This is a very sweet machine. I'm waiting to see what's the new iMacs are like before I decide. I'll bet there will be one manufacturer that will create an external TB3 Mac-min lookalike disk storage unit so one can fill it up to their heart's content with aftermarket storage.
I currently use my 2017 MBP at the office connected to a Thunderbolt 2 monitor with keyboard and mouse, so my Mac is in clamshell mode the entire time. I can easily see myself buying this mini for the office so I don't have to carry my MBP around with me every morning... OR... if I the new iMacs look promising, I can "retire" my 2015 iMac to the office, and attach my TB2 monitor alongside to it and just buy a new iMac for home which is what gets the very heavy-duty graphics work.
It's nice to see Apple finally giving the Mini some much-needed love. What a great machine.
This is a very sweet machine. I'm waiting to see what's the new iMacs are like before I decide. I'll bet there will be one manufacturer that will create an external TB3 Mac-min lookalike disk storage unit so one can fill it up to their heart's content with aftermarket storage.
I currently use my 2017 MBP at the office connected to a Thunderbolt 2 monitor with keyboard and mouse, so my Mac is in clamshell mode the entire time. I can easily see myself buying this mini for the office so I don't have to carry my MBP around with me every morning... OR... if I the new iMacs look promising, I can "retire" my 2015 iMac to the office, and attach my TB2 monitor alongside to it and just buy a new iMac for home which is what gets the very heavy-duty graphics work.
It's nice to see Apple finally giving the Mini some much-needed love. What a great machine.
There's lots to like here from the "all coming together" perspective. Not only a form factor lookalike disk storage (I have one of those with the very old mac mini form) but how about a third party making a form matching wifi/modem router. Lotta very useful configurations.
This is a very sweet machine. I'm waiting to see what's the new iMacs are like before I decide. I'll bet there will be one manufacturer that will create an external TB3 Mac-min lookalike disk storage unit so one can fill it up to their heart's content with aftermarket storage.
I currently use my 2017 MBP at the office connected to a Thunderbolt 2 monitor with keyboard and mouse, so my Mac is in clamshell mode the entire time. I can easily see myself buying this mini for the office so I don't have to carry my MBP around with me every morning... OR... if I the new iMacs look promising, I can "retire" my 2015 iMac to the office, and attach my TB2 monitor alongside to it and just buy a new iMac for home which is what gets the very heavy-duty graphics work.
It's nice to see Apple finally giving the Mini some much-needed love. What a great machine.
There's lots to like here from the "all coming together" perspective. Not only a form factor lookalike disk storage (I have one of those with the very old mac mini form) but how about a third party making a form matching wifi/modem router. Lotta very useful configurations.
Does the top on yours buzz/rattle the way mine did?
This is a very sweet machine. I'm waiting to see what's the new iMacs are like before I decide. I'll bet there will be one manufacturer that will create an external TB3 Mac-min lookalike disk storage unit so one can fill it up to their heart's content with aftermarket storage.
I currently use my 2017 MBP at the office connected to a Thunderbolt 2 monitor with keyboard and mouse, so my Mac is in clamshell mode the entire time. I can easily see myself buying this mini for the office so I don't have to carry my MBP around with me every morning... OR... if I the new iMacs look promising, I can "retire" my 2015 iMac to the office, and attach my TB2 monitor alongside to it and just buy a new iMac for home which is what gets the very heavy-duty graphics work.
It's nice to see Apple finally giving the Mini some much-needed love. What a great machine.
There's lots to like here from the "all coming together" perspective. Not only a form factor lookalike disk storage (I have one of those with the very old mac mini form) but how about a third party making a form matching wifi/modem router. Lotta very useful configurations.
Does the top on yours buzz/rattle the way mine did?
Nope. But it is an Iomega, and those I think are long, long gone.
Good to know about the SSD, not that I really wanted to have to upgrade that myself, anyway. Still want to know exactly what's involved in upgrading the RAM, so I guess I'll wait for the teardowns next week.
I really want to know what the support for running it headless as a backend server are. I mean, I guess it's at least the same as now, but they seem to really be pushing it for XCode and Build and Render.
There will be a huge market for matching TB enclosures with storage ability. Perhaps even raid solutions that will still work out cheaper than the price Apple charges for SSD. It just leaves a bad taste in your mouth. Nobody is buying a Mac mini for outright performance.
This raises another question for me: Should Apple be using the most expensive storage format in mid-range machines? Is there an argument to be made for using more "generic" storage in machines like the mini and Air? Like you said, no one is buying a mini for speed-intensive work. That's what the "Pro" machines are for. I do not presume to speak for anyone else, but I'd actually be happier with slower and cheaper.
