I'd love my mac Mini a lot more if it was easier to swap out the internal HD and RAM ... jeez what a PITA on my late 2012 i5, 4GB RAM model. I use it as a headless a server for Plex and Home sharing. It is soooo (f****g) slow I have to upgrade something. I don't mean its serving operations, it works fine, I mean doing anything on it directly. I can go for coffee while waiting for it to open System Preference for example. What have folks found to be the best bang for the buck, SSD or RAM or both?
I had the same symptoms but only 2GB RAM, which I've now upgraded to 8GB (2 x 4GB) and it's an entirely new machine. I think the bottleneck is RAM - when you add an external SSD the performance improvement you are seeing comes from using that as a swap - but the problem is that it's doing a LOT of swap and that's not great for the life of your SSD. Fixing the root cause is best...
If I had the time/money I'd also replace the ageing HDD with an SSD - but more for reliability than performance (that drive is seriously old for a consumer grade HDD), though I'm certain it'll help with performance too.
These are good points which everyone should consider. MacOS most certainly needs more than 2GB of RAM too operate properly. Extremely light users can get by with 4GB but 8GB is the smart move for most users. On these old Macs take care of RAM first.
I'd love my mac Mini a lot more if it was easier to swap out the internal HD and RAM ... jeez what a PITA on my late 2012 i5, 4GB RAM model. I use it as a headless a server for Plex and Home sharing. It is soooo (f****g) slow I have to upgrade something. I don't mean its serving operations, it works fine, I mean doing anything on it directly. I can go for coffee while waiting for it to open System Preference for example. What have folks found to be the best bang for the buck, SSD or RAM or both?
I had the same symptoms but only 2GB RAM, which I've now upgraded to 8GB (2 x 4GB) and it's an entirely new machine. I think the bottleneck is RAM - when you add an external SSD the performance improvement you are seeing comes from using that as a swap - but the problem is that it's doing a LOT of swap and that's not great for the life of your SSD. Fixing the root cause is best...
If I had the time/money I'd also replace the ageing HDD with an SSD - but more for reliability than performance (that drive is seriously old for a consumer grade HDD), though I'm certain it'll help with performance too.
These are good points which everyone should consider. MacOS most certainly needs more than 2GB of RAM too operate properly. Extremely light users can get by with 4GB but 8GB is the smart move for most users. On these old Macs take care of RAM first.
Even if you've got an old 60GB SSD, Lion on an original core duo Intel mini is SUPER FUN with it.
The mini is a joke, I just sold my 2012 mini for more than I paid for it, granted it did have and extra 512SSD but they're cheap now. The reason is that it's about 50% faster at least than the latest top of the line 2014 model, due to it being quad core i7, and all the current models being dual core.
The biggest reason for it holding its resale value is soldered RAM in the 2014 model.
Nope! Developers love the quad core! Quad core has a huge impact on build times. By the way for other users that old Mini might actually be slower. It is common for people to dismiss the GPU in the newer platforms for example.
The mini is a joke, I just sold my 2012 mini for more than I paid for it, granted it did have and extra 512SSD but they're cheap now. The reason is that it's about 50% faster at least than the latest top of the line 2014 model, due to it being quad core i7, and all the current models being dual core.
The biggest reason for it holding its resale value is soldered RAM in the 2014 model.
Nope! Developers love the quad core! Quad core has a huge impact on build times. By the way for other users that old Mini might actually be slower. It is common for people to dismiss the GPU in the newer platforms for example.
1) LOL Nearly all real developers I know uses MBPs, Mac Pros, and/or iMacs, not entry-level Macs, for development. While possible, it seems unlikely that there are an excessive number of developers are scrambling for such a slow and outdated machine when there are many years of better options in the line up that, as you say, have "a huge impact on build times."
2) If that were true, then the 2012 dual-core Mac minis would't have seen a massive spike in value when the 2014 model was launched.
cali said: and is it me or has HomePod hype died down?
I'm looking forward to it, but it all depends on whether it will be able to work with the Apple TV as both a speaker system for my TV and as a way of use Siri voice commands to control content without having to press and hold the Siri button on the Apple TV remote.
Another product that I don't really get, but once again I seem in the minority of our 'modern' society? I don't want a device in the middle of my home listening, nor do I need to voice-control my toilet paper delivery. And, does anyone care about sound quality anymore?
My wife actually said the other day that she finds stereo sound annoying! That hurt my soul, LOL. I'm not sure she's even ever heard a real relatively decent stereo system in her life. The 25+ yr-old HK receiver I had died before we got married, and nothing we've purchased since (even relatively expensive Kenwood and Yamaha AVR systems haven't come close... I think I'm done with attempting surround sound, too.) and while I've heard good Infinity < 5" speakers in the past, we've had nothing to match them let alone a nice big pair of 15" - 18" woofer, 3-way towers. There's something special about actual bass you can feel vs overblown 'thumping'. We don't even have a respectable pair of speakers anymore (besides the studio monitors I'm selling because they are paired with a too-noisy amp for my office environment). What is the world coming to???
