Frequently asked questions about the 2018 Mac mini RAM, storage, and more [u]

12346

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 136
    cgWerks said:
    [...] once you go from HD to SSD, it doesn't matter that much beyond that for every-day use. You'll only notice it when you get into more performance oriented stuff.
    Prepare to be disappointed.

    Which operations really tax the speed of the storage?

    Opening large files is one, but that's as dependent on the CPU as the storage system so the difference is not as wide as you'd expect. The difference between my wife's SATA SSD and the 2.5Gb/s chips in my 2016 are apparent, but not significant. If opening a file on her machine takes 12 seconds while mine can do it in 9, was it worth the $1000 I spent to get the same capacity as she got for under $300?

    The only other example I can think of that might take advantage of fast storage is file transfers, but those are limited to whatever speed the OTHER device is capable of. Unless the source of or destination for that transfer is also capable of 2.5Gb/s, and the transfer medium is able to move the data that fast, the speed of the Mac's onboard storage is wasted.

    Using the fastest storage possible in the Pro machines makes more sense, just don't expect to be blown away by it. I was, and haven't been. The real world stepped in and spoiled the party.

    edited November 2018
  • Reply 102 of 136
    cgWerks said:
    [...] once you go from HD to SSD, it doesn't matter that much beyond that for every-day use. You'll only notice it when you get into more performance oriented stuff.
    Prepare to be disappointed.

    Which operations really tax the speed of the storage?

    Opening large files is one, but that's as dependent on the CPU as the storage system so the difference is not as wide as you'd expect. The difference between my wife's SATA SSD and the 2.5Gb/s chips in my 2016 are apparent, but not significant. If opening a file on her machine takes 12 seconds while mine can do it in 9, was it worth the $1000 I spent to get the same capacity as she got for under $300?

    The only other example I can think of that might take advantage of fast storage is file transfers, but those are limited to whatever speed the OTHER device is capable of. Unless the source of or destination for that transfer is also capable of 2.5Gb/s, and the transfer medium is able to move the data that fast, the speed of the Mac's onboard storage is wasted.

    Using the fastest storage possible in the Pro machines makes more sense, just don't expect to be blown away by it. I was, and haven't been. The real world stepped in and spoiled the party.

    If you are looking at how speed and latency of storage affects you through UI response... you will notice a lot of difference between the hard drive and SSD, much less between a fast SSD and a slower SSD (with reasonable cache on SSD).  The performance will be affected during major tasks though that do processing on files... especially in lower memory configurations since it moves information between the memory and the SSD and back... and the SSD is 100x+ slower than memory.
  • Reply 103 of 136
    bkkcanuck said:
    cgWerks said:
    [...] once you go from HD to SSD, it doesn't matter that much beyond that for every-day use. You'll only notice it when you get into more performance oriented stuff.
    Prepare to be disappointed.

    Which operations really tax the speed of the storage?

    Opening large files is one, but that's as dependent on the CPU as the storage system so the difference is not as wide as you'd expect. The difference between my wife's SATA SSD and the 2.5Gb/s chips in my 2016 are apparent, but not significant. If opening a file on her machine takes 12 seconds while mine can do it in 9, was it worth the $1000 I spent to get the same capacity as she got for under $300?

    The only other example I can think of that might take advantage of fast storage is file transfers, but those are limited to whatever speed the OTHER device is capable of. Unless the source of or destination for that transfer is also capable of 2.5Gb/s, and the transfer medium is able to move the data that fast, the speed of the Mac's onboard storage is wasted.

    Using the fastest storage possible in the Pro machines makes more sense, just don't expect to be blown away by it. I was, and haven't been. The real world stepped in and spoiled the party.

    If you are looking at how speed and latency of storage affects you through UI response... you will notice a lot of difference between the hard drive and SSD, much less between a fast SSD and a slower SSD (with reasonable cache on SSD).  The performance will be affected during major tasks though that do processing on files... especially in lower memory configurations since it moves information between the memory and the SSD and back... and the SSD is 100x+ slower than memory.
    True, but that only applies to those who don't have lots of RAM (we do) and still means that even Apple's storage is 20X slower than memory.

    Swapping doesn't strike me as a good argument for super-expensive storage. That money would be MUCH better spent on more RAM.
  • Reply 104 of 136
    bkkcanuck said:
    cgWerks said:
    [...] once you go from HD to SSD, it doesn't matter that much beyond that for every-day use. You'll only notice it when you get into more performance oriented stuff.
    Prepare to be disappointed.

