or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Nightcrawler

My new 2012-Mac mini 2,3 GHz quad core i7 with 4 GB RAM, and the normal 1 TB-HD arrived. It has Mavericks installed (glad it's not Yosemite).   Having installed everything I need I checked it out doing my usual stuff. It's an early comparison, but my first impression compared to my Mac Mini late 2009 with 8 GB RAM is:   1. It feels a lot snappier, even small stuff, like opening apps or surfing feels more responsive. And Final Cut Pro X seems also much easier going....
 For me it looks worse, the 3d-look of that in the previous MacOSX-version is imho way nicer. Same goes for the look of the window-buttons. I can't figure out why Apple decided to change that to this flat 2d-look.
The real problem is that a new version is slower than a version brought to market two years ago, e. the quadcore one. That's inexcuseable. The most-expensive new version should have a quadcore i7.   So anyone wishing to buy a new macmini and wanting to do more than surfing and office-work, like for example wanting to edit videos, transcode them... or other cpu-hungry tasks I strongly suggest to buy the 2012-quadcore-macminis instead. They are still available as new in...
I just ordered a 2,3 GHz-quadcore i7-2012-macmini new before they are outsold as new.  With only 4 GB and the standard 1 TB HD. Planning on upgrading it to 8 or 16 GB RAM and a 500 GB-SSD.   The upside will not only be nearly double the performance in working with Final Cut Pro X compared to the 2014 mac minis, but also getting the Mac with Mavericks instead of Yosemite. What a hideous new UI  Yosemite got!
Just judging from screenshots I think it to be uglier than Mavericks:   1. The tray is only 2d and the icons on it look not nearly as good as before. 2. The buttons look flat and the direction-signs (forward, backward) in the finder look awful.   These are the things that I look upon the whole time and is how Mac OS X presents itself to me. If those look worse and for me downright ugly, then it's for me a backward-step.   Luckily I don't need the new features and so...
 I don't think so. It's true there was a trend away from desktops to phones and tablets because for the mainstream it was the hot new thing because they do websurfing and communicating so well. But more and more people realize that phones and tablets aren't well suited when it comes to being productive. And so I think the desktops are here to stay and will gain in interest again soon.  The reason why the architecture of the new macminis isn't so impressive is because Apple...
I haven't yet updated from mavericks. From what I seen in screenshots, the question comes up why the UI has been turned 2d? Why is the taskbar not 3d anymore or the red, orange, green-window-buttons so flat?
 At least it shows that the 2,6 GHz dualcore i5 this year is faster than the 2,5 GHz dual core i5 from 2012. It's only natural that a quadcore i7 from 2012 would be faster in multithreading-benchmarks than a dualcore i5 or dualcore i7 from 2014.
 That would be a good option if you want to go portable. But not everyone wants or needs a portable, and don't want imacs with the integrated displays either and don't want to pay as much as is needed for a mac pro.   There is a (hobby-)market for a macmini with quadcore. And those wanting to use them as mini-servers that can be stacked. Those wanting that and wanting to pay under 1000$/€ have currently no other option than the 2012-macmini-quadcores. At least until the...
 I've already come to a similar conclusion. For my uses, ie. Final Cut Pro X, transcoding, converting..., a quadcore-mini is probably the best bang for the buck.  And since I've already got enough external HD's, I can opt for the 256 GB SSD to keep things snappy. I'll opt for 8 GB, and later on if I see the need, expand for 16 GB. Since I don't use my mac mini for playback and neither for gaming, the better equipped GPU that Iris offers over HD 4000, won't be needed.
New Posts  All Forums: