Previous version: soldered RAM, people complain. New version: slotted RAM, people complain.
Look man, if you're not comfortable using screwdrivers, you're not even a real DIY tinkerer, so why even both complaining since this is something only DIY folks do?
I am an avid tinkerer and maker, thank you. But upgrading RAM shouldn't be this risky for the average user. Apple could've made the RAM easier to access, but they decided otherwise. Which is a dick move.
The average user is NOT messing with this stuff...
Dunno why people are backing Apple on this one, it's a lazy implementation of a premium product and a crappy user experience. They managed to block more tinkerers from attempting to upgrade their own RAM. Fewer people will buy it and Apple will end-up discontinuing it.
Look, I'm someone who has done very difficult tinkering with computers in the past. For example, to get more performance out of an old G4 TiBook, I moved one of the resistors on the motherboard which controlled the CPU speed (the hardware equivalent of BIOS overclocking on PCs).
However, I also am open minded enough to see that I'm in a very small group of people who knows how to do this, cares about it, and/or is willing to spend my time doing it. And I also understand that it requires extra product design, engineering, and assembly line complexity to include a RAM access panel or similarly easy access. If this was an Arduino or Raspberry Pi type of device targeted at tinkerers, then I'd definitely question the decision. But because it's a device targeted at the mass market, I completely understand why it was made.
So you're saying that for a device to be user upgradable it must to fall in the category of an Arduino. Gotcha!
Nope, you missed the point and changed the language to fit your own personal agenda. To tie my original point in with your agenda, replace the term user upgradeable with tinkerer upgradeable and then it fits. The word user means the entire group of people who will use this computer. But the reality is that DIY upgrades are only done by a very small subset of Mac Mini users (what I define as tinkerers).
But I understand that you're so deep in your rabbit hole that it's difficult to see the big picture, so let me try another way of thinking about it. Try to name any other mass market electronic device or appliance which is designed to have the hardware components within it be user upgradeable (TV, stereo, microwave oven, dishwasher, refrigerator, etc). Like it or not, mass market computers are appliances for the vast majority of people (users).
I see this opinion a lot, and it's certainly true that at least Apple shares that view. I haven't decided whether I think that's a good long-term approach for manufacturers, though.
The history of computers as a personal/household device (PC) is somewhat unique relative to other such devices in that, in order to get them to a price point which the average person could palette, they were historically broken apart into separate modules. They're also much more open-ended in the ways they can be used, and so that's where the rationale for upgradeability came from.
I'll continue after quoting your next comments, which are very relevant...
iPad or iPhone, that's an appliance like a washing machine. Something intended for a market of professional users, maybe not. You and I may not tune the performance of our cars, but a racing driver does. You may not modify your home stereo system, but a professional studio is as likely as not to modify a console/preamp/whatever.
I'm not disagreeing with you, you're clearly right about Apple's philosophy, but I do wonder if it's one worth reconsidering for their "pro" products.
iPads and iPhones are the perfect example here. While Macs sell in the low single-digit millions per quarter, iPads sell around 2x that amount over the same period of time, and iPhones sell around 10x.
All of these devices fit the definition of a personal computer, but as you said, iPhones and iPads are much more like what we think of when we think of appliances: all of the components are built together and they aren't user upgradeable. And we can see that such devices have much more appeal/use to people than traditional computers. While portability is a big part of that, it's also the simplicity which is driving people to them. Most people don't place value on (need) modularity and upgradeability. Especially given that the basic configurations of modern computers/devices meets the needs of the most common tasks people use them for. And the cost of the components, when built all together, is cheap enough nowadays.
But, you're right... there is still a pro market out there which has a wider variety of requirements. The problem is that it's a very wide variety given the various "pro" classifications. And so companies like Apple need to decide which pros it's worthwhile to design for and which it isn't. Given how long it's taken them to update the Mac Pro, I'm guessing that the market for a completely modular and upgradeable computer like that is diminishing, even among the pro classifications.
auxio said: [...] Turned out that the RAM I bought didn't have error correction/ECC and the heat sinks on it were much smaller, one of which was the cause of my crashes. This was the reason that the RAM Apple used was a lot more expensive. The devil is in the details.
Good point.
Of course the comparisons in this thread ARE for identical RAM. Apple is charging almost twice as much as Crucial et al for exactly the same component.