    Which operations really tax the speed of the storage?

    Opening large files is one, but that's as dependent on the CPU as the storage system so the difference is not as wide as you'd expect. The difference between my wife's SATA SSD and the 2.5Gb/s chips in my 2016 are apparent, but not significant. If opening a file on her machine takes 12 seconds while mine can do it in 9, was it worth the $1000 I spent to get the same capacity as she got for under $300?

    The only other example I can think of that might take advantage of fast storage is file transfers, but those are limited to whatever speed the OTHER device is capable of. Unless the source of or destination for that transfer is also capable of 2.5Gb/s, and the transfer medium is able to move the data that fast, the speed of the Mac's onboard storage is wasted.

    Using the fastest storage possible in the Pro machines makes more sense, just don't expect to be blown away by it. I was, and haven't been. The real world stepped in and spoiled the party.

    If you are looking at how speed and latency of storage affects you through UI response... you will notice a lot of difference between the hard drive and SSD, much less between a fast SSD and a slower SSD (with reasonable cache on SSD).  The performance will be affected during major tasks though that do processing on files... especially in lower memory configurations since it moves information between the memory and the SSD and back... and the SSD is 100x+ slower than memory.
    True, but that only applies to those who don't have lots of RAM (we do) and still means that even Apple's storage is 20X slower than memory.

    Swapping doesn't strike me as a good argument for super-expensive storage. That money would be MUCH better spent on more RAM.
    It's primary purpose and primary use is not to replace your MacBook Air or other low end iMac home computer...  How do we know it is not a home desktop computer?  It is space grey :open_mouth: 

  • Reply 105 of 136
    bkkcanuck said:
    It's primary purpose and primary use is not to replace your MacBook Air or other low end iMac home computer... 
    Are you sure? Apple is sending is mixed messages.

    The storage is top-of-the-line, but it only has integrated graphics.

    CPUs are now desktop-grade rather than laptop, but not particularly powerful ones.

    It has Thunderbolt 3, but with less total bandwidth than my laptop, and it dumped digital audio outputs.

    I'm not complaining, it's definitely a step up from previous iterations and I like it a lot. I even think the choice to go with integrated graphics was probably a good one, since external solutions are now available for those who want to pay for it. I'm just saying its "position" is not exactly clear. Until I'm told otherwise, I'm putting it in the "Lorin likes it" market category (which is a classification I think more vendors should adopt and adhere to).
  • Reply 106 of 136
    bkkcanuck said:
    It's primary purpose and primary use is not to replace your MacBook Air or other low end iMac home computer... 
    Are you sure? Apple is sending is mixed messages.

    The storage is top-of-the-line, but it only has integrated graphics.

    CPUs are now desktop-grade rather than laptop, but not particularly powerful ones.

    It has Thunderbolt 3, but with less total bandwidth than my laptop, and it dumped digital audio outputs.

    I'm not complaining, it's definitely a step up from previous iterations and I like it a lot. I even think the choice to go with integrated graphics was probably a good one, since external solutions are now available for those who want to pay for it. I'm just saying its "position" is not exactly clear. Until I'm told otherwise, I'm putting it in the "Lorin likes it" market category (which is a classification I think more vendors should adopt and adhere to).
    Many 'pro' tasks don't tax GPU - only really video creative pros.  The top of the line CPU is not that bad i7-8700B -- in line with other 6 core processors maximum.  Stack them up and have another one responsible for distributing tasks - and they can do many non-GPU tasks pretty well.  The one thunderbolt 3 controller is a bit of a disappointment, but then it is more than capable for pretty well most expansion that is not Video based.  There are at least 3 different rack mounting solutions for Mac Minis that I have seen over the years... having a competitive market for rack mounting solutions sort of indicates that they are used by more than a couple companies in that configuration.  Apple has the stats on who was purchasing their Mac Minis... and a pivot would give a good indication ... a majority were not your standard home user.... most of those end up going for laptops (1st) and all-in-one iMacs (2nd)...  Take Geekbench with a grain of salt, but...


    edited November 2018
  • Reply 107 of 136
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 2,952member
    bkkcanuck said:
    So a 4GB model like today?  A hard drive model?  Memory prices have not really co-operated...  Maybe a lower power processor?
    How about a 2-core model with normal SSD? I can't imagine the lowest price possible for such a machine with modern tech is now $800.

    lorin schultz said:
    Which operations really tax the speed of the storage?
    Things that do a lot of file interactions, or database stuff, etc. Yeah, you won't notice it much just copying files around. It's probably true the typical user wouldn't notice much. I don't generally need it either these days, but back in a previous job where we had a rack cabinet with a bunch of them, such a speed advantage would have been crucial.
  • Reply 108 of 136
    thttht Posts: 5,421member
    bkkcanuck said:
    It's primary purpose and primary use is not to replace your MacBook Air or other low end iMac home computer... 
    Are you sure? Apple is sending is mixed messages.