There, I think that was my curmudgeon, get off my grass, rant of the day!
I half wanted to laugh at this but then looked at my about 40 year old Marantz reciever. Ive thought seriously about getting it overhauled in stead of replacing it. The thing here is high end stereo equipment still exists, but im not a high end sort of guy. Consumer grade stereo equipment these days sucks and is a relatively poor value for the money.
Was it a survey from Apple? It is rather annoying Apple are doing more and more these kind of survey. Which the old Apple has known NOT to do it.
Annoying???? How so? I recently got a questionnaire from Apple related to laptops. I really hope that they have read all the responses and are taking everything into consideration.
If Apple does so they can prevent a lot of screw ups with products they have had lately. For example introducing a Mac Mini nobody wants to buy. In part this is due to completely misunderstanding the market for the Mini and the fact that many dont want to be strong armed into an allInOne. The fact is Apple doesnt have an acceptable desktop machine anymore.
Was it a survey from Apple? It is rather annoying Apple are doing more and more these kind of survey. Which the old Apple has known NOT to do it.
Annoying???? How so? I recently got a questionnaire from Apple related to laptops. I really hope that they have read all the responses and are taking everything into consideration.
If Apple does so they can prevent a lot of screw ups with products they have had lately. For example introducing a Mac Mini nobody wants to buy. In part this is due to completely misunderstanding the market for the Mini and the fact that many dont want to be strong armed into an allInOne. The fact is Apple doesnt have an acceptable desktop machine anymore.
Sure it does. Just not one specifically geared for "us," meaning the sort of Apple consumer that reads and comments on AI pieces.
Once upon a time, the iPhone, and the iPod before it, appealed to Mac users, and Mac users would buy it because it worked in a complimentary fashion to the Mac. At some point, that balance changed, and the iPhone became the gateway to other Apple products like the Mac-- and not the other way around.
The Mac mini as it stands is a good gateway for those folk to get into the Mac. It's just not for "us" -- and intentionally so.
When considered on a per-capita basis, "we" have more Apple hardware per user than the new batch of users do. However, our combined purchasing power is several orders of magnitude less than Apple's customer base.
The mini is a joke, I just sold my 2012 mini for more than I paid for it, granted it did have and extra 512SSD but they're cheap now. The reason is that it's about 50% faster at least than the latest top of the line 2014 model, due to it being quad core i7, and all the current models being dual core.
The biggest reason for it holding its resale value is soldered RAM in the 2014 model.
Nope! Developers love the quad core! Quad core has a huge impact on build times. By the way for other users that old Mini might actually be slower. It is common for people to dismiss the GPU in the newer platforms for example.
1) LOL Every real developer I know uses MBPs and/or Mac Pros, not entry-level Macs, for development. While possible, it seems unlikely that there are an excessive number of developers are scrambling for such a slow and outdated machine when there are many years of better options in the line up that, as you say, have "a huge impact on build times."
2) If that were true, then the 2012 dual-core Mac minis would't have seen a massive spike in value when the 2014 model was launched.
Back in the day it was very common for developers new to the platform to go with a Mac Mini quad core as it offered the best bang for the buck by a long shot. You can LOL all you want but you just display ignorance of the app community. Entry level developers simply do not have the funds for a Mac Pro.
Now admittedly the situation is different to day but the high resale value of the quad core Minis was directly related to demand from developers. The performance of the laptops and iMac today far out pace that old Mini thus it isnt as hot as it use to be.
In any event you need to do a bit of research before LOL. For a long time the Mini was the low traction way into Apple development
The mini is a joke, I just sold my 2012 mini for more than I paid for it, granted it did have and extra 512SSD but they're cheap now. The reason is that it's about 50% faster at least than the latest top of the line 2014 model, due to it being quad core i7, and all the current models being dual core.
The biggest reason for it holding its resale value is soldered RAM in the 2014 model.
Nope! Developers love the quad core! Quad core has a huge impact on build times. By the way for other users that old Mini might actually be slower. It is common for people to dismiss the GPU in the newer platforms for example.
1) LOL Every real developer I know uses MBPs and/or Mac Pros, not entry-level Macs, for development. While possible, it seems unlikely that there are an excessive number of developers are scrambling for such a slow and outdated machine when there are many years of better options in the line up that, as you say, have "a huge impact on build times."
2) If that were true, then the 2012 dual-core Mac minis would't have seen a massive spike in value when the 2014 model was launched.
