2 ports, and DVI back in 2005. The Mini has come a long way since then.
Productivity software (Office for Mac) was pre installed, but licensing was an extra cost back then. Now iWork is thrown in and updates to it and OS X are free.
While the 2014 Mini may not have been the update dilettantes wished for, it is far from crippled. It remains all the computer many folks need.
Last edited:
I think I'll go for c 256-512 ssd then add a usb 3 hd for my itunes stuff - the fusion drive seems like a bit of a cludge mid/long term .
As has been said once the ssd cache starts getting filled up you're on the slow as treacle 5400 hd which is a real donkey and have no way of allocating things , I don't like the unpredictability of it.
I've got a 6tb thunderbolt drive and that thing is like a rocket , the only problem is it's so damn noisy , REALLY noisy !!
Can anyone recommend a silent big external hd for the mini to store itunes on ??
As has been said once the ssd cache starts getting filled up you're on the slow as treacle 5400 hd which is a real donkey and have no way of allocating things , I don't like the unpredictability of it.
I've got a 6tb thunderbolt drive and that thing is like a rocket , the only problem is it's so damn noisy , REALLY noisy !!
Can anyone recommend a silent big external hd for the mini to store itunes on ??
5400rpm drives are plenty quick to keep up with media. The only time it's a pita is ripping, and you only have to do that once.
I think you've really got to go 2.5" if you want quiet, and they're most all 5400rpm. I went with a seagate backup plus slim 2tb drive. That works pretty well.
So a 2tb Fd isn't such a bad idea after all ?
I'm only using it for iTunes , emails , safari and very light office work , no 3d modelling or handbrake encoding for me
I don't want to blow all that dough on the ssd's for very little real world benefit
I'm starting to get a migraine with all these options LOL
I'm only using it for iTunes , emails , safari and very light office work , no 3d modelling or handbrake encoding for me
I don't want to blow all that dough on the ssd's for very little real world benefit
I'm starting to get a migraine with all these options LOL
Is being a cynical whinging wannabe a prerequisite for posting here?
The original 2005 base model Mac Mini was listed at $499 in the USA (and cost me 24,500 baht where I'm). To be useful I needed to front more to licence Office for Mac and a USB hub (I forget how much, but it was quite a bit). I soon needed to add more RAM to run some peripherals. Updates and app updates were an extra cost.
The 2009 base model was listed at $599 in the USA (and cost me 22,500 baht where I am at). I fronted another 5,000 baht for iWork, then more for Snow Leopard. 3 years on an upgrade to Mountain Lion was an extra cost, as was the RAM upgrade required to run it.
I am still using the 2009, and probably will be doing so for a while yet, however…..
The 2014 Mini base model (4 GB RAM) is listed at $499 in the USA (and about 16,900 baht here), and the mid range (8 GB RAM) is listed at $699 in the USA (and 23,900 here). In addition to iLife they come with iWork at no extra cost and upgrades to OS X and apps are free as they roll out.
The RAM requirement for OS X has not increased for recent generations, and it seems unlikely that it will increase in the short to medium term.
The dual core 2014 Minis out perform their predecessors by a small margin, and they come with more modern connectablity. In that respect that have progressed, albeit by just a little.
It is certainly not enough to tempt the owner of a recent Mini to chuck out what they have an replace it with the latest model. But, for many owners of older Minis, and others, there is a 2014 model to suit a variety of needs.
And ya'll go whining that the Mac Mini has been crippled and because the quad core is no longer available to pander to your egos. Fully tricked out the top end 2012 quad core would have cost about 2/3 the price of a Mac Pro.