    The storage is top-of-the-line, but it only has integrated graphics.

    CPUs are now desktop-grade rather than laptop, but not particularly powerful ones.

    It has Thunderbolt 3, but with less total bandwidth than my laptop, and it dumped digital audio outputs.

    I'm not complaining, it's definitely a step up from previous iterations and I like it a lot. I even think the choice to go with integrated graphics was probably a good one, since external solutions are now available for those who want to pay for it. I'm just saying its "position" is not exactly clear. Until I'm told otherwise, I'm putting it in the "Lorin likes it" market category (which is a classification I think more vendors should adopt and adhere to).
    No there aren’t any mixed messages. Apple is selling the 2018 Mac mini to server farms, content creators, developers, and consumers who like Apple’s ID and ecosystem. Why are you defending this point that Apple’s fast storage I/O is overserving their customers?  It sounds to me that the fast SSD performance is something these customers like, would use, and would notice the difference. Consumer usage and gaming usage with an eGPU is kind of afterthought feature in their advertising.

    There’s a reason 10 Gbit Ethernet is a $100 option for the machine. It isn’t for consumers or gamers. There’s a reason why Apple is advertising stacks of Mac mini’s. It isn’t for consumers. The machine is very server farm, developer, and content creator oriented. Heck, one of the use cases they are advertising is using a Mac mini to drive signage and kiosks or as a video server. Content creators have RAID boxes of SSDs, not just one SSD, transfering hundreds of GB of data. Distributed compiles, distributed renders, all take as much IO as they can get.

    Like with all of Apple’s designs, they have a balance of compromises. It’s a small device of the same form factor as the old model, and it has an internal power supply, so there’s less room then we think, and less power that can really be delivered and still be quiet and not hot. So, 100+ W components are out, while a 6 core 65 W chip delivers 90% of 6 core 90 W chips, or 8 core 130 W chips for a lot of applications while in a small box and quiet. That’s right down Apple’s design ethos. 
    fastasleepbkkcanuck
  • Reply 109 of 136
    tht said:
    [...] Why are you defending this point that Apple’s fast storage I/O is overserving their customers?
    Partly playing Devil's Advocate, partly choked by the price of bringing internal storage up to comfortable levels, partly confused by what I consider to be an inconsistent approach to component selection.

    I read and understand your view on the last point. It's a valid premise, but it would be a distinct change in direction and corporate attitude for Apple to suddenly become so focused on the preferences of the more "industrial" market you describe, when for years they've been saying -- both implicitly and explicitly -- that the company's attention is squarely directed at the biggest piece of the pie. You could be right, though.
  • Reply 110 of 136
    tht said:
    [...] Why are you defending this point that Apple’s fast storage I/O is overserving their customers?
    Partly playing Devil's Advocate, partly choked by the price of bringing internal storage up to comfortable levels, partly confused by what I consider to be an inconsistent approach to component selection.

    I read and understand your view on the last point. It's a valid premise, but it would be a distinct change in direction and corporate attitude for Apple to suddenly become so focused on the preferences of the more "industrial" market you describe, when for years they've been saying -- both implicitly and explicitly -- that the company's attention is squarely directed at the biggest piece of the pie. You could be right, though.
    If the Mac Mini was repurposed - or changed - it would not have been upgraded... it would have been cancelled.  The market was not large enough to interest Apple making that in addition to there more popular mainstay computers.
  • Reply 111 of 136
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 2,952member
    lorin schultz said:
    ... It's a valid premise, but it would be a distinct change in direction and corporate attitude for Apple to suddenly become so focused on the preferences of the more "industrial" market you describe, when for years they've been saying -- both implicitly and explicitly -- that the company's attention is squarely directed at the biggest piece of the pie. You could be right, though.
    Actually, I'm hoping that is exactly what this indicates, and gives me a bit of new-found hope in Apple's future and the Mac. Unfortunately, I think this also might be a good indicator that consumers are going to be increasingly pushed towards the iDevices.