Back in the day it was very common for developers new to the platform to go with a Mac Mini quad core as it offered the best bang for the buck by a long shot. You can LOL all you want but you just display ignorance of the app community. Entry level developers simply do not have the funds for a Mac Pro.
Now admittedly the situation is different to day but the high resale value of the quad core Minis was directly related to demand from developers. The performance of the laptops and iMac today far out pace that old Mini thus it isnt as hot as it use to be.
In any event you need to do a bit of research before LOL. For a long time the Mini was the low traction way into Apple development
Which is what's being discussed. It's 2017, not 2007, and as previously stated, all the 2012 Mac minis surged above it's original MSRP when the 2014 Mac minis were introduced, even the dual-core options. Unprofitable developers that can only afford a Mac mini, but can oddly afford a quad-core Mac mini, are not a massive driver for Apple—if they were, then the Mac mini would've surely had more frequent updates.
MacPro said: Exactly, I feel port challenged for sure That said I parallel two TB2 Thunderbolt ports to a RAID 0 and get around 100 Gbps read using RAID 0 with 720 rpm HHD Barracudas and about 850 Gbps write . However, I will sell mine get the next Mac Pro as soon as they are released. You are right to wait for USB3/ TB3. That aside I love mine to bits. I had 4 cheese graters (and every Mac Pro / tower ever made) and loved them too but the new concept of all external storage was a tremendous weight off my back! lol. I'm updating Boot Camp to Windows Creator Fall edition as I type I have to add, the Apple late 2013 Mac Pro with its dual GPUs and Catalyst runs Windows 10 better than most PCs out there, I cannot quantify that but I bet it is in the top 5% of PCs on the planet.
Yea, storage is fine, it's the GPU I'm worried about. I guess given Mike's tests, even with TB2 I could add an eGPU, but I'd rather have TB3 on either a Mini or Pro if I get next. I had planned to move to a MBP, but given the new ones are %$#(, I'm probably going back to a desktop/lower-end laptop combo.
I debated that in my head and decided an external GPU and using up more TB2 ports with a 20% loss just isn't worth the gain. I also suspect my RAID throughput could suffer. Plus I doubt there will be any possibility of two GPUs for Windows Catalyst use any time soon in any of these external boxes. If we only have to wait a year for the new, new Mac Pro it could be the better cost/ performance path to take. Apple could revert to a single GPU, I hope not as it how Apple runs FCPro's filters and rendering I believe. Judging by the iMac Pro costs I suspect we better start saving up now! It is going to be something to behold I bet as will be the cost.
The only way the math really works on an eGPU right now financially is if you were going to buy a dock for USB and Ethernet anyway. And, for TB2 owners, I'm recommending a TB3 enclosure with Apple's TB2 to TB3 adapter for future-proofing, so that's an additional $50.
This may change with Intel's loosening of TB3 licensing in 2018 -- but I don't have a feel for how much. On the other hand, I think that a new Mac Pro price is going to be... a bit more than most of us may want to spend.
I forget what machine you're on, MacPro, but you shouldn't see a slowdown from your RAID- assuming you took the eGPU route.
Hi Mike, mine is the middle of the road 6 Core released Christmas 2013. 16 GB RAM and 256 GB SSD, I going to remove the 4 x 4 GB and pop in 2 x 32 GB OWC SDRAMS when they arrive. I can't justify the price of larger SSDs for this Mac but have no problem with the small one as I have most everything on externals, I even have Boot Camp on there with 60 GB space left over. I use it for Windows a lot and the two GPUs work great with AMD Catalyst so I wonder if a single external GPU is going to out perform the dual, albeit lesser GPUs? My guess for a mid rage next gen Mac Pro is going to be $3.5K what's your best guess?
I'm hoping for a 1,1 Mac Pro surprise at $2500, but I'm expecting $4000.
But, I'm not sure you need to get one.
As far as your 2013 goes, I'd consider re-coring it at some point with the E5-2690 v2 processor, or possibly the E5-2667 v2 -- the street price is about $340 on either. There are a few YouTube videos should you choose to go that route.
As far as drives go, TB3 RAID arrays are cheaper than TB2 -- and backwards compatible.
Thanks Mike, all good info but my main reason for upgrading my Mac Pro will be hardware supported HVEC 4K compression for FCPro etc. Not sure there is anyway around that with 3rd party updates is there? My macMini on the other hand loves its new SSD
The mini is a joke, I just sold my 2012 mini for more than I paid for it, granted it did have and extra 512SSD but they're cheap now. The reason is that it's about 50% faster at least than the latest top of the line 2014 model, due to it being quad core i7, and all the current models being dual core.
The biggest reason for it holding its resale value is soldered RAM in the 2014 model.
