I seriously do not understand how can it ship with a 500GB 5400rpm drive by default. This gives such poor experience to the user that Apple should have opted for all-ssd approach two generations ago. Very disappointed by that.
There are no 2.5" 3TB drives, and even if one existed, it would be 12.5mm (or more), which may be too thick for Mac mini (standard 2.5" drive thickness is 9.5mm).
Anyone have experience trying to colo one of these? The $/GB and Ghz aren't bad when you depreciate the upfront cost of the mini over a few years.
I've seen hosting in the $35-50 range and nearly bitten the bullet several times because they'll let you run CentOS/VMware/etc and would thus make for great project boxes. The fact that the newer models lack a quad-core option is making me flirt with the idea again to get that horsepower while I still can. For example, I haven't seen actual specs on the 2014 model's i7, but I would suspect it's similar to the i7-4578U Haswell in recent 13" Macbook Pro's[1] which have a CPU Mark score of 5204 [2]. This seems like a step back compared to the 2012 i7-3615QM's score of 7344 [3].
then why 5400k? At work (90% mac shop) we are just looking at what to do for a central server. Apple isn't supporting that market very well - they need a shuttle sff size mac midi that uses full fat non mobile parts.
Honestly, it could be due to heat issues. It's a small device and faster drives can get hot.
Apple has tried to support that market before, and it's just not a big market, and it isn't a one-size fits all market. Many people have been clamoring for an Apple solution for SMB server, and it just isn't profitable. This is especially true when you take into account cloud shared storage providers like Dropbox or Box.net.
It's also a market that is more focused on margins. It's easier to charge a higher margin for a device you use everyday, but what about one that you install in a closet or put in a corner and forget?
An HP microserver running FreeNAS is a tough combination to beat for an SMB central server.
It can't be due to heat issues, because Apple sells this exact same machine in "server" spec, with 2 HDDs stacked on top of each other, so if that enclosure can deal with 2xHDDs then it certainly can deal with 1x7200rpm hdd.
It looks like it's a similar design externally, but it might have changed internally. For example, there are two thunderbolt ports now. They also don't sell the "server" configuration anymore, which had also had 5400rpm drives.
So, it still could be from heat. It's probably a cost issue, but there is a lot at play in such a small system.
I bought a low-end Mac mini last year, upgraded it with 16 GB memory from Crucial, installed a Samsung SSD with Fusion Drive and bingo: reasonably fast desktop system for less than $900. I guess you can do it for $800 now.
The stock 5400rpm drive is unusable, but it's an easy fix if you're willing to open the box. With Fusion Drive, even a small SSD will make a huge difference.
So correct me if I'm wrong, but they appear to have done the same thing with the Mac Mini to achieve the lower price point as they did with the iMac earlier this year, by introducing a 1.4Ghz i5 model? I don't recall the base Mac Mini being as weak before...
Looks like they took the same CPU used in the MacBook Air. Assuming I got the models right and the benchmark is accurate [0] it doesn't look like you are loosing too much in the end...
I hate the Intel nomenclature break on mobile vs desktop. On desktops, Celeron is dual core, i3 is dual core with hyperthreading, i5 is quad core, and i7 is quad core with hyperthreading. On the other front, they mix random clock values and core counts across skews so you never know if your i7 is a quad core with hyperthreading (4750Q for example) or a low power dual core (4700U) because there the suffixes on the parts number dictate core counts and such.
I believe you are incorrect. i3 has hyperthreading, i5 has turboboost, and i7 has both. If what you say were true, I shouldn't be able to get a dual core i5 or i7 in the latest Minis. store.apple.com/us/buy-mac/mac-mini?product=MGEN2LL/A&step=config
Perhaps it is just that modern CPUs are powerful enough that even the low-end ones are now Good Enough for most people. There have always been cheaper CPUs available; Apple just avoided them in favor of a better experience.
Ding ding ding. My TV and home media and general server needs are powered by a Mid-2010 Mac Mini 4,1 with a 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo, which is most certainly less than half the horsepower of this new model [1], and it works great. This would only be an improvement for this or any other use.
Yup. If I was to put together another HTPC, this would be the ideal product I think (something that runs XBMC). I spent about $800 (sigh..) on putting together something a lot bulkier and noisier about a year ago.
I've been waiting for about a year for this refresh and fully expected to buy one today, but after looking at the combination of price, default HDD, processors, and very weak integrated graphics, I just can't justify buying this. Compared to the relationship between the 2012 Mini and the 2012 computing ecosystem, the 2014 Mini is really not that impressive.
I don't really understand Apple's current obsession with fitting their machines with low-end GFX. I get that it increases battery life, but let me make the choice between high-end GFX/poor battery life & low-end GFX/great battery life (at least as an option).
A top end Macbook Pro retina really should be capable of sporting a top end 8x series Nvidia as a minimum. In fact a 9x nVidia refresh with 40% the current battery would probably make me drop the cash for another one (I only bought a new Macbook about 3 months ago). I want "this" physical hardware, but with a nice GPU so I can demo things like the Rift DK2 on the road without hulking around another PC laptop just for "those moments". The current Macbook Pro just isn't cut out for modern day 3D like a cheap(ish) MSI stealth Pro is...Trust me Apple... I'll find a power outlet if I need it.
As an aside, it's still the best laptop I've ever owned.
My last two (current and previous) MacBook Pros have been 17". The last one had a dedicated Nvidia GPU, this one has intel + Radeon GPU.
In both machines, I've had faults in with the discrete GPU. Both times required logic board replacements twice. (that's four replacement logic boards across two laptops).
I can absolutely understand why Apple is moving as much as possible of their line to using integrated Intel graphics solutions - they're 'good enough' for the vast majority of people, and have followed Intel's recent energy efficiency work, so not only do they drain the battery slower they produce less heat, and from what I've seen are much less likely to have catastrophic failures than discrete graphics.
If you want discrete graphics, buy a high end machine. If you don't have that requirement, why pay for the extra hardware that is more likely to cause a fault than be of use?
I just chatted with Apple Store staff. The RAM is NOT user-upgradeable.
"With the new type of ram, this is so small that we need to solder it to the logic board. So it is not user replaceable any longer. We can only offer upgrade at the point of purchase"
The PICe SSD storage is also soldiered onto the machine.
I've also upgraded RAM a mini purchased originally to do iOS app development. Getting the case off was a bit dicey, but otherwise it is pretty straightforward. Guides are on Youtube.
It looks like the physical design is the same as the late 2012, which on mine has a screw top "bottom" (until moments ago I had it upside down...always thinking that screen top was the top) that reveals a couple of so-dimm ports.
I am extremely surprised they didn't go Broadwell given that Intel is just starting to put those out in volume.
I have a fanless Haswell NUC from Logic Supply[0] that I use for a MythTV frontend that I really love. Boots super fast off the 32G SSD, and the HD-4400 GPU (with VAAPI) handles with aplomb every kind of video I've thrown at it.
Yes, let's alienate the group of people who build 3rd party software and want a reasonably priced headless mac, and user upgradeable memory/HDD. Idiots.
$100+ billion in cash or marketable securities and total spite for the dev/performance market. Just blind arrogance at this point - 'we don't need to offer this option anymore'
Apple has never been shy that "developer" Macs are the MacPros. The fact that you can get a reasonable developer experience on a Mac Mini or an iMac the last few years has been coincidental.
Let me put it this way. If I do a pkgsrc bulk build, what do I build it on?
Previously there was the XServe platform that I could have in a rack along my other infrastructure. They ditched that. The old MacPro's you could install in a rack, though they were massively overpriced for what it was a purely CPU-bound job. Now the new MacPro's are not rackable any more.
Mac Mini's were never great, but they were cheap enough you could buy a few and small enough that you could put somewhere, although it sucked.
Again, you're missing the point. Mac's are built for workstation style development. The distributed, shared infrastructure that's en vogue today isn't a factor if you're building iOS & OSX apps. And, if you dedicate the time and infrastructure, you can build those up to stronger processes with Xcode and it's distcc.
And where does the software that powers the workstations come from? Out of thin air? Where do you compile it? I am not talking about iOS and OS X bundles, I am talking about fundamental Unix system software (which pkgsrc provides). And what if you do continuous integration? Where do you run that?
Lately I've been playing with a setup that builds a cross-clang on FreeBSD to cross-compile OS X software using the libraries inside the XCode sdks. The setup itself is working reasonably well, but most autoconf scripts don't work well with cross-compilers, so it's not workable for pkgsrc right now (though it is workable for my own C software). Unfortunately, this would not help with integration testing...
but at a huge premium to a bog standard standard wintel system which is now 8+8 core at the top end and 6+6 entry level - for those that really want to push its will be the dual xenon E5 V3 using a pair of those 18 core monsters
Yes, that's long been the obvious stupidity in Apple's Mac line: the lack of a mini-tower. Mini-towers let you stick in a full power desktop CPU and as much disk space as you want.
Moreover, they dropped the expandable Mac Pro in favor of the new trashcan model which cannot be expanded -- except using thunderbolt which is just not as cheap as a drive bay.
That said, they're probably doing the right thing. The people who want the ITX build are hackers like us, and we just aren't that common.
Not sure that's the right number - I worked in a Mac shop (an engineering firm) with 20-30 users with 21" iMacs, served off a single Mac Mini server. If your users are just normal users, iMacs are fine. (Though the Macs did come under fire from the finance folks - taking the line that "equivalent" PCs are "industry standard" and a third of the price. I think this argument won out in the end, and the Macs all disappeared one day. It's a shame).
Kind of off topic, but I just purchased a used Mac Mini (2012 model i5 2.5Ghz) that the previous owner upgraded to 16GB for $575.