    As a more prosumer/pro Mac user, this is much better news than *everyone* will be pushed to iDevices, but I can understand that this isn't necessarily good news for all the home Mac users, etc. There really isn't a product aimed at them anymore, besides maybe some of the iMac models... though at a higher entry price than some might wish.

    I agree that there is a bit of discrepancy in parts chosen if you're wanting the new mini to be too much like the old mini, or too much like the coming Mac Pro. As tht said, it seems pretty aimed at particular market segments... but that also makes it a pretty ideal fit for for some other segments they aren't highlighting (like me).

    And, yes, this doesn't seem to be big-pie-slice thinking, but I'm actually encouraged by that. :)
  • Reply 112 of 136
    cgWerks said:
    lorin schultz said:
    ... It's a valid premise, but it would be a distinct change in direction and corporate attitude for Apple to suddenly become so focused on the preferences of the more "industrial" market you describe, when for years they've been saying -- both implicitly and explicitly -- that the company's attention is squarely directed at the biggest piece of the pie. You could be right, though.
    Actually, I'm hoping that is exactly what this indicates, and gives me a bit of new-found hope in Apple's future and the Mac. Unfortunately, I think this also might be a good indicator that consumers are going to be increasingly pushed towards the iDevices.

    As a more prosumer/pro Mac user, this is much better news than *everyone* will be pushed to iDevices, but I can understand that this isn't necessarily good news for all the home Mac users, etc. There really isn't a product aimed at them anymore, besides maybe some of the iMac models... though at a higher entry price than some might wish.

    I agree that there is a bit of discrepancy in parts chosen if you're wanting the new mini to be too much like the old mini, or too much like the coming Mac Pro. As tht said, it seems pretty aimed at particular market segments... but that also makes it a pretty ideal fit for for some other segments they aren't highlighting (like me).

    And, yes, this doesn't seem to be big-pie-slice thinking, but I'm actually encouraged by that. :)
    In all but one respect, the new mini is exactly what I was hoping for, too. My one objection isn't even a component choice. It's the insane prices Apple is charging for Build-To-Order upgrades.

    The only reason I brought up Apple's choice of the most expensive storage in the world is it struck me as way cost could be controlled without much impact on the user experience. It's not a deterrent to me buying one. The problem for me, and my overall complaint, is Apple charging two to three times as much as other suppliers for components I can't source elsewhere because they're soldered in.

    I'm VERY pleased the RAM is now socketed so I can upgrade that myself, and since the mini is a desktop I'm not limited to internal storage. Still, I'd prefer not to bother with those things. I'd rather pay a reasonable premium above street prices to have Apple configure the machine the way I want it so I don't have to deal with multi-supplier headaches if problems pop up. Unfortunately Apple's add-on prices are not reasonable. In the case of Apple's laptops, I don't even have choices, which has now put the cost of a good 15" model out of the range of consideration for me and at least two of my fellow fanboy colleagues.

    I don't expect Apple products to be inexpensive. I just want fair value. With Apple's current upgrade prices, I'm not getting that.
  • Reply 113 of 136
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 2,952member
    lorin schultz said:
    I don't expect Apple products to be inexpensive. I just want fair value. With Apple's current upgrade prices, I'm not getting that.
    Yeah, I hear you there. I've been with Apple since before they were affordable by mere mortals, to where I could buy my first one, to where they became almost as affordable, to trending back away again, now.

    I agree on the BTO stuff, but I guess that's always how it has been with Apple in my recollection. It might be a bit worse with this stuff, as you say, they are now using the highest-end of high-end components, which probably cost them more, too, as the specs bump up.

    And, I agree (as mentioned previously) that some buyers don't need highest of high-end, just maybe higher-end than spinning platters and such... some might not even need that. It would have been nice to have options there too, as configurable as this thing is.