Nope! Developers love the quad core! Quad core has a huge impact on build times. By the way for other users that old Mini might actually be slower. It is common for people to dismiss the GPU in the newer platforms for example.
1) LOL Every real developer I know uses MBPs and/or Mac Pros, not entry-level Macs, for development. While possible, it seems unlikely that there are an excessive number of developers are scrambling for such a slow and outdated machine when there are many years of better options in the line up that, as you say, have "a huge impact on build times."
2) If that were true, then the 2012 dual-core Mac minis would't have seen a massive spike in value when the 2014 model was launched.
No need for the condescending 'LOL' surely? Why try to demean someone? Many programmers work on a shoe string budget. Those of us with larger budgets are very lucky.
The mini is a joke, I just sold my 2012 mini for more than I paid for it, granted it did have and extra 512SSD but they're cheap now. The reason is that it's about 50% faster at least than the latest top of the line 2014 model, due to it being quad core i7, and all the current models being dual core.
The biggest reason for it holding its resale value is soldered RAM in the 2014 model.
Nope! Developers love the quad core! Quad core has a huge impact on build times. By the way for other users that old Mini might actually be slower. It is common for people to dismiss the GPU in the newer platforms for example.
1) LOL Every real developer I know uses MBPs and/or Mac Pros, not entry-level Macs, for development. While possible, it seems unlikely that there are an excessive number of developers are scrambling for such a slow and outdated machine when there are many years of better options in the line up that, as you say, have "a huge impact on build times."
2) If that were true, then the 2012 dual-core Mac minis would't have seen a massive spike in value when the 2014 model was launched.
No need for the condescending 'LOL' surely? Why try to demean someone? Many programmers work on a shoe string budget. Those of us with larger budgets are very lucky.
It has nothing to do with what developers or their budgets. It's a laughable moment to suggest that used dual-core Mac minis got a major bump in price after the 2014 Mac minis were released because of developers wanting quad-core Macs. It literally makes no fucking sense, hence the laughter.
Soli said: 1) LOL Every real developer I know uses MBPs and/or Mac Pros, not entry-level Macs, for development. While possible, it seems unlikely that there are an excessive number of developers are scrambling for such a slow and outdated machine when there are many years of better options in the line up that, as you say, have "a huge impact on build times." 2) If that were true, then the 2012 dual-core Mac minis would't have seen a massive spike in value when the 2014 model was launched.
I know plenty of developers who use iMacs (myself included).
Soli said: 1) LOL Every real developer I know uses MBPs and/or Mac Pros, not entry-level Macs, for development. While possible, it seems unlikely that there are an excessive number of developers are scrambling for such a slow and outdated machine when there are many years of better options in the line up that, as you say, have "a huge impact on build times." 2) If that were true, then the 2012 dual-core Mac minis would't have seen a massive spike in value when the 2014 model was launched.
I know plenty of developers who use iMacs (myself included).
... - what's our biggest seller? pour all recourse there!
This serves the shareholders, and the company in equal measure. ... - how far can we take the products in the direction of our wishes w/o a customer revolt?
I have little opinion on this. Apple has historically been correct on what they see as the future of the industry.
...
- what emojis will really drive the kiddos wild?
This serves Apple's user-base, but not "us." "We" are the vast minority of Apple's user base.
- if we design the UI like this, do you think we can trick our users into updating?
I guarantee this isn't a design consideration.
...
- don't you think reliability is way overrated?
Based on service statistics, Apple's reliability is twice as good as it was in 2000, and better than it was in 2010. The difference between both of those time periods and now is a larger visible number of failures because of an expanded user base rather than a higher percentage of failures.
Thanks for the response, Mike, and I agree on some points (and was maybe a bit overzealous with my lists). However, when we talk about what's best for the company, shareholders, etc. it's important to keep in mind short-term vs long-term. No doubt, some of the moves they are making are increasing their customer-base and profits in the short-term. My concern is long-term. If you shift too much of the company to chase after a fickle consumer-demand (fashion), what happens when that shifts? If you base your decisions and product line off of good, solid design decisions, UI research, productivity, user-influencer base, proper product mix to serve a broad range of the right kind of customers, etc., that serves the long-term.
So, I'm not arguing what they are doing isn't benefiting the shareholders in the current moment. I'm worried about the future. (And, this short-term benefit to the shareholders ruining a company isn't exactly without precedence!)
Yes, Apple has *historically* been correct on what they see as the future... and that's exactly what I'm questioning.
I think we need to be careful what gets lumped into the 'we' though. In one sense, I agree if the 'we' are old-time hardware geeks like you and I that want everything upgradable and like to build machines and that kind of stuff. Even I (I've built thousands of systems over the years, starting in the early 90s) have moved on from this a bunch, as I just don't have the time anymore to experiment. I'm kind of welcoming the non-upgradable, no-moving-parts type builds, at least in most of the product line. (I think the Mac Pro should be the exception, at least for one model.)