I really don't understand Apple's approach to this issue, as it's inconsistent with other parts of their machines. They don't use top-of-the-line CPUs, the mini and Air both use integrated graphics rather than dedicated chipsets, and even in the days of hard drives we had to pay extra just to get a 7200 rpm drive instead of 5400. Why are they now driving up the price of Macs by using only bleeding edge storage? Why single out this one aspect of overall performance when "good vanilla" is acceptable for other parts of the machine?
Just because storage is the weakest ring in the chain, i.e. the slowest of all. It is the ABC of computer usage to begin with the storage and RAM in order to increase performance. Running a fast CPU or GPU on top of a SATA storage makes no sense today and is even ridiculous. On the other hand, Apple has limited control over the amount of RAM it can stuff, because that depends primarily on the CPU, which is beyond Apple's control (mostly). A fast storage can compensate for the (almost always) limited amount of RAM by boosting virtual memory performance. Indeed those who need more RAM are the users of some very specific applications that need more "wired memory" (not swappable) such as virtual machines. In all other cases the RAM and virtual memory are totally transparent to the user thanks to NVMExpress SSDs.
Maxed out Mac mini, sans display, keyboard and mouse USD $4199
base config iMac Pro, with keyboard and mouse, USD $4999
What a great value proposition!
That’s not a valid comparison. It’s ridiculous to compare a maxed out mini, which has twice as much SSD capacity and twice as much RAM, to a base iMac Pro.
When configured in the closest like configuration—i7, 1 TB SSD, 32GB RAM and 10GbE—the mini is $2,599. That’s not iMac Pro money (but of course the mini is no iMac Pro).
1) I’m unaware of any four-port Thunderbolt 3 controller chips. Are you sure there’s only one controller? If so, are they possibly daisy chained?
2) The off the shelf 8x00 CPUs I’ve been assuming Apple used don’t appear to support 5K resolution. Actually I didn’t think any Intel iGPU supported 5120 x 2880. Are these custom SKUs?
"Standard M.2 drives are faster than that, of course, but still not up to the 3.4 gigabytes per second.". That's not an entirely true statement. Apple probably wants to push their own technology, perhaps because of the Anobit acquisition back in 2011 - a $500 million investment - or maybe because they are just stubborn with the mutter. In fact, a PCI-E 3.0 x4 can reach 32 Gb/s (4 GB/s) with real world speeds of 31.5 Gb/s (3.9 GB/s). That's way more than 3.4 gigabytes (27.2 GB/s) that Apple's PCI-E storage has to offer. Considering Samsung 970 EVO 500GB - NVMe PCIe M.2 2280 SSD (MZ-V7E500BW) can reach up to 3.5 gigabytes per second, that would make it a faster flash drive for the Mac mini and we would have the choice to upgrade in the future when faster drives come out. Lets not forget that Apple does not give you the option to upgrade to a modern drive or larger drive or anything else than what your Mac shipped with. Upgrade options are very few through the years (OWC) and most likely pricey, since there is no competition for a proprietary technology. It was a real bummer not to see M.2 drives with the new Mac mini. If Apple adopts the M.2, things will most likely become as sweet as the removable SO-DIMMs we saw today.
1) I’m unaware of any four-port Thunderbolt 3 controller chips. Are you sure there’s only one controller? If so, are they possibly daisy chained?
2) The off the shelf 8x00 CPUs I’ve been assuming Apple used don’t appear to support 5K resolution. Actually I didn’t think any Intel iGPU supported 5120 x 2880. Are these custom SKUs?
We’ve been told there’s only one controller. Alpine Ridge allows for it, but we will ultimately have to wait for the tear down.
Given that the MacBook Air CPU wasn’t in Intel’s ARC until about 2PM, there is a distinct possibility that it is a custom SKU or the first rollout.
kharvel said: What are the benefits of a fast internal SSD if my use case are just every day home computer use (Word, Excel, email, some Photoshop, occasional video/photo editing, etc)? Would I be fine using an external USB 3 SSD drive?
Then just get the 128 or 256 GB model and a big, cheap, external USB 3 drive. There is no need (aside from ease of data organization) to store all your stuff on a super fast internal SSD for typical home use. That's just what people got used to in the days just before SSD when we had massive internal storage.
But, the 'new' method does take a bit more thought around data organization. Basically you keep stuff on the big external, and then pull things you need to work on where you need the speed to the internal storage, then 'archive' them back off the big external.