    To give you some idea on the storage performance, though, check out Marco Arment's review and some of the graphs. I'll attempt to link one here, but otherwise see the article:
    https://marco.org/media/2018/11/macmini-blackmagic.png
    https://marco.org/2018/11/06/mac-mini-2018-review

    Note that Marco has a more standard SSD in the 2014 mini, and compares it to Apple's SSD in the 2018. That's a pretty big difference, and he notes in the article how it impacts stuff like his software development.
  • Reply 114 of 136
    cgWerks said:
    [...] To give you some idea on the storage performance, though, check out Marco Arment's review and some of the graphs. I'll attempt to link one here, but otherwise see the article:
    https://marco.org/media/2018/11/macmini-blackmagic.png
    https://marco.org/2018/11/06/mac-mini-2018-review
    I'm able to make the same comparison here, as I have the 2014 mini with the Apple PCIe storage from that era, and a MacBook Pro with 2TB of the newer, faster storage. My measurements here are in line with Marco's.

    That doesn't affect my primary gripe, though. Yes, the new storage is faster. Yes, it's preferable to the old version. No, it's not a fair value, because according to what others have posted in this thread, other suppliers offer similar performance at roughly 1/3 the cost. I don't expect Apple to match discount prices, but I don't accept Apple charging triple the going rate.
    cgWerks
  • Reply 115 of 136

    cgWerks said:
    After reading the review you linked, I'm looking forward to trying transcoding with the new T2 chip. I have some concerns about things I don't yet know, like what (if any) limitations using a hardware accelerator imposes on encoder settings, and whether the reduced quality of h.265 compared to h.264 is an actual issue in real life, but it'll be fun to find out!
  • Reply 116 of 136
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 2,952member
    lorin schultz said:
    That doesn't affect my primary gripe, though. Yes, the new storage is faster. Yes, it's preferable to the old version. No, it's not a fair value, because according to what others have posted in this thread, other suppliers offer similar performance at roughly 1/3 the cost. I don't expect Apple to match discount prices, but I don't accept Apple charging triple the going rate.
    Oh yeah, I hear you. I'm just saying I'm not surprised, as that has been Apple as long as I've known them. They almost always soak you on up-selling. That's why I generally don't recommend buying the higher BTO models unless you truly need it and can cost-justify it. (And, why I always get mad at the MSM articles that pick the top BTO option to complain about how expensive Macs are.)

    In this case, it's a legitimate gripe because you can't upgrade it later on (storage). But, being so easy to go external, I guess, somewhat deflates the problem.

    After reading the review you linked, I'm looking forward to trying transcoding with the new T2 chip. I have some concerns about things I don't yet know, like what (if any) limitations using a hardware accelerator imposes on encoder settings, and whether the reduced quality of h.265 compared to h.264 is an actual issue in real life, but it'll be fun to find out!
    Same here! I've not really messed with h.265 yet to know the benefits and limitations, nor what software apps support it.
  • Reply 117 of 136
    It's bizarre. Apple is selling a mac mini with 8GB/128GB of RAM/storage for 800 dollars. The 8GB is okay but the 128 GB is absurd. My 2012 mini is 16GB/500GB. To get that much memory now costs 1400 dollars. Sure, SSD is better than a hard disk but it still doesn't add up. The extra memory can't possibly cost Apple that much even including a reasonable profit margin. They are either selling the entry level mini at a loss or are purposely overcharging for memory. The result is that I have to wait to upgrade. I don't see how it can be profitable for Apple to keep me and my 800 dollars on the sidelines just so they can charge 600 dollars for an amount of memory that is worth no more than 200 dollars. Yes, I can buy a samsung SSD for 100 bucks and connect it to the new mini, but I'll only do that if my current 2012 computer dies.  

    Is the most valuable company in the world run by the smartest business people in history really shooting itself in the foot just to gouge its loyal fans? Am I missing something?
  • Reply 118 of 136
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 2,952member
    ... My 2012 mini is 16GB/500GB. To get that much memory now costs 1400 dollars. Sure, SSD is better than a hard disk but it still doesn't add up. ...
    An SSD isn't just better, it is night and day different in terms of performance and how the whole machine feels. I think the debate would be more around whether Apple should have kept a more base model with a more 'plain' SSD instead of the extreme performance ones one the mini. Most people who would buy the base model probably don't need a pro-grade SSD.