When I first heard they announced the new Mac Mini today I was worried that I should have waited, but it looks like in the end I got a great deal since there doesn't seem to be a huge performance boost. I only plan to use it for iOS development purposes.
Do you know of any good ITX hackintosh howto writeups? I might go that route too as I want small form factor and OSX, but do not want to pay an apple tax (even if their case is way prettier).
tonymacx86.com is a decent enough community. I've built 10+ machines using the site-promoted build tutorials (with some modifications) for myself and friends. The forums are hit or miss in terms of helpful information, though.
I was unaware of the theft, could you go into more detail? I read OSx86 sometimes but could never get chameleon installed on my own. The tonymac software was the easiest for to install. That's my fault for being lazy. This is disappointing.
This is a credible answer for our new default developer machine, now that it has 2 Thunderbolt ports, but it doesn't seem cheap enough. We want dual 27" 2560 x 1440 displays, 16 GB of RAM and a 1 TB fusion drive. This is for Rails development, so we're not taxing the CPU or GPU, although we do run parallel_rspec and parallel_cucumber, so more cores are helpful.
You don't tax the CPU, but you want to pay an extra $200 for a build-to-order option to bump the CPU by 0.2 GHz?
How about getting the mid-tier 2.6 GHz Mac mini, with 16 GB RAM, 1 TB Fusion Drive, keyboard, and trackpad for $1,237? Then you'll be saving an additional $300, for a total of $563 in savings.
If you want to save a little more, don't buy additional memory from Apple, buy it from Crucial or another vendor instead. You'll pay less than $200 for 16 GB of RAM (which is what Apple charges to bump from 8 GB to 16 GB), plus you'll have the 8 GB of RAM that is pre-installed in the machine, which you can sell, if you want.
Ah, you're right. I saw that the enclosure was the same (or at least nearly the same) as the old Mac mini and assumed you could replace the RAM yourself, but I was wrong. That's a shame.
parallel_rspec and parallel_cucumber, so more cores are helpful.
How well do parallel_rspec and parallel_cucumber use all cores?
I was a little dismayed by the move from 4 to 2 cores as well, since I was looking at using the new Mac Mini as a server. Was hoping for a max of 32GB of RAM for the server as well.
Now, though? I'm thinking of this as a development machine. I think the higher single-core performance might just make it faster than the old 2.2ghz quad-cores in my 2011MBP and the old Mini....
parallel_test by default divides your tests by your number of cores and runs them each in parallel. There's a startup cost, and some contention, so I find that running on 4 cores is a little better than 2x faster than running normally.
Despite the HDMI port and 2xThunderbolt ports, still maxes out at two monitors rather than three... guess Iris Pro would have been required for triple-head support.
Since the design seems to have stayed the same as the previous generation: Yes, but you have to take the entire thing apart to get to the drive, and the parts are laptop parts so they're kind of finicky. iFixit is your friend.
The RAM, on the other hand, is extremely easy to change out.
It won't because the bandwidth of TB2 cannot transfer the amount of data needed for a 5K display. The new Retina iMacs can get away with it because it can interface with the graphics output directly.
Displayport (and HDMI) have a 2 bit ECC overhead for every 8 bits transmitted, so effective bandwidth of DP 1.2 is 17.28 Gbit/s. Additionally, the timing adds additional overhead, so the required bandwidth is actually 22.18 Gbit/s for 24bpp 60Hz 5120x2880
I don't know the actual answer, but it may be that the display actually expects 32bpp, in which case it would be over the limit by a considerable amount.
Thanks for the clarification. fwiw, I knew that alpha wasn't necessary, but vaguely remembered that DisplayPort might support displays that expected the entire 32 bit word to be sent. Looking at the specs, I don't see that. But it does show that DisplayPort supports 16 bits per component, or 48bpp.
Now I wish I hadn't bought a new Mac mini 6 months ago. But I really needed one then. In any case, I applaud the switch to ULV processors (like those found in ultrabooks or the MacBook Air). Anyone know if this generation of Mac mini has a fan in it? I have a serious fanless fetish.
A disappointing update, but would still consider it to replace my mid 2010 Core2Duo mini if the Thunderbolt ports supported Multistream Transport (MST) so I could daisychain 3 x Dell U2415 19x12 displays.
taking real offense that to get the option to have more than 256g SSD you have to buy the 999; top level; mini first? You cannot even buy a SSD on the 499 entry model, you first have to step up to the 699.
Really Apple. I was looking forward to new SSD minis for the parents, but 699+200 is a bit a much.
Did I miss something, or does maxing out the CPU and the RAM on the mid-level model get you the same specs as a maxed-out high-end model for $200 cheaper?
But they would have been saying that for around the last 12 months now. An update was long overdue. Guessing upgrade cycles of Apple's less cared for products (i.e. not iPhone/iPad) is getting difficult.
