Apple discontinues Mac mini server, limits storage options with latest hardware refresh

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 58
    I'm surprised nobody has yet mentioned the biggest issue here with the new Mini. What happened to the quad core option??? My Mini runs as my home web server, my Windows-in-a-VM-by-day primary work computer, my Plex Media Server (which has to do plenty of transcoding on the fly) and lastly, as my media server, is responsible for ripping DVD and Blu-Ray media. Most of the time dual core is sufficient, but there's enough occasion that it isn't to make my next upgrade a quad-i5.
  • Reply 22 of 58
    nagrommenagromme Posts: 2,834member
    I'm sure Apple knows where the demand lies. If your needs are niche enough to no longer be served, you still have options, at a cost: external (including TB2) is the way to go now.
  • Reply 23 of 58

    I like to see Apple use mSATA like the Intel NUCs and small form factors.  What's disappointing is that they manage to put a PCIe SSD in a previous gen chasis.

     

    The Intel NUC is almost less than 1/2 the size of the Mac Mini.  Why can't Apple do better?

     

  • Reply 24 of 58
    Originally Posted by Vision33r View Post

    Why can't Apple do better?

     


     

    7/10; would occasionally be FUD’d by again.

  • Reply 25 of 58
    mpantonempantone Posts: 1,738member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TheWhiteFalcon View Post



    I'm waiting for a teardown before I draw too many conclusions. Soldered RAM is one thing, it'll be interesting to see if there is room for a second drive in there.



    Based on the configurations they offer (Fusion Drive or PCIe SSD), it appears that one bay has a standard SATA connector for a 2.5" drive and the other "bay" has the PCIe interface.

     

    Thus, the best one could do is get the 1TB PCIe flash drive, and add the biggest 2.5" SATA SSD for the second drive.

     

    With the two Thunderbolt ports, I understand why Apple doesn't bother to offer this option. Thunderbolt is an externalization of the PCIe bus, and the Mac mini is a stationary desktop system. If you need scads of storage, just plug an external drive/array and move on with your life.

     

    I was thinking that this new Mac mini would replace my trusty 2010 Mac mini server (now equipped with a 128MB SSD boot drive and a new 1TB hard drive), but I will probably wait for a Broadwell-based Mac mini. My Mac mini runs better than the day I bought it and while I'd love to have more processing power for video processing, etc., I'm certain that I can survive another 12-18 months with my trusty computer.

     

    Still, this is a great offering if you're in the market for a Mac mini right now.

  • Reply 26 of 58
    bdkennedy1bdkennedy1 Posts: 1,459member
    I'm willing to bet we're about to say goodbye to OS X Server in the next few years.
  • Reply 27 of 58
    ibeamibeam Posts: 322member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bdkennedy1 View Post



    I'm willing to bet we're about to say goodbye to OS X Server in the next few years.

    Yep. There is no difference between OS X server and the standard version of OS X except for a bunch of admin tools which can all be ignored using SSH like we do for every other variant of UNIX. The problem is that when it comes time to upgrading the OS, Apple needs to not mess with the server configurations that are already present on the machine. That is a major issue that has not been solved by anyone especially not on the Linux platform. Nobody provides a good upgrade path. Format the HDD and reinstall is basically the only option.

  • Reply 28 of 58
    auxioauxio Posts: 2,460member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ibeam View Post

     

    The problem is that when it comes time to upgrading the OS, Apple needs to not mess with the server configurations that are already present on the machine. That is a major issue that has not been solved by anyone especially not on the Linux platform. Nobody provides a good upgrade path. Format the HDD and reinstall is basically the only option.


     

    And then spend weeks figuring out the latest and greatest incantations of setting up firewall rules, configuring services, etc.  That's why I eventually gave up on Linux -- just didn't have the time to relearn everything every time I upgraded.  I'm all for progress, but at least provide an upgrade path which doesn't involve a couple solid weeks of looking through sparse documentation and reconfiguration.

     

    We'll see how it goes with upgrading my OS X Server box here... the last major upgrade went pretty smoothly.

  • Reply 29 of 58
    ibeamibeam Posts: 322member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by auxio View Post

     

    We'll see how it goes with upgrading my OS X Server box here... the last major upgrade went pretty smoothly.


    Sure, because Apple offers a server version so they look after all the details during the upgrade, but if you ever decide to install mysql or apache on a standard version of OS X, the upgrade might not go so well. As long as Apple offers a server option everything is fine but if they bail on that your experience might change.