And so you're either paying for the extra assembly line needed to build the machine, or you're paying for a service technician's time to install it. You do understand that, when you get someone else to do something for you, it's always going to cost a fair bit more than if you do it yourself right? People don't seem to have a problem paying extra for home renos/repairs, car repairs, etc. But they'll scream from the rooftops if it's for their computer.
Yes, I understand the points you've made. Your philosophical view ignores the very obvious practical reality. The issue is not that it costs more, but how MUCH more.
In order to question how MUCH more, one should put the photos of both original Apple RAM and OEM's RAM side by side, matching all the specifics as can be read on the photos along with OEM RAM's street price, then ask "why?" also taking into account labor costs.
I forgot how many times I heard in my Mac life since 1984 "those are not suited to Macs, Apple uses those ones, which are more expensive..."
I'd amend that a wee bit ... "those are not suited to Macs, Apple uses those, which are higher quality, more reliable and perhaps even faster..."
Reliability is a key point here. When using a Mac for any professional task, to have it crash in the middle of that task due to lower quality components (e.g. those smaller heat sinks) isn't a worthwhile trade off for the cost savings. Maybe you'll get lucky and won't encounter that, maybe you won't. The internet is full of stories about how such and such a manufacturer of RAM/SSDs is better than another based on anecdotal evidence of failure rates. It's time consuming to wade through it all, and so I'd rather trust those choices to Apple (though I'm perfectly fine with finding out the model numbers and brands of the components they use and buying them elsewhere, which is what OWC provides).
auxio said: [...] Turned out that the RAM I bought didn't have error correction/ECC and the heat sinks on it were much smaller, one of which was the cause of my crashes. This was the reason that the RAM Apple used was a lot more expensive. The devil is in the details.
Good point.
Of course the comparisons in this thread ARE for identical RAM. Apple is charging almost twice as much as Crucial et al for exactly the same component.
And so you're either paying for the extra assembly line needed to build the machine, or you're paying for a service technician's time to install it. You do understand that, when you get someone else to do something for you, it's always going to cost a fair bit more than if you do it yourself right? People don't seem to have a problem paying extra for home renos/repairs, car repairs, etc. But they'll scream from the rooftops if it's for their computer.
Yes, I understand the points you've made. Your philosophical view ignores the very obvious practical reality. The issue is not that it costs more, but how MUCH more.
In order to question how MUCH more, one should put the photos of both original Apple RAM and OEM's RAM side by side, matching all the specifics as can be read on the photos along with OEM RAM's street price, then ask "why?" also taking into account labor costs.
I forgot how many times I heard in my Mac life since 1984 "those are not suited to Macs, Apple uses those ones, which are more expensive..."
Apple is not using exotic RAM components. They buy from the same sources as everyone else. They may be selective about QC levels, but there's no magic fairy dust.
auxio said: [...] Turned out that the RAM I bought didn't have error correction/ECC and the heat sinks on it were much smaller, one of which was the cause of my crashes. This was the reason that the RAM Apple used was a lot more expensive. The devil is in the details.
Good point.
Of course the comparisons in this thread ARE for identical RAM. Apple is charging almost twice as much as Crucial et al for exactly the same component.
And so you're either paying for the extra assembly line needed to build the machine, or you're paying for a service technician's time to install it. You do understand that, when you get someone else to do something for you, it's always going to cost a fair bit more than if you do it yourself right? People don't seem to have a problem paying extra for home renos/repairs, car repairs, etc. But they'll scream from the rooftops if it's for their computer.
Yes, I understand the points you've made. Your philosophical view ignores the very obvious practical reality. The issue is not that it costs more, but how MUCH more.
In order to question how MUCH more, one should put the photos of both original Apple RAM and OEM's RAM side by side, matching all the specifics as can be read on the photos along with OEM RAM's street price, then ask "why?" also taking into account labor costs.
I forgot how many times I heard in my Mac life since 1984 "those are not suited to Macs, Apple uses those ones, which are more expensive..."
I'd amend that a wee bit ... "those are not suited to Macs, Apple uses those, which are higher quality, more reliable and perhaps even faster..."
Reliability is a key point here. When using a Mac for any professional task, to have it crash in the middle of that task due to lower quality components (e.g. those smaller heat sinks) isn't a worthwhile trade off for the cost savings. Maybe you'll get lucky and won't encounter that, maybe you won't. The internet is full of stories about how such and such a manufacturer of RAM/SSDs is better than another based on anecdotal evidence of failure rates. It's time consuming to wade through it all, and so I'd rather trust those choices to Apple.
