Apple's new Mac mini lacks user-replaceable memory

1234568»

Comments

  • Reply 141 of 160
    fz750fz750 Posts: 14member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post





    Everybody should have SSDs.




    I don't see there being a horror scenario for a customer nor Apple that offering 4GB on the entry model would bring about.

     

    Yes, everybod should have SSD, I agree, but $$$... (and the pain of trying to figure out the correct/best config & procedure in my case, mid-2012  13" pro with 500gb disc..)

     

    And no, it's certainly not a horror scenarion, FAR from it, but it's not an optimal scenario either (I think a 21.5" iMac is a far better deal anyway, but same soldered-in memory issue...), and somehow I expect better from Apple (also for iMac) and I think this is very close to cheating newbies.

  • Reply 142 of 160
    solipsismx wrote: »
    Snip>>>>>>>>
    2) It's too bad Apple doesn't offer a solution. I'd think that a Home Server solution would not only be popular but profitable for Apple, not to mention help complete their ecosystem. It's been years since Tim (or was it Steve) said that the Mac/PC is no longer the hub, yet you can't do most basic things in the Music and Video apps that you can on iTunes (like fixing a track name), and since there is no iTunes UI in iCloud.com (I use iTunes Match so this would be very helpful) you still need a Mac or WinPC with iTunes for managing your iTunes Library.

    I'd even be happy with an AirPort Server running iOS with an Intel processor that supports TB for data transfers so you can setup a RAID so that you can truly have a centralized hub. They could even expand this to have app and OS updates DLed once to save time, bandwidth, and data usage, regardless of the number of devices and accounts on the network because it would know which Apple devices are tied to an account (as noted on icloud.com » Settings).

    They also already have Back to My Mac, which means you don't need a static IP address, to record what your IP address is at any given time, or create a simple script that can be initiated via email to get your home Mac's IP address, which means Apple could create the simplest VPN* setup and access anywhere. They finally created the simplest tethering option with Yosemite (not sure if iOS 8 is required for that) when before it was a chore to walk people through each time they want to make a connection with an iDevice.


    * VPN is not a very consumer-friendly term so I'd expect something more flashy and descriptive in some simplistic way that would inform the consumer of why they would want to use this encryption on public WiFi.

    Well you know I'm with ya and also a bit bummed about no server.

    I really thought Apple would see the need for such a device, especially with so many families now with multiple iOS devices.

    Maybe next year...
  • Reply 143 of 160
    gmhutgmhut Posts: 242member

    The latest mini "update" (read: partial castration) illustrates the difference between Jobs and Cook. It's the difference between a visionary with minimalist aesthetics and a marketeer who minimizes value then spins it as "more" through the use of effective ad-speak.

  • Reply 144 of 160
    frank777 wrote: »
    Marvin wrote: »
    <span style="line-height:1.4em;">Now, if you buy an entry model machine with 4GB or 8GB and find that it's not enough, chances are you bought the wrong machine in the first place but it's not a big deal as you can sell it and buy the right machine to use with a suitable amount of memory.</span>

    I'm sorry, that's insane. This is a machine for switchers. <span style="line-height:1.4em;">Telling people new to the platform to sell their new machine and buy a different one is an exercise in business failure.</span>


    Apple's going to have to up the base RAM in the Mini to 8GB as soon as they can.

    It's obvious the Mini offerings (like the rest of the Mac line) are meant to push people toward the higher tier. <span style="line-height:1.4em;">But this is the budget machine, it's not like the rest of the line.</span>

    It's for the budget-conscious and tinkerers who want to experiment with integrations.

    And I'd guess the lowest rung is the most popular choice. <span style="line-height:1.4em;">Apple has deliberately priced the line so that the iMac looks like a better value. </span>
    Who buys Minis that cost $1000?

    If you're going to deny upgrades, the specs have to be good in the first place.

    Nonsense.

    I hope Apple reduce the RAM to 2 or 1GB in the next Mac Mini update.
  • Reply 145 of 160
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,230moderator
    I hope Apple reduce the RAM to 2 or 1GB in the next Mac Mini update.