  • Reply 30 of 58
    lineyliney Posts: 19member
    There's also no quad core option - at all. So maybe that will affect the server racks even more - we'll see.
  • Reply 31 of 58

    Can you still upgrade the RAM yourself?  Apple doesn't show the bottom of the Mac Mini anymore on the website (that I can find) and someone else wrote they thought the new RAM type required that it was soldered and not upgradable...  Anyone?

  • Reply 32 of 58
    auxioauxio Posts: 2,460member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ibeam View Post

     

    Sure, because Apple offers a server version so they look after all the details during the upgrade, but if you ever decide to install mysql or apache on a standard version of OS X, the upgrade might not go so well. As long as Apple offers a server option everything is fine but if they bail on that your experience might change.




    I fully understand that once you start installing and configuring your own services, you're back in the realm of Linux again where you get what you pay for in terms of maintenance and support as you upgrade.  It's the reason why I stopped myself when I started to explore the technology used for the OS X's firewall (pf, from the OpenBSD community) and considered using IceFloor for more advanced configuration.

     

    I'm hoping that if/when Apple does drop support for Server, there will be reasonably priced options available on the Mac App Store.

  • Reply 33 of 58
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ibeam View Post

     

     

     

    Hard drives are pretty inexpensive these days, so just replace the standard issue with something bigger.


     

    I guess if you're going to crack her open anyway to put an SSD in one may as well change the HDD. 

  • Reply 34 of 58
    No quad core option... bummer, I guess they really just didn't want to "cut in" to the Mac Pro crowd...
  • Reply 35 of 58
    cpsrocpsro Posts: 2,984member

    All of the SSD upgrade options are "PCIe-based". This suggests an Apple proprietary solution... and that there is only one SATA slot in the new chassis, which is why there is no longer a 2x 1TB HDD option (nor 2x 2TB HDD option).

  • Reply 36 of 58

    Argh.

     

    Now I have to use external boot drives as well as external data drives.

     

    I'll have to see what I can find for a 256GB Thunderbolt SSD, maybe I can still make this work. 

     

    I'm still pissed about the XServe, I'd really like to be able to buy one of those with two to four modern 12 core Xeons, dual power, modern full-GUI LOM, and 8 2.5" drive bays.  I have clients who wouldn't blink at dropping $6-12k for that, depending on config.  I don't want trash can shaped machines, I don't want single-drive Mac minis.  I could live with dual drive minis, but this is just stupid.  Please, Apple, bring back your insanely great enterprise-grade server hardware!

     

    OS X Server is a good server OS.  It could be better, of course, but for a Mac office, or even a mixed Mac and Windoze office, it's a FAR better platform than the sorry excuse for a server that you get from a Windoze box, and when you've got Mac clients, it's better than a Linux box.

  • Reply 37 of 58
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by rezwits View Post



    No quad core option... bummer, I guess they really just didn't want to "cut in" to the Mac Pro crowd...

     

    I cannot see Mac Pro customers overlapping significantly with the Mac Mini customers.

    No one is going to say "crap, no quad core Mac Mini, guess I'll buy a Mac Pro".

     

    Even the iMac customers may not overlap significantly with the Mac Pro crowd. I just did a comparison of the top end iMac with Retina 5K Display and the top end Mac Pro. It is $4399 vs. $9599. I just started the process of getting the new iMac.

  • Reply 38 of 58
    rezwitsrezwits Posts: 811member



    Nah I was just saying, a person could see a Quad core at say 2.6 ghz for $999, and look at a MacMini and go "Why would I pay $3000 for a quad core Mac Pro?"

     

    It's more or less them coming down and thinking they could save tons of cash.

     

    I was looking to get 4 of them and make a cluster, for 16 cores...  just a thought tho, why would I buy 4 x $899 for 8 cores of power...

     

    Laters...

  • Reply 39 of 58
    Apple has not made a server in over 6 years.. Windows server is the way to go.. Disappointing I can't add in redundant storage.. When a hard drive fails
  • Reply 40 of 58
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Vision33r View Post

     

    I like to see Apple use mSATA like the Intel NUCs and small form factors.  What's disappointing is that they manage to put a PCIe SSD in a previous gen chasis.

     

    The Intel NUC is almost less than 1/2 the size of the Mac Mini.  Why can't Apple do better?

     


    You are missing the ugly power brick that is required to make the NUC work.

Sign In or Register to comment.