Previous version: soldered RAM, people complain. New version: slotted RAM, people complain.
Look man, if you're not comfortable using screwdrivers, you're not even a real DIY tinkerer, so why even both complaining since this is something only DIY folks do?
I am an avid tinkerer and maker, thank you. But upgrading RAM shouldn't be this risky for the average user. Apple could've made the RAM easier to access, but they decided otherwise. Which is a dick move.
The average user is NOT messing with this stuff...
Dunno why people are backing Apple on this one, it's a lazy implementation of a premium product and a crappy user experience. They managed to block more tinkerers from attempting to upgrade their own RAM. Fewer people will buy it and Apple will end-up discontinuing it.
Look, I'm someone who has done very difficult tinkering with computers in the past. For example, to get more performance out of an old G4 TiBook, I moved one of the resistors on the motherboard which controlled the CPU speed (the hardware equivalent of BIOS overclocking on PCs).
However, I also am open minded enough to see that I'm in a very small group of people who knows how to do this, cares about it, and/or is willing to spend my time doing it. And I also understand that it requires extra product design, engineering, and assembly line complexity to include a RAM access panel or similarly easy access. If this was an Arduino or Raspberry Pi type of device targeted at tinkerers, then I'd definitely question the decision. But because it's a device targeted at the mass market, I completely understand why it was made.
So you're saying that for a device to be user upgradable it must to fall in the category of an Arduino. Gotcha! Apple could've easily made the bottom twistable, or require a standard screwdriver, or even better, no screws at all, no hidden access points. Any combination of these efforts, which Apple has done beautifully in the past, would've kept the same circuitry yet made the RAM accessible.
Quit whining...the video doesn't look hard and you only need to do this maybe once.
While I don't understand Apple's reasoning for milling a hollow aluminum shell when they could cut costs and make it easier to design, assemble, and repair, this is probably one of the easiest Mac minis with this styling to work on.
I think the earliest ones had RAM bays fully accessible from the bottom without removing the logic board, but as iFixit notes it's easy to remove and doesn't require specialized parts. Access to the RAM is step 5 on their teardown.
I have several 2012 Mac minis and RAM was a 2-minute job. Now the HDD swapping to an SSD was a bitch!
I have a 2014 Mac mini that could use my old 2.5" SSD but I don't want to go through the effort of digging down to that HDD.
I am not 100% but I think the 2014 model is even more of a bitch to change the HHD out. I kick myself that when I had my 2012's open I didn't just add a SATA extender and take the connection outside. I could then so easily have swapped out and upsized the SSDs over time.
As I recall, that was only an option if you also got that SSD for a Fusion Drive setup.
I don't follow? Maybe you misunderstood me or I phrased it badly. If I extend the internal bus SATA interface on any Mac or PC and stick an SSD on the end the computer doesn't know the SSD isn't inside, what difference does it make where the actual physical drive is? In fact, I am looking at several Dell Server towers with cables trapped in the side door and SSDs on the ends they are booted into. It makes changing out boot drives so easy, although with a PC you do have to mess with EFI/BIOS not so with a Mac.
It seems like it doesn't have the PCIe-like port built-into the board, like with other Macs of its time. You have to buy a separate cable that will work from the designated port to convert to the PCIe-like setup for Apple's SSDs, but I don't think those were available when I bought it which is why I didn't think it was possible.
Previous version: soldered RAM, people complain. New version: slotted RAM, people complain.
Look man, if you're not comfortable using screwdrivers, you're not even a real DIY tinkerer, so why even both complaining since this is something only DIY folks do?
I am an avid tinkerer and maker, thank you. But upgrading RAM shouldn't be this risky for the average user. Apple could've made the RAM easier to access, but they decided otherwise. Which is a dick move.
The average user is NOT messing with this stuff...
Dunno why people are backing Apple on this one, it's a lazy implementation of a premium product and a crappy user experience. They managed to block more tinkerers from attempting to upgrade their own RAM. Fewer people will buy it and Apple will end-up discontinuing it.
Look, I'm someone who has done very difficult tinkering with computers in the past. For example, to get more performance out of an old G4 TiBook, I moved one of the resistors on the motherboard which controlled the CPU speed (the hardware equivalent of BIOS overclocking on PCs).