    There's a threshold with component prices that determines which ones are used at which price points. DRAM prices rose last year due to the fire at the Hynix plant.

    http://www.computerworld.com/article/2485327/data-center/dram-prices-up-35--since-china-fab-plant-fire.html

    PC demand has also dropped a bit. Mobile technology is causing supply constraints due to the high volume - that might be why they went with LPDDR3.

    If you take a 30% gross margin from $500, you get $350 component cost so you have to pick which parts are best in that budget. Dropping 2GB to save maybe $12 is not going to lower prices significantly for the buyer ($483) as they'd round it up anyway but adding 4GB at $24 would get to $534 and they'd have to round up to $549. $499 is a good psychological price point and they just couldn't hit that with 8GB. Maybe if DRAM prices come back down again they'll be able to manage it.

    It would be nice if we could get a unified memory system so we don't have all this DRAM, GGDR, EDRAM and NAND. Just a fast non-volatile memory possibly with an EDRAM cache would be fine.

    DDR4 next year is double the density so that might be able to drop in price faster than DDR3.
  • Reply 146 of 160
    winterwinter Posts: 1,238member
    gmhut wrote: »
    The latest mini "update" (read: partial castration) illustrates the difference between Jobs and Cook. It's the difference between a visionary with minimalist aesthetics and a marketeer who minimizes value then spins it as "more" through the use of effective ad-speak.

    How would you have updated the mini?
  • Reply 147 of 160
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,985member
    winter wrote: »
    How would you have updated the mini?

    Same as they did last year.
  • Reply 148 of 160
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post





    I don't know why people assume that memory won't be enough over time. It just goes into swap like it has done for years. On top of that, it now compresses inactive memory so you get even more space.

    Mavericks is designed to use all the memory, it's not running out of memory, it just caches more things and flushes those caches out when other processes need it. If you add up everything minus the file cache it won't be much different from older systems.

    It was the buyer's fault in exactly the same way if they buy a 16GB iPhone and need to put 40GB of music on it. It's not insane to tell them they should have bought the 64GB model. People who use more than 4GB of RAM tend to know this and they buy enough to begin with. Like I say, the worst case for people who run out of 4GB is that they start swapping out to the drive but low-end buyers likely won't be too bothered about it.

    Even with tricks like memory compression, OS X has gotten quite a bit heavier in recent years. So if you have upgraded your OS since Snow Leopard, you likely find yourself with less memory for actual applications, and have to lean more heavily on far slower swap space even if your application usage hasn't really changed.

     

    Snow Leopard ran comfortably on my MBP with 4GB RAM (that was the OS it came with); Lion and beyond less so. In fact Mavericks seemed to have the largest memory footprint of all, since with just a bunch of PDFs and several browser tabs open I'd sometimes see several GB of both compressed RAM and used swap space, and Preview would often pause during scrolling to load pages that had been swapped out.

  • Reply 149 of 160
    winterwinter Posts: 1,238member
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    Same as they did last year.

    They didn't update it last year. They updated it last in 2012. They added another TB port this time around. Iris Pro wouldn't have happened I don't think. Could you have given it HD4600 GT2 with a quad core processor maybe?
  • Reply 150 of 160
    philboogiephilboogie Posts: 7,494member
  • Reply 151 of 160
    marvfoxmarvfox Posts: 2,275member

    Not a great rating at all.I am happy I have my 2011 MM and it works great almost up to 3 years in December.Newer is sometimes not better.

  • Reply 152 of 160
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,985member
    winter wrote: »
    They didn't update it last year. They updated it last in 2012. They added another TB port this time around. Iris Pro wouldn't have happened I don't think. Could you have given it HD4600 GT2 with a quad core processor maybe?

    Was thread hopping and lost track of which mini was being discussed. :lol:
  • Reply 153 of 160

    My new 2012-Mac mini 2,3 GHz quad core i7 with 4 GB RAM, and the normal 1 TB-HD arrived. It has Mavericks installed (glad it's not Yosemite).

     

    Having installed everything I need I checked it out doing my usual stuff. It's an early comparison, but my first impression compared to my Mac Mini late 2009 with 8 GB RAM is:

     

    1. It feels a lot snappier, even small stuff, like opening apps or surfing feels more responsive. And Final Cut Pro X seems also much easier going. Great!