Well, i don't know what are you smoking but it sure doesn't do you any good. The mid-model from 2012 had MORE cpu performance for LESS money then the mid level model from 2014. The quad 2,6 GHZ was a CTO option, but it was way cheaper then the new i7 dual core option and had TWICE the cpu performance. With all the CTO options the 2012 model was way LESS expensive then the current model and no way near 2/3 of macpro. Don't know where you come with this invented stuff and prices. In my book this is bad, and you don't do any good for anyone and less for Apple stating against obvious. The RAM soldering is one more 'great' move from Apple part against users. Now i need to put all the money upfront if i need more ram then offered(or future proof my purchase). Plus i need to pay Apple prices witch are ridiculous compared to market ones. I am an Apple user since the '90's but lately i am using they products less and less and i am trying to oust all of Apple computers from my business. The pattern in witch they release new OS once a year breaking compatibility with software and rendering hardware obsolete at a much higher rate is one more issues with them. None of this is a major bad move per se, but when you add them up then it starts to look worse with every new move they made. It was the same in the '90's when they soldered everything and they went broke. Only the return of Steve Jobs with the huge imac g3 hit saved them from going the dodo way.
I am not sure what planet you are living on. People who have older Minis have plenty to complain about if they are really utilizing the 'power' of their Minis and certainly the 2014 offerings are LESS THAN their older counterparts.
Any app that takes full advantage of multi-core suffers when going from quad to dual. You can certainly read the various tests showing the newer offerings are indeed, inferior for use with various apps.
Bought a new Mini, find out later it is slow...sorry you are plain out of luck to do any upgrade yourself given the RAM is soldered in and the drives are not so readily accessible. You are now stuck unlike the 2012 where you could up the RAM with 3rd party offerings that are CHEAPER and also exploit other options for drives.
Want to run a virtual, you can bet it is inferior on these models than the old quads. Need to add more RAM for a virtual ...nope can't do that either.
If you need a simple lackluster performer then the 2014 model might be okay. There is nothing (other than the vid upgrade) to cheer about.
Apple has turned these little beauties into castrated appliances. You buy you use and you cannot optimize. The latter being what makes it a cripple right out the door.
Mavericks will run on these but I think it requires a bit of finesse to get everything working. I don't know about Yosemite.
Dunno what you have been on to come with this semi-literate outburst .. But pray tell, what in my previous post was invented?
Somewhat hypothetical really.
How many Mini owners really utilise the full power of their Mini on a regular basis? A few occasionally maybe, but serious power users would be better off investing in something more appropriate to professional needs…….
A mate of mine recently copped a bit of flack from his missus when he stumped up for a Mac Pro and a couple of monitors, but he is well pleased with his purchase.
My own needs are probably more akin to the typical Mac Mini owner.
I use my Mini for work (as a teacher) to search for and create material, and for keeping records. My home / personal use is for communication, entertainment mainly iTunes (which is in need of a major makeover, in my opinion) or streamed radio from my home country, photography (some of which is used in the local newspapers), and a bit more….. but all in all nothing all that demanding.
I prefer simplicity of OS X, iLife and iWork in use, to all the mucking around that goes with the alternatives.
A lacklustre performer is more than adequate for my humble lifestyle, and is all the computer that many, (but not all) folks need.
Likewise in transport choice….. there are those who own a large SUV on the basis of occasional need (and ego). I get around on a bicycle or a 100cc motorcycle, which are adequate for most of my modest needs. I have rented or borrowed a pick up or car about 4 times in the past decade or more.
Last edited:
So in essence your needs are really that of those who would do well with the bottom of the line 2012 Mini and you base your entire premise on your limited needs. I'll be candid, I am glad that the 2014 Mini is a fit for you. There are plenty of other people who have far greater need but not quite a need to jump up 3+ fold in price (and then some) for a Mac Pro.
The 2014 line certainly is less power over all and anyone who had a quad model previously, is getting LESS with the 2014 line up.
Enjoy your Mini (no sarcasm) and again, glad it works for your needs. As for me and plenty others elsewhere, we'll have to look elsewhere.
Why?
Because they can.
You can't alienate a captive audience.
Irritate them, yes.
There are no exits in the walled garden.
Of course it's a nice little computer for most peoples needs. It's just lacking some of the features favored by computer enthusiasts, a group that Apple has been turning its back on for a few years.
You'll have to define what would you consider as "similar machine", though.
Concerning tech specs, any PC within the same price range would be superior.