However, I also am open minded enough to see that I'm in a very small group of people who knows how to do this, cares about it, and/or is willing to spend my time doing it. And I also understand that it requires extra product design, engineering, and assembly line complexity to include a RAM access panel or similarly easy access. If this was an Arduino or Raspberry Pi type of device targeted at tinkerers, then I'd definitely question the decision. But because it's a device targeted at the mass market, I completely understand why it was made.
So you're saying that for a device to be user upgradable it must to fall in the category of an Arduino. Gotcha! Apple could've easily made the bottom twistable, or require a standard screwdriver, or even better, no screws at all, no hidden access points. Any combination of these efforts, which Apple has done beautifully in the past, would've kept the same circuitry yet made the RAM accessible.
Quit whining...the video doesn't look hard and you only need to do this maybe once.
While I don't understand Apple's reasoning for milling a hollow aluminum shell when they could cut costs and make it easier to design, assemble, and repair, this is probably one of the easiest Mac minis with this styling to work on.
I think the earliest ones had RAM bays fully accessible from the bottom without removing the logic board, but as iFixit notes it's easy to remove and doesn't require specialized parts. Access to the RAM is step 5 on their teardown.
I have several 2012 Mac minis and RAM was a 2-minute job. Now the HDD swapping to an SSD was a bitch!
I have a 2014 Mac mini that could use my old 2.5" SSD but I don't want to go through the effort of digging down to that HDD.
I am not 100% but I think the 2014 model is even more of a bitch to change the HHD out. I kick myself that when I had my 2012's open I didn't just add a SATA extender and take the connection outside. I could then so easily have swapped out and upsized the SSDs over time.
As I recall, that was only an option if you also got that SSD for a Fusion Drive setup.
I don't follow? Maybe you misunderstood me or I phrased it badly. If I extend the internal bus SATA interface on any Mac or PC and stick an SSD on the end the computer doesn't know the SSD isn't inside, what difference does it make where the actual physical drive is? In fact, I am looking at several Dell Server towers with cables trapped in the side door and SSDs on the ends they are booted into. It makes changing out boot drives so easy, although with a PC you do have to mess with EFI/BIOS not so with a Mac.
It seems like it doesn't have the PCIe-like port built-into the board, like with other Macs of its time. You have to buy a separate cable that will work from the designated port to convert to the PCIe-like setup for Apple's SSDs, but I don't think those were available when I bought it which is why I didn't think it was possible.
If I understand correctly what that adapter does, it's only required if you want to use the "blade" type SSD. If all he's connecting is a "standard" 2.5" SATA SSD, that could be done with a simple extender, couldn't it?
auxio said: [...] Turned out that the RAM I bought didn't have error correction/ECC and the heat sinks on it were much smaller, one of which was the cause of my crashes. This was the reason that the RAM Apple used was a lot more expensive. The devil is in the details.
Good point.
Of course the comparisons in this thread ARE for identical RAM. Apple is charging almost twice as much as Crucial et al for exactly the same component.
And so you're either paying for the extra assembly line needed to build the machine, or you're paying for a service technician's time to install it. You do understand that, when you get someone else to do something for you, it's always going to cost a fair bit more than if you do it yourself right? People don't seem to have a problem paying extra for home renos/repairs, car repairs, etc. But they'll scream from the rooftops if it's for their computer.
Yes, I understand the points you've made. Your philosophical view ignores the very obvious practical reality. The issue is not that it costs more, but how MUCH more.
And how much is your time worth? You expect to get paid well enough to live decently for whatever you do for a living, so why can't others demand the same? I don't know about the cost of setting up and maintaining that assembly line relative to the number of people who will choose to buy a Mac Mini which isn't the standard configuration. However, the hourly wage of a service technician (plus training, benefits, the cost of providing the space where they work, tools, etc) certainly isn't negligible.
Yet HP manages to offer its quite excellent Z-series workstations at prices roughly equivalent to Apple's pro line, AND offer upgrades at prices close to "going rate."
I mention this not to suggest that Apple and HP are equivalent, but simply to refute the argument that Apple's upgrade prices are extremely high because cost recovery makes them so. I can't imagine other suppliers are realizing lower assembly costs than Apple, yet they don't impose such premiums on custom configurations.