The main problem this caused in my own workflow, is with cloud solutions like Dropbox that want to 'mirror' a specific directory tree point to the cloud, which is internal by default. Dropbox does sell a new product/version which allows some flexibility to determine what gets synced and not, but then you're spending money there which might just contribute to more SSD storage.
lorin schultz said: This is what drives me crazy about buying Apple hardware. I checked a few mainstream retail outlets to get a sense of a fair "street" price, i.e. not the lowest, margin-crushing, discount rate, but a price that is likely to survive more than a day or two, for a pair of 16GB sticks (32GB total). I was hard pressed to find a way to spend more than CAD$400 (~USD$300), yet to have Apple install it at time of purchase is CAD$720!!! (~USD$550)
I get that Apple can get away with charging more than street prices, even if only for reasons of convenience, but DAMN! That's a helluvalot more than just realizing a healthy margin for shareholders, that's out-and-out gouging. It sends a message that Apple perceives us as either profoundly stupid (which we may well be, if we accept this) or being wealthy beyond caring. Maybe most of you are the latter. I'm not.
This is nothing new with Apple, though. They do really leverage the up-sell on their systems, and have for decades. That's why I'd never buy any of their fully decked out configurations unless I absolutely need it. I typically go entry-level to mid-level... though all the soldered on, non-upgradable parts now push me towards that mid level or more.
OWC currently lists the RAM you mention above for $330. I'd consider that more a fair/street price, as other RAM sellers don't sometimes offer the quality, return/replacement policy and such that they do (which, I've actually used a couple of times in the past). You DO NOT want some flaky RAM in your system from a budget vendor... you'll lose way more sleep and hair than your savings could ever possibly be worth!
Maybe you need 32 GB, right now, but considering other Macs and such available until now, I'm going to just go with 16 GB and worry about upgrading it some time down the road if needed.
Mike Wuerthele said: I'd keep applications, system, and Photoshop scratch space on your fast internal SSD, and move absolutely everything else to a slower, cheaper external. A 1 TB external SSD slower than the Samsung can be had for $250-$300ish.
I think the problem here, for some (non-pros), is that these kind of workflows and data organization habits aren't well understood. People were used to just buying a computer with 1 or 2 TB and everything goes on 'C' or internal. So, then they look at these SSD systems and want 1 TB like they were used to and go, whoah!
I've been working on a 128 GB internal for a couple years now, which I admit has been tight. But, I think I'll be just fine on a 256 GB now that I have my workflow under control. I'm sure *some* people need more than that if their projects are big, but my hunch is that more of them are just used to keeping everything internal and don't want to adjust that habit.
Also, as Lorin admitted above, it's quite a different story for a mini vs a laptop. The mini just sits there anyway, so it can easily have an always connected external drive. It will just be slower (unless you spend crazy $$$), but that's really not an issue if you adjust the workflow. And, it's not like it is actually slow, like it was once upon a time.
sevenfeet said: Fun fact: only the MacBook Pro 15" also has 4 TB3 ports and the Mini throws in two USB A ports for good measure....no dongles required!
No doubt... though keep in mind (if I'm understating correctly), the MBP has separate controllers for those TB3 ports, whereas the mini has just one for all of them. So, you'd be more bandwidth limited if you hooked up, say, an eGPU and external storage, and.... where if you did that on the MBP, it wouldn't potentially slow any of them down.
lorin schultz said: This raises another question for me: Should Apple be using the most expensive storage format in mid-range machines? Is there an argument to be made for using more "generic" storage in machines like the mini and Air? Like you said, no one is buying a mini for speed-intensive work. That's what the "Pro" machines are for. I do not presume to speak for anyone else, but I'd actually be happier with slower and cheaper.
I really don't understand Apple's approach to this issue, as it's inconsistent with other parts of their machines. They don't use top-of-the-line CPUs, the mini and Air both use integrated graphics rather than dedicated chipsets, and even in the days of hard drives we had to pay extra just to get a 7200 rpm drive instead of 5400. Why are they now driving up the price of Macs by using only bleeding edge storage? Why single out this one aspect of overall performance when "good vanilla" is acceptable for other parts of the machine?
Yeah, I suppose it would be nice if they gave the option... so more like a mini and mini Pro. And, that's what they must have meant by it being a more pro-targeted machine now (even though they didn't add the 'Pro' badge). And, you're right that it is a mix of pro/non-pro... pro storage and CPU performance, but consumer CPU, GPU, RAM, etc.
It would be nice to ALSO see a mini with something like dual-core i5, internal consumer SSD, etc that would still be one heck of a machine, but at a much lower price-point. But, I'm happy they made this one, as it is the machine *I* need and have been waiting for.