Last edited:
I feel that since the 2014 Mac mini update, something is missing in the middle of Apple's stationary line up:
A machine that has (or can be upgraded to) the power of an iMac, but doesn't come with an integrated screen. Especially in the professional/semi-professional environment many people prefer to use their own peripherals. I feel the integrated screen is actually something that perhaps more people with smaller needs would appreciate. People, who don't want to worry about finding own peripherals, but who just want to switch on their new computer and browse/type away without worrying about setting up their hardware.
In my opinion, it would make more sense if the limited power of the current Mac mini would come in the all in one package of the iMac. Then, as the line moves further towards the professional high end, individual "towers" like the Mac Pro and the Mac mini should be offered. An upgradeable Mac mini with iMac specs would make more sense to be the mid-range machine, succeeded only by the all mighty Mac Pro.
A machine that has (or can be upgraded to) the power of an iMac, but doesn't come with an integrated screen. Especially in the professional/semi-professional environment many people prefer to use their own peripherals. I feel the integrated screen is actually something that perhaps more people with smaller needs would appreciate. People, who don't want to worry about finding own peripherals, but who just want to switch on their new computer and browse/type away without worrying about setting up their hardware.
In my opinion, it would make more sense if the limited power of the current Mac mini would come in the all in one package of the iMac. Then, as the line moves further towards the professional high end, individual "towers" like the Mac Pro and the Mac mini should be offered. An upgradeable Mac mini with iMac specs would make more sense to be the mid-range machine, succeeded only by the all mighty Mac Pro.
Please don't...
As has been said dozens of times, the SSD component of a Fusion Drive (FD) is not a cache. Apples Fusion Drive is a sophisticated tiering system rather than a simple SSD cache.
There is no SSD cache to fill up. Initially, the entire operating system (OS) and all writes are stored on the SSD component of the core storage logical volume. Rather than the small SSD cache of a Seagate Momentus or similar hybrid drive the FD SSD is sized to contain the entire OS and more. A much larger 128 GB SSD is standard with the factory configured FD.
Although it sounds like advertising copy, a Fusion Drive really does emphasize the strengths of HD and SSD components while masking their weaknesses. Many users want or need more than 128 GB of internal storage in their computers. 5400-rpm drives are reliable and inexpensive but they are not among the fastest storage solutions. In use, a FD delivers performance like an SSD while providing a storage volume even greater than the HD component.
Please scan these old links to confirm that the truth is out there. If you check the dates on the articles you may notice that this particular truth has been out there for a long time. I am not sure why this FD=caching misinformation persists, but the article titles and comments threads indicate that, like the FD, it has been around since October 2012.
https://www.macrumors.com/2012/10/23/apples-new-fusion-drive-not-a-typical-hybrid-drive/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/netapp/2012/10/25/apple-fusion-drive-ssd-cache/
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6679/a-month-with-apples-fusion-drive
These sources range from Macrumors to Forbes.
As has been said dozens of times, the SSD component of a Fusion Drive (FD) is not a cache. Apples Fusion Drive is a sophisticated tiering system rather than a simple SSD cache.
There is no SSD cache to fill up. Initially, the entire operating system (OS) and all writes are stored on the SSD component of the core storage logical volume. Rather than the small SSD cache of a Seagate Momentus or similar hybrid drive the FD SSD is sized to contain the entire OS and more. A much larger 128 GB SSD is standard with the factory configured FD.
Although it sounds like advertising copy, a Fusion Drive really does emphasize the strengths of HD and SSD components while masking their weaknesses. Many users want or need more than 128 GB of internal storage in their computers. 5400-rpm drives are reliable and inexpensive but they are not among the fastest storage solutions. In use, a FD delivers performance like an SSD while providing a storage volume even greater than the HD component.
Please scan these old links to confirm that the truth is out there. If you check the dates on the articles you may notice that this particular truth has been out there for a long time. I am not sure why this FD=caching misinformation persists, but the article titles and comments threads indicate that, like the FD, it has been around since October 2012.
https://www.macrumors.com/2012/10/23/apples-new-fusion-drive-not-a-typical-hybrid-drive/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/netapp/2012/10/25/apple-fusion-drive-ssd-cache/
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6679/a-month-with-apples-fusion-drive
These sources range from Macrumors to Forbes.