It would truly be interesting to see if Apple's assembly lines are more expensive due to their concern about things like environmental impact (use of recycled materials, where power comes from, where waste goes, etc) and labour conditions (no child labour, maximum number of hours per week, etc). I'm not trying to make excuses for the higher costs, but it's so easy to just dismiss everything Apple does as being driven by profit motive alone.
auxio said: [...] Turned out that the RAM I bought didn't have error correction/ECC and the heat sinks on it were much smaller, one of which was the cause of my crashes. This was the reason that the RAM Apple used was a lot more expensive. The devil is in the details.
Good point.
Of course the comparisons in this thread ARE for identical RAM. Apple is charging almost twice as much as Crucial et al for exactly the same component.
And so you're either paying for the extra assembly line needed to build the machine, or you're paying for a service technician's time to install it. You do understand that, when you get someone else to do something for you, it's always going to cost a fair bit more than if you do it yourself right? People don't seem to have a problem paying extra for home renos/repairs, car repairs, etc. But they'll scream from the rooftops if it's for their computer.
Yes, I understand the points you've made. Your philosophical view ignores the very obvious practical reality. The issue is not that it costs more, but how MUCH more.
In order to question how MUCH more, one should put the photos of both original Apple RAM and OEM's RAM side by side, matching all the specifics as can be read on the photos along with OEM RAM's street price, then ask "why?" also taking into account labor costs.
I forgot how many times I heard in my Mac life since 1984 "those are not suited to Macs, Apple uses those ones, which are more expensive..."
Apple is not using exotic RAM components. They buy from the same sources as everyone else. They may be selective about QC levels, but there's no magic fairy dust.
I really should dig out my old Mac Pro and take pictures of the difference in the size of the heat sinks on the cheaper RAM modules I bought vs the ones on the modules Apple used. I remember I tried to find the exact model of RAM which came with the machine, but none of the generic RAM sales websites carried it (only OWC). It's not magic fairy dust, but they appear to sometimes get specialized models (for whatever reason) which aren't sold via the mass market.
Previous version: soldered RAM, people complain. New version: slotted RAM, people complain.
Look man, if you're not comfortable using screwdrivers, you're not even a real DIY tinkerer, so why even both complaining since this is something only DIY folks do?
I am an avid tinkerer and maker, thank you. But upgrading RAM shouldn't be this risky for the average user. Apple could've made the RAM easier to access, but they decided otherwise. Which is a dick move.
The average user is NOT messing with this stuff...
Dunno why people are backing Apple on this one, it's a lazy implementation of a premium product and a crappy user experience. They managed to block more tinkerers from attempting to upgrade their own RAM. Fewer people will buy it and Apple will end-up discontinuing it.
Look, I'm someone who has done very difficult tinkering with computers in the past. For example, to get more performance out of an old G4 TiBook, I moved one of the resistors on the motherboard which controlled the CPU speed (the hardware equivalent of BIOS overclocking on PCs).
However, I also am open minded enough to see that I'm in a very small group of people who knows how to do this, cares about it, and/or is willing to spend my time doing it. And I also understand that it requires extra product design, engineering, and assembly line complexity to include a RAM access panel or similarly easy access. If this was an Arduino or Raspberry Pi type of device targeted at tinkerers, then I'd definitely question the decision. But because it's a device targeted at the mass market, I completely understand why it was made.
So you're saying that for a device to be user upgradable it must to fall in the category of an Arduino. Gotcha! Apple could've easily made the bottom twistable, or require a standard screwdriver, or even better, no screws at all, no hidden access points. Any combination of these efforts, which Apple has done beautifully in the past, would've kept the same circuitry yet made the RAM accessible.
Quit whining...the video doesn't look hard and you only need to do this maybe once.
While I don't understand Apple's reasoning for milling a hollow aluminum shell when they could cut costs and make it easier to design, assemble, and repair, this is probably one of the easiest Mac minis with this styling to work on.
I think the earliest ones had RAM bays fully accessible from the bottom without removing the logic board, but as iFixit notes it's easy to remove and doesn't require specialized parts. Access to the RAM is step 5 on their teardown.
I have several 2012 Mac minis and RAM was a 2-minute job. Now the HDD swapping to an SSD was a bitch!
I have a 2014 Mac mini that could use my old 2.5" SSD but I don't want to go through the effort of digging down to that HDD.