Comments
I currently use my 2017 MBP at the office connected to a Thunderbolt 2 monitor with keyboard and mouse, so my Mac is in clamshell mode the entire time. I can easily see myself buying this mini for the office so I don't have to carry my MBP around with me every morning... OR... if I the new iMacs look promising, I can "retire" my 2015 iMac to the office, and attach my TB2 monitor alongside to it and just buy a new iMac for home which is what gets the very heavy-duty graphics work.
base config iMac Pro, with keyboard and mouse, USD $4999
What a great value proposition!
Does the top on yours buzz/rattle the way mine did?
Good to know about the SSD, not that I really wanted to have to upgrade that myself, anyway. Still want to know exactly what's involved in upgrading the RAM, so I guess I'll wait for the teardowns next week.
I really want to know what the support for running it headless as a backend server are. I mean, I guess it's at least the same as now, but they seem to really be pushing it for XCode and Build and Render.
Can you connect the new Ipad Pro as a monitor and run MacOS?
When configured in the closest like configuration—i7, 1 TB SSD, 32GB RAM and 10GbE—the mini is $2,599. That’s not iMac Pro money (but of course the mini is no iMac Pro).
1) I’m unaware of any four-port Thunderbolt 3 controller chips. Are you sure there’s only one controller? If so, are they possibly daisy chained?
2) The off the shelf 8x00 CPUs I’ve been assuming Apple used don’t appear to support 5K resolution. Actually I didn’t think any Intel iGPU supported 5120 x 2880. Are these custom SKUs?
Given that the MacBook Air CPU wasn’t in Intel’s ARC until about 2PM, there is a distinct possibility that it is a custom SKU or the first rollout.
But, the 'new' method does take a bit more thought around data organization. Basically you keep stuff on the big external, and then pull things you need to work on where you need the speed to the internal storage, then 'archive' them back off the big external.
The main problem this caused in my own workflow, is with cloud solutions like Dropbox that want to 'mirror' a specific directory tree point to the cloud, which is internal by default. Dropbox does sell a new product/version which allows some flexibility to determine what gets synced and not, but then you're spending money there which might just contribute to more SSD storage.
This is nothing new with Apple, though. They do really leverage the up-sell on their systems, and have for decades. That's why I'd never buy any of their fully decked out configurations unless I absolutely need it. I typically go entry-level to mid-level... though all the soldered on, non-upgradable parts now push me towards that mid level or more.
OWC currently lists the RAM you mention above for $330. I'd consider that more a fair/street price, as other RAM sellers don't sometimes offer the quality, return/replacement policy and such that they do (which, I've actually used a couple of times in the past). You DO NOT want some flaky RAM in your system from a budget vendor... you'll lose way more sleep and hair than your savings could ever possibly be worth!
Maybe you need 32 GB, right now, but considering other Macs and such available until now, I'm going to just go with 16 GB and worry about upgrading it some time down the road if needed.
I think the problem here, for some (non-pros), is that these kind of workflows and data organization habits aren't well understood. People were used to just buying a computer with 1 or 2 TB and everything goes on 'C' or internal. So, then they look at these SSD systems and want 1 TB like they were used to and go, whoah!
I've been working on a 128 GB internal for a couple years now, which I admit has been tight. But, I think I'll be just fine on a 256 GB now that I have my workflow under control. I'm sure *some* people need more than that if their projects are big, but my hunch is that more of them are just used to keeping everything internal and don't want to adjust that habit.
Also, as Lorin admitted above, it's quite a different story for a mini vs a laptop. The mini just sits there anyway, so it can easily have an always connected external drive. It will just be slower (unless you spend crazy $$$), but that's really not an issue if you adjust the workflow. And, it's not like it is actually slow, like it was once upon a time.
No doubt... though keep in mind (if I'm understating correctly), the MBP has separate controllers for those TB3 ports, whereas the mini has just one for all of them. So, you'd be more bandwidth limited if you hooked up, say, an eGPU and external storage, and.... where if you did that on the MBP, it wouldn't potentially slow any of them down.
Yeah, I suppose it would be nice if they gave the option... so more like a mini and mini Pro. And, that's what they must have meant by it being a more pro-targeted machine now (even though they didn't add the 'Pro' badge). And, you're right that it is a mix of pro/non-pro... pro storage and CPU performance, but consumer CPU, GPU, RAM, etc.
It would be nice to ALSO see a mini with something like dual-core i5, internal consumer SSD, etc that would still be one heck of a machine, but at a much lower price-point. But, I'm happy they made this one, as it is the machine *I* need and have been waiting for.
https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i3-8100-vs-Intel-Core-i5-7300HQ/3942vsm223877