But, there is also the 'we' in terms of the creatives, content producers, Mac fans as opposed to the general consumer who buys a phone, and possibly gets hooked into more of the Apple eco-system and maybe buys a laptop or iMac. It's this latter 'we' I'm concerned about. Apple can lose the system-builder geeks without too much hurt, but I don't think they can lose the creatives and content producers without taking some big damage to their brand/image. Again, at least not long-term.
re: UI trick - I was talking about the iOS update prompts... where you tell it you don't want to update now, and then it pops up a key-code entry with a little 'cancel' under it, where if you enter your code, it will update overnight. I can't believe Apple has stooped quite that low. That's horrible!
re: reliability - I'm primarily talking about the new MBP keyboard, not overall. How anyone at Apple thought it was OK to put a keyboard like that in a pro product, let alone some new $500 budget model, is beyond me. I'm glad yours is working OK, but there are just way too many people I know who are having issues for it to simply be a problem magnified by volume (and that's aside from whether you like it or not, which I don't).
MacPro said: Exactly, I feel port challenged for sure That said I parallel two TB2 Thunderbolt ports to a RAID 0 and get around 100 Gbps read using RAID 0 with 720 rpm HHD Barracudas and about 850 Gbps write . However, I will sell mine get the next Mac Pro as soon as they are released. You are right to wait for USB3/ TB3. That aside I love mine to bits. I had 4 cheese graters (and every Mac Pro / tower ever made) and loved them too but the new concept of all external storage was a tremendous weight off my back! lol. I'm updating Boot Camp to Windows Creator Fall edition as I type I have to add, the Apple late 2013 Mac Pro with its dual GPUs and Catalyst runs Windows 10 better than most PCs out there, I cannot quantify that but I bet it is in the top 5% of PCs on the planet.
Yea, storage is fine, it's the GPU I'm worried about. I guess given Mike's tests, even with TB2 I could add an eGPU, but I'd rather have TB3 on either a Mini or Pro if I get next. I had planned to move to a MBP, but given the new ones are %$#(, I'm probably going back to a desktop/lower-end laptop combo.
I debated that in my head and decided an external GPU and using up more TB2 ports with a 20% loss just isn't worth the gain. I also suspect my RAID throughput could suffer. Plus I doubt there will be any possibility of two GPUs for Windows Catalyst use any time soon in any of these external boxes. If we only have to wait a year for the new, new Mac Pro it could be the better cost/ performance path to take. Apple could revert to a single GPU, I hope not as it how Apple runs FCPro's filters and rendering I believe. Judging by the iMac Pro costs I suspect we better start saving up now! It is going to be something to behold I bet as will be the cost.
The only way the math really works on an eGPU right now financially is if you were going to buy a dock for USB and Ethernet anyway. And, for TB2 owners, I'm recommending a TB3 enclosure with Apple's TB2 to TB3 adapter for future-proofing, so that's an additional $50.
This may change with Intel's loosening of TB3 licensing in 2018 -- but I don't have a feel for how much. On the other hand, I think that a new Mac Pro price is going to be... a bit more than most of us may want to spend.
I forget what machine you're on, MacPro, but you shouldn't see a slowdown from your RAID- assuming you took the eGPU route.
Hi Mike, mine is the middle of the road 6 Core released Christmas 2013. 16 GB RAM and 256 GB SSD, I going to remove the 4 x 4 GB and pop in 2 x 32 GB OWC SDRAMS when they arrive. I can't justify the price of larger SSDs for this Mac but have no problem with the small one as I have most everything on externals, I even have Boot Camp on there with 60 GB space left over. I use it for Windows a lot and the two GPUs work great with AMD Catalyst so I wonder if a single external GPU is going to out perform the dual, albeit lesser GPUs? My guess for a mid rage next gen Mac Pro is going to be $3.5K what's your best guess?
I'm hoping for a 1,1 Mac Pro surprise at $2500, but I'm expecting $4000.
But, I'm not sure you need to get one.
As far as your 2013 goes, I'd consider re-coring it at some point with the E5-2690 v2 processor, or possibly the E5-2667 v2 -- the street price is about $340 on either. There are a few YouTube videos should you choose to go that route.
As far as drives go, TB3 RAID arrays are cheaper than TB2 -- and backwards compatible.
Thanks Mike, all good info but my main reason for upgrading my Mac Pro will be hardware supported HVEC 4K compression for FCPro etc. Not sure there is anyway around that with 3rd party updates is there? My macMini on the other hand loves its new SSD
Well, there's your problem. You'd be relying on the GPU/CPU for that. HEVC 4K hardware decompression is in newer gear. Compression is another matter entirely.