I am not 100% but I think the 2014 model is even more of a bitch to change the HHD out. I kick myself that when I had my 2012's open I didn't just add a SATA extender and take the connection outside. I could then so easily have swapped out and upsized the SSDs over time.
As I recall, that was only an option if you also got that SSD for a Fusion Drive setup.
I don't follow? Maybe you misunderstood me or I phrased it badly. If I extend the internal bus SATA interface on any Mac or PC and stick an SSD on the end the computer doesn't know the SSD isn't inside, what difference does it make where the actual physical drive is? In fact, I am looking at several Dell Server towers with cables trapped in the side door and SSDs on the ends they are booted into. It makes changing out boot drives so easy, although with a PC you do have to mess with EFI/BIOS not so with a Mac.
It seems like it doesn't have the PCIe-like port built-into the board, like with other Macs of its time. You have to buy a separate cable that will work from the designated port to convert to the PCIe-like setup for Apple's SSDs, but I don't think those were available when I bought it which is why I didn't think it was possible.
If I understand correctly what that adapter does, it's only required if you want to use the "blade" type SSD. If all he's connecting is a "standard" 2.5" SATA SSD, that could be done with a simple extender, couldn't it?
auxio said: [...] Turned out that the RAM I bought didn't have error correction/ECC and the heat sinks on it were much smaller, one of which was the cause of my crashes. This was the reason that the RAM Apple used was a lot more expensive. The devil is in the details.
Good point.
Of course the comparisons in this thread ARE for identical RAM. Apple is charging almost twice as much as Crucial et al for exactly the same component.
And so you're either paying for the extra assembly line needed to build the machine, or you're paying for a service technician's time to install it. You do understand that, when you get someone else to do something for you, it's always going to cost a fair bit more than if you do it yourself right? People don't seem to have a problem paying extra for home renos/repairs, car repairs, etc. But they'll scream from the rooftops if it's for their computer.
Yes, I understand the points you've made. Your philosophical view ignores the very obvious practical reality. The issue is not that it costs more, but how MUCH more.
In order to question how MUCH more, one should put the photos of both original Apple RAM and OEM's RAM side by side, matching all the specifics as can be read on the photos along with OEM RAM's street price, then ask "why?" also taking into account labor costs.
I forgot how many times I heard in my Mac life since 1984 "those are not suited to Macs, Apple uses those ones, which are more expensive..."
Apple is not using exotic RAM components. They buy from the same sources as everyone else. They may be selective about QC levels, but there's no magic fairy dust.
auxio said: [...] Turned out that the RAM I bought didn't have error correction/ECC and the heat sinks on it were much smaller, one of which was the cause of my crashes. This was the reason that the RAM Apple used was a lot more expensive. The devil is in the details.
Good point.
Of course the comparisons in this thread ARE for identical RAM. Apple is charging almost twice as much as Crucial et al for exactly the same component.
And so you're either paying for the extra assembly line needed to build the machine, or you're paying for a service technician's time to install it. You do understand that, when you get someone else to do something for you, it's always going to cost a fair bit more than if you do it yourself right? People don't seem to have a problem paying extra for home renos/repairs, car repairs, etc. But they'll scream from the rooftops if it's for their computer.
Yes, I understand the points you've made. Your philosophical view ignores the very obvious practical reality. The issue is not that it costs more, but how MUCH more.
In order to question how MUCH more, one should put the photos of both original Apple RAM and OEM's RAM side by side, matching all the specifics as can be read on the photos along with OEM RAM's street price, then ask "why?" also taking into account labor costs.
I forgot how many times I heard in my Mac life since 1984 "those are not suited to Macs, Apple uses those ones, which are more expensive..."
Apple is not using exotic RAM components. They buy from the same sources as everyone else. They may be selective about QC levels, but there's no magic fairy dust.
I really should dig out my old Mac Pro and take pictures of the difference in the size of the heat sinks on the cheaper RAM modules I bought vs the ones on the modules Apple used. I remember I tried to find the exact model of RAM which came with the machine, but none of the generic RAM sales websites carried it (only OWC). It's not magic fairy dust, but they appear to sometimes get specialized models (for whatever reason) which aren't sold via the mass market.
You think that's bad. The new post late 2013 Mac Pros have everything esoteric and only years after release even had OWC parts available. That said the specs are outstanding on all parts. I already upgraded my late 2013 Mac Pro, however, I won't again as I hope the new model will be with us next year and I so want USB-C / TB3 like my MBP and MBA have!