    When you actually look at the specs of the machine and compare it to other Macs or somewhat similar PCs, it is priced reasonably well. The problem is that many are still comparing it with the previous mini at it's lowest price-point and as a Mac entry point. It is now a higher end machine, fortunately or unfortunately... depending on your needs.
    bkkcanuck
  • Reply 119 of 136
    It's bizarre. Apple is selling a mac mini with 8GB/128GB of RAM/storage for 800 dollars. The 8GB is okay but the 128 GB is absurd. My 2012 mini is 16GB/500GB. To get that much memory now costs 1400 dollars. Sure, SSD is better than a hard disk but it still doesn't add up. The extra memory can't possibly cost Apple that much even including a reasonable profit margin. They are either selling the entry level mini at a loss or are purposely overcharging for memory. The result is that I have to wait to upgrade. I don't see how it can be profitable for Apple to keep me and my 800 dollars on the sidelines just so they can charge 600 dollars for an amount of memory that is worth no more than 200 dollars. Yes, I can buy a samsung SSD for 100 bucks and connect it to the new mini, but I'll only do that if my current 2012 computer dies.  

    Is the most valuable company in the world run by the smartest business people in history really shooting itself in the foot just to gouge its loyal fans? Am I missing something?
    As I have mentioned in the past... this "Mac Mini" and the old "Mac Mini" may share a form factor, and it may share a name... but it is effectively a completely different computer since the market that the computer is aimed at is completely different. You just have to listen and look at the two presentations side by side to make it clear.  Switchers don't tend to buy the Mac Mini (my own statistic sampling of 10ish) -- not one bought the Mac Mini... they walked in and bought either a laptop or an iMac. 

    The new Mac Mini 2018 is night and day better than the previous model.   The Mac Mini 2018 I bought was an i7-8700B model with 512GB SSD and 10GB ethernet (somewhere around $1500) and then upgraded the memory to 32GB from RAM from NewEgg.   It scores above 25,000 on the geekbench for CPU (it is not a machine for those that need a good GPU) -- the only machines on the list that are Macs that score above that are all Mac Pros. 

    BTW, 128GB of SSD is all that may be needed for many applications where the computer is part of a cluster -- i.e. where the storage is a SAN connected on 10GB ethernet etc.  The 128GB is for applications and cache basically and the SAN is where all the big files are stored.   In this scenario 128GB SSD is more than enough. 

    The old Mac Mini (market) is dead... the market was just not enough to sustain it.  The market that it was aimed at -- was not the ones purchasing it. 

    I have now had my little Mac Mini 2018 now for a month and a half and I absolutely love it (it replaces my old Mac Pro 2008).  As far as I am concerned it is a home-run.  I expect to use it for at least 7 years in some form or other - which will work out to a little over $200 per year... maybe $20ish a month....
    thtfastasleepcgWerks
  • Reply 120 of 136
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 2,952member
    bkkcanuck said:
    The new Mac Mini 2018 is night and day better than the previous model.   The Mac Mini 2018 I bought was an i7-8700B model with 512GB SSD and 10GB ethernet (somewhere around $1500) and then upgraded the memory to 32GB from RAM from NewEgg.   It scores above 25,000 on the geekbench for CPU (it is not a machine for those that need a good GPU) -- the only machines on the list that are Macs that score above that are all Mac Pros.  

    BTW, 128GB of SSD is all that may be needed for many applications where the computer is part of a cluster -- i.e. where the storage is a SAN connected on 10GB ethernet etc.  The 128GB is for applications and cache basically and the SAN is where all the big files are stored.   In this scenario 128GB SSD is more than enough.
    Yeah, that's the thing I suspect people aren't quite getting (or, don't care as they just want a low-cost machine, if if it isn't night & day different... and I get that, I wish Apple addressed that market with a lower-cost model, which they easily could... ie: MacBook in a box).

    The only thing non-pro'ish about this machine, so far, is the i7 model and cooling setup, assuming you want the quiet of the cylinder-Mac Pro, maybe iMac Pro. It gets kind of noisy, kind of easy. But, as I mentioned in other posts, that is when pushing it 100% duty-cycle... it's quiet for normal daily use. And, it isn't an overly annoying noise like some systems I've used. Plus, I've discovered that if I run a utility like Turbo Boost Switcher (or other similar ones) and turn off turbo-boost, it's pretty quiet even under load. So, if the non-boosted performance is enough, and you want quiet, that seems like a solution (or, maybe just buy the i5/i3 model).

    As for storage, I can sympathize as I went through that years ago when transitioning from my HD based iMac to a MacBook Air (SSD based). It is something you have to think through and change your workflow and storage setup, but it is completely doable. But, the trend seems to be away from huge main storage to SSD + external... so it isn't like the Mac mini is unique in this regard. You'd have the same issue with almost every Mac now, except the current iMac (which I bet will get the same treatment soon).
Sign In or Register to comment.