MacPro said: I debated that in my head and decided an external GPU and using up more TB2 ports with a 20% loss just isn't worth the gain. I also suspect my RAID throughput could suffer. Plus I doubt there will be any possibility of two GPUs for Windows Catalyst use any time soon in any of these external boxes. If we only have to wait a year for the new, new Mac Pro it could be the better cost/ performance path to take. Apple could revert to a single GPU, I hope not as it how Apple runs FCPro's filters and rendering I believe. Judging by the iMac Pro costs I suspect we better start saving up now! It is going to be something to behold I bet as will be the cost.
Agreed. I'm currently more at a 'prosumer' level than true pro in terms of my needs, but what you're saying seems accurate to me. I think I could get by with that performance loss... I'm just not sure I should. It's a lot of money to spend, especially if it gets dropped in terms of support more quickly than I expect for some reason. I just need enough GPU/CPU to get the work done, since the software I use that needs huge horsepower can be offloaded to cloud-computing when needed (as it's currently more CPU heavy).
Mike Wuerthele said: The only way the math really works on an eGPU right now financially is if you were going to buy a dock for USB and Ethernet anyway. And, for TB2 owners, I'm recommending a TB3 enclosure with Apple's TB2 to TB3 adapter for future-proofing, so that's an additional $50.
The problem is... what's the alternative? Most Macs just don't have a great GPU, so if you want one, eGPU is kind of it, right?
Mike Wuerthele said: As far as your 2013 goes, I'd consider re-coring it at some point with the E5-2690 v2 processor, or possibly the E5-2667 v2 -- the street price is about $340 on either. There are a few YouTube videos should you choose to go that route.
As far as drives go, TB3 RAID arrays are cheaper than TB2 -- and backwards compatible.
How many years do you think a 6-core D500 has in it for the typical prosumer, lighter-pro type use? Since I'm very unhappy with the MBP, that's where I'm leaning right now. I'm kind of waiting to see what happens with the Mini... as it *might* be an option (night and day differences, I know) or the next Mac Pro, but bet it will be out of price-range unless my financial picture changes more quickly than I expect.
Soli said: 1) LOL Nearly all real developers I know uses MBPs, Mac Pros, and/or iMacs, not entry-level Macs, for development. While possible, it seems unlikely that there are an excessive number of developers are scrambling for such a slow and outdated machine when there are many years of better options in the line up that, as you say, have "a huge impact on build times."
2) If that were true, then the 2012 dual-core Mac minis would't have seen a massive spike in value when the 2014 model was launched.
I agree that a dev who is successful and making good money is going to buy a Mac Pro and not really even consider anything else. But, for people on more limited budgets, the 2-core vs 4-core downgrade across several Mac models was a notable hit. My iMac, for example, was entry level and also a 4-core... which made it much faster and more valuable than iMacs several years newer (when I sold it).
Anyone I know who sought out and bought 2012 Minis did so because it was the last quad-core.
wizard69 said: I half wanted to laugh at this but then looked at my about 40 year old Marantz reciever. Ive thought seriously about getting it overhauled in stead of replacing it. The thing here is high end stereo equipment still exists, but im not a high end sort of guy. Consumer grade stereo equipment these days sucks and is a relatively poor value for the money.
Yea, the HK I had, I'm pretty sure, was an entry level model that my dad gave me, and it was older than I am. I think it had *only* 17 watts per channel, but the Kenwood/Yamaha AVRs with 100s of watts couldn't come close to touching it. And, that's not getting into how big of pieces of junk they were in terms of reliability and actual sound-quality.
I don't know about the new HKs, but went with a Yamaha on the advice of a friend. It sucked... or my standards are too high. The most expensive speakers I've ever owned were some Infinity book-shelf speakers which were awesome (probably from mid-80s). Anyway, all the knobs and such on the HK started to going, and then one day, it went bye-bye (again, after like 30+ years!). I probably should have found a way to get it fixed... I regret not doing that now.
I know you can still get good stuff. I'm selling an ART amp & studio monitor combo which are pretty good... just too noisy and bulky for my office environment. I got them to take the abuse of guitar/keyboard work, but I haven't had time for that in recent years, and have sold all my equipment but a couple guitars. Maybe someday, again.
But, yea, outside the high end, modern audio equipment is just junk, IMO. And, I'm even talking into the $500 range (per piece) unless you buy just the right stuff. But, now the family always seems to have other higher-level financial concerns. Maybe I'll just get a good pair of headphones... but it's just not the same. (I used to play in a real garage-band... not the software, and we had some 18" EVs. I miss that.) The closest most people might come today are live concerts, but generally the sound quality at those are overblown and %$(#.