     

    2. As of now the 4 GB RAM with 3 apps open, including Safari and Final Cut Pro X, it is swapping about 30 MB. So I guess an upgrade to 8 GB RAM will be more than enough.

     

    3. It doesn't have an integrated dvd-drive as my 2009-macmini has, so I think I'll have to order an external bluray-drive, but they aren't expensive.

     

    4. The fan in the 2012 Mac mini is noticeable when I don't have any audio playing. It's silent and definitely tolerable but it's there while in the Mac mini-2009 it's completely silent, because it doesn't have a fan.

     

    Verdict: A great upgrade, I'm happy. In the next few months I'll upgrade it to 8 GB to do without any swapping (even if it's only little), and maybe I'll go for an internal 500 GB SSD, too.

  • Reply 154 of 160
    winterwinter Posts: 1,238member
    I would go for 16 GB of memory and an SSD if you can afford it. You will have a computer for the next 3+ years possibly in that case.
  • Reply 155 of 160

    I have to say the new Mini is a disappointment on the high end. The models are fine but the lack of a high-end option with a quad-core i7 and user replaceable RAM creates a larger gap between the Mac Pro and the Mini. For me, an iMac will never be an option because of the potential for single component failure rendering the entire computer unusable.

  • Reply 156 of 160
    relicrelic Posts: 4,735member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Header View Post

     

    I have to say the new Mini is a disappointment on the high end. The models are fine but the lack of a high-end option with a quad-core i7 and user replaceable RAM creates a larger gap between the Mac Pro and the Mini. For me, an iMac will never be an option because of the potential for single component failure rendering the entire computer unusable.


    Just build a Hackintosh, they work just as well as the real thing and you can customize it to your needs. The MSI Brix can be configured with an i7-4770, 16GB RAM, 256GB SSD, Iris 5200 for the same price as the top Mini and it's as fast as the top iMac, excluding the discreet GPU.

     

    It's smaller, faster and runs OSX just as well.

     

  • Reply 157 of 160
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post





    Nonsense.



    I hope Apple reduce the RAM to 2 or 1GB in the next Mac Mini update.

    Sarcasm? 1GB is below the minimum supported amount for recent versions of OSX.

  • Reply 158 of 160
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Relic View Post

     

    Just build a Hackintosh, they work just as well as the real thing and you can customize it to your needs. The MSI Brix can be configured with an i7-4770, 16GB RAM, 256GB SSD, Iris 5200 for the same price as the top Mini and it's as fast as the top iMac, excluding the discreet GPU.

     

    It's smaller, faster and runs OSX just as well.


     

    I  have one hackintosh I built a few years ago for an HTPC. It's still on Mountain Lion but does what it's supposed to do. My current home Mac is a 2.6 gHz quad-core i7 Mini (2012) so I expect to get a few more years out of it. Hopefully, the Mini will improve by the time I need to upgrade.

  • Reply 159 of 160
    indyfxindyfx Posts: 320member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Relic View Post

     

    Just build a Hackintosh, they work just as well as the real thing and you can customize it to your needs. The MSI Brix can be configured with an i7-4770, 16GB RAM, 256GB SSD, Iris 5200 for the same price as the top Mini and it's as fast as the top iMac, excluding the discreet GPU.

     

    It's smaller, faster and runs OSX just as well.

     


     

    You do realize that is stealing, Yes?

     

     

    "It's smaller, faster and runs OSX just as well."

     

    ... and, no it it really doesn't

  • Reply 160 of 160
    MenckenianaMenckeniana Posts: 5unconfirmed, member
    I have a lot more respect for discounters like Walmart and Costco than for a company that thrives on premium pricing. Apple is like jewelers who profit from suckering people into buying diamond rings which sell for vastly more than cost of production. Apple knows full well that a moderately priced desktop tower would be a huge seller, but opts for higher prices, hobbled hardware, and limited sales. After all these many years, and so many thousands spent on Apple products, I’d like to see the company stumble and be humbled.
    edited June 19
Sign In or Register to comment.