Was it a survey from Apple? It is rather annoying Apple are doing more and more these kind of survey. Which the old Apple has known NOT to do it.
Annoying???? How so? I recently got a questionnaire from Apple related to laptops. I really hope that they have read all the responses and are taking everything into consideration.
My guess, is they meant that Apple previously seemed to have a better grasp on what to make so that such surveys weren't so necessary. Outside of that, I think it's a promising sign as well.
Soli said: Which is what's being discussed. It's 2017, not 2007, and as previously stated, all the 2012 Mac minis surged above it's original MSRP when the 2014 Mac minis were introduced, even the dual-core options. Unprofitable developers that can only afford a Mac mini, but can oddly afford a quad-core Mac mini, are not a massive driver for Apple—if they were, then the Mac mini would've surely had more frequent updates.
No, they surged because the 2014 was a *downgrade* if you need computing power! The reason they didn't have more updates - it now seems - is because Apple shifted focus away from the Mac. So, outside laptops/iMac (the biggest sellers) the rest of the line languished.
Soli said: It has nothing to do with what developers or their budgets. It's a laughable moment to suggest that used dual-core Mac minis got a major bump in price after the 2014 Mac minis were released because of developers wanting quad-core Macs. It literally makes no fucking sense, hence the laughter.
It's anecdotal evidence... but the last Mac Mini I owned was bought by a couple startup developers. I think this thesis makes a lot more sense than it being about non-upgradable RAM. People bemoaned that for a bit, but I think we're now mostly onboard with that. We just order them with the RAM we need with some margin. The only reason people weren't doing that years ago was to save some money... i.e.: order with base RAM and then pop our own chips in. But, there's no way to fix poor CPU/GPU performance, especially if it isn't even offered!
I'd love my mac Mini a lot more if it was easier to swap out the internal HD and RAM ... jeez what a PITA on my late 2012 i5, 4GB RAM model. I use it as a headless a server for Plex and Home sharing. It is soooo (f****g) slow I have to upgrade something. I don't mean its serving operations, it works fine, I mean doing anything on it directly. I can go for coffee while waiting for it to open System Preference for example. What have folks found to be the best bang for the buck, SSD or RAM or both?
5 years ago I bought a slightly used 2010 21.5" iMac for home use to replace my 2006 MacBook Pro. That old MBP had a SATA 2 SSD in it (I did the install) that I transferred over to the 2010 iMac, dramatically increasing its speed and gave it an overall snappier feeling. Just for grins, I was able to locate a guy on Craigslist who sold used Apple RAM: I bought 4GB off him for a paltry $20. So about a week after installing the SSD, I put in the additional RAM for a total of 8GB. The SSD for sure made the biggest difference in speed. The extra RAM made the machine slightly faster in that it was noticeable, but not like the increase from installing the SSD. However, I think the RAM addition has kept the machine largely future proof; after all, we're still using it daily and it works great. The only reason I have right now for wanting to upgrade is to get a Retina screen. I would imagine we'll be doing that within the next year or two.
At any rate, if I can get by just fine on a 2010 iMac, I would think a 2012 Mini with a SATA 3 SSD and another 4 GB of RAM would make it feel like it's brand new.
Comments
2) If that were true, then the 2012 dual-core Mac minis would't have seen a massive spike in value when the 2014 model was launched.
If Apple does so they can prevent a lot of screw ups with products they have had lately. For example introducing a Mac Mini nobody wants to buy. In part this is due to completely misunderstanding the market for the Mini and the fact that many dont want to be strong armed into an allInOne. The fact is Apple doesnt have an acceptable desktop machine anymore.
Once upon a time, the iPhone, and the iPod before it, appealed to Mac users, and Mac users would buy it because it worked in a complimentary fashion to the Mac. At some point, that balance changed, and the iPhone became the gateway to other Apple products like the Mac-- and not the other way around.
The Mac mini as it stands is a good gateway for those folk to get into the Mac. It's just not for "us" -- and intentionally so.
When considered on a per-capita basis, "we" have more Apple hardware per user than the new batch of users do. However, our combined purchasing power is several orders of magnitude less than Apple's customer base.
Now admittedly the situation is different to day but the high resale value of the quad core Minis was directly related to demand from developers. The performance of the laptops and iMac today far out pace that old Mini thus it isnt as hot as it use to be.
In any event you need to do a bit of research before LOL. For a long time the Mini was the low traction way into Apple development
So, I'm not arguing what they are doing isn't benefiting the shareholders in the current moment. I'm worried about the future. (And, this short-term benefit to the shareholders ruining a company isn't exactly without precedence!)
Yes, Apple has *historically* been correct on what they see as the future... and that's exactly what I'm questioning.
I think we need to be careful what gets lumped into the 'we' though. In one sense, I agree if the 'we' are old-time hardware geeks like you and I that want everything upgradable and like to build machines and that kind of stuff. Even I (I've built thousands of systems over the years, starting in the early 90s) have moved on from this a bunch, as I just don't have the time anymore to experiment. I'm kind of welcoming the non-upgradable, no-moving-parts type builds, at least in most of the product line. (I think the Mac Pro should be the exception, at least for one model.)
But, there is also the 'we' in terms of the creatives, content producers, Mac fans as opposed to the general consumer who buys a phone, and possibly gets hooked into more of the Apple eco-system and maybe buys a laptop or iMac. It's this latter 'we' I'm concerned about. Apple can lose the system-builder geeks without too much hurt, but I don't think they can lose the creatives and content producers without taking some big damage to their brand/image. Again, at least not long-term.
re: UI trick - I was talking about the iOS update prompts... where you tell it you don't want to update now, and then it pops up a key-code entry with a little 'cancel' under it, where if you enter your code, it will update overnight. I can't believe Apple has stooped quite that low. That's horrible!
re: reliability - I'm primarily talking about the new MBP keyboard, not overall. How anyone at Apple thought it was OK to put a keyboard like that in a pro product, let alone some new $500 budget model, is beyond me. I'm glad yours is working OK, but there are just way too many people I know who are having issues for it to simply be a problem magnified by volume (and that's aside from whether you like it or not, which I don't).
Agreed. I'm currently more at a 'prosumer' level than true pro in terms of my needs, but what you're saying seems accurate to me. I think I could get by with that performance loss... I'm just not sure I should. It's a lot of money to spend, especially if it gets dropped in terms of support more quickly than I expect for some reason. I just need enough GPU/CPU to get the work done, since the software I use that needs huge horsepower can be offloaded to cloud-computing when needed (as it's currently more CPU heavy).
The problem is... what's the alternative? Most Macs just don't have a great GPU, so if you want one, eGPU is kind of it, right?
How many years do you think a 6-core D500 has in it for the typical prosumer, lighter-pro type use? Since I'm very unhappy with the MBP, that's where I'm leaning right now. I'm kind of waiting to see what happens with the Mini... as it *might* be an option (night and day differences, I know) or the next Mac Pro, but bet it will be out of price-range unless my financial picture changes more quickly than I expect.
Anyone I know who sought out and bought 2012 Minis did so because it was the last quad-core.
Yea, the HK I had, I'm pretty sure, was an entry level model that my dad gave me, and it was older than I am. I think it had *only* 17 watts per channel, but the Kenwood/Yamaha AVRs with 100s of watts couldn't come close to touching it. And, that's not getting into how big of pieces of junk they were in terms of reliability and actual sound-quality.
I don't know about the new HKs, but went with a Yamaha on the advice of a friend. It sucked... or my standards are too high. The most expensive speakers I've ever owned were some Infinity book-shelf speakers which were awesome (probably from mid-80s). Anyway, all the knobs and such on the HK started to going, and then one day, it went bye-bye (again, after like 30+ years!). I probably should have found a way to get it fixed... I regret not doing that now.
I know you can still get good stuff. I'm selling an ART amp & studio monitor combo which are pretty good... just too noisy and bulky for my office environment. I got them to take the abuse of guitar/keyboard work, but I haven't had time for that in recent years, and have sold all my equipment but a couple guitars. Maybe someday, again.
But, yea, outside the high end, modern audio equipment is just junk, IMO. And, I'm even talking into the $500 range (per piece) unless you buy just the right stuff. But, now the family always seems to have other higher-level financial concerns. Maybe I'll just get a good pair of headphones... but it's just not the same.
My guess, is they meant that Apple previously seemed to have a better grasp on what to make so that such surveys weren't so necessary. Outside of that, I think it's a promising sign as well.
No, they surged because the 2014 was a *downgrade* if you need computing power! The reason they didn't have more updates - it now seems - is because Apple shifted focus away from the Mac. So, outside laptops/iMac (the biggest sellers) the rest of the line languished.
It's anecdotal evidence... but the last Mac Mini I owned was bought by a couple startup developers. I think this thesis makes a lot more sense than it being about non-upgradable RAM. People bemoaned that for a bit, but I think we're now mostly onboard with that. We just order them with the RAM we need with some margin. The only reason people weren't doing that years ago was to save some money... i.e.: order with base RAM and then pop our own chips in. But, there's no way to fix poor CPU/GPU performance, especially if it isn't even offered!
At any rate, if I can get by just fine on a 2010 iMac, I would think a 2012 Mini with a SATA 3 SSD and another 4 GB of RAM would make it feel like it's brand new.