When I write late 2013 it seems like yesterday but wow what a hell of a long time to wait for a new model Mac Pro!
Previous version: soldered RAM, people complain. New version: slotted RAM, people complain.
Look man, if you're not comfortable using screwdrivers, you're not even a real DIY tinkerer, so why even both complaining since this is something only DIY folks do?
I am an avid tinkerer and maker, thank you. But upgrading RAM shouldn't be this risky for the average user. Apple could've made the RAM easier to access, but they decided otherwise. Which is a dick move.
The average user is NOT messing with this stuff...
Dunno why people are backing Apple on this one, it's a lazy implementation of a premium product and a crappy user experience. They managed to block more tinkerers from attempting to upgrade their own RAM. Fewer people will buy it and Apple will end-up discontinuing it.
Look, I'm someone who has done very difficult tinkering with computers in the past. For example, to get more performance out of an old G4 TiBook, I moved one of the resistors on the motherboard which controlled the CPU speed (the hardware equivalent of BIOS overclocking on PCs).
However, I also am open minded enough to see that I'm in a very small group of people who knows how to do this, cares about it, and/or is willing to spend my time doing it. And I also understand that it requires extra product design, engineering, and assembly line complexity to include a RAM access panel or similarly easy access. If this was an Arduino or Raspberry Pi type of device targeted at tinkerers, then I'd definitely question the decision. But because it's a device targeted at the mass market, I completely understand why it was made.
So you're saying that for a device to be user upgradable it must to fall in the category of an Arduino. Gotcha! Apple could've easily made the bottom twistable, or require a standard screwdriver, or even better, no screws at all, no hidden access points. Any combination of these efforts, which Apple has done beautifully in the past, would've kept the same circuitry yet made the RAM accessible.
Quit whining...the video doesn't look hard and you only need to do this maybe once.
While I don't understand Apple's reasoning for milling a hollow aluminum shell when they could cut costs and make it easier to design, assemble, and repair, this is probably one of the easiest Mac minis with this styling to work on.
I think the earliest ones had RAM bays fully accessible from the bottom without removing the logic board, but as iFixit notes it's easy to remove and doesn't require specialized parts. Access to the RAM is step 5 on their teardown.
I have several 2012 Mac minis and RAM was a 2-minute job. Now the HDD swapping to an SSD was a bitch!
I have a 2014 Mac mini that could use my old 2.5" SSD but I don't want to go through the effort of digging down to that HDD.
I am not 100% but I think the 2014 model is even more of a bitch to change the HHD out. I kick myself that when I had my 2012's open I didn't just add a SATA extender and take the connection outside. I could then so easily have swapped out and upsized the SSDs over time.
As I recall, that was only an option if you also got that SSD for a Fusion Drive setup.
I don't follow? Maybe you misunderstood me or I phrased it badly. If I extend the internal bus SATA interface on any Mac or PC and stick an SSD on the end the computer doesn't know the SSD isn't inside, what difference does it make where the actual physical drive is? In fact, I am looking at several Dell Server towers with cables trapped in the side door and SSDs on the ends they are booted into. It makes changing out boot drives so easy, although with a PC you do have to mess with EFI/BIOS not so with a Mac.
It seems like it doesn't have the PCIe-like port built-into the board, like with other Macs of its time. You have to buy a separate cable that will work from the designated port to convert to the PCIe-like setup for Apple's SSDs, but I don't think those were available when I bought it which is why I didn't think it was possible.
If I understand correctly what that adapter does, it's only required if you want to use the "blade" type SSD. If all he's connecting is a "standard" 2.5" SATA SSD, that could be done with a simple extender, couldn't it?
Yes, because they'd be both be SATA drives, but as stated it's a bitch to get to, especially in those 2014 models.
Knowing the adapter exists, if it requires considerably less teardown (even without factoring in how much faster a PCIe-based connector and SSD stick would be) I'd heavily consider the cost of the adapter and a SSD stick.
auxio said: [...] Turned out that the RAM I bought didn't have error correction/ECC and the heat sinks on it were much smaller, one of which was the cause of my crashes. This was the reason that the RAM Apple used was a lot more expensive. The devil is in the details.
Good point.
Of course the comparisons in this thread ARE for identical RAM. Apple is charging almost twice as much as Crucial et al for exactly the same component.
And so you're either paying for the extra assembly line needed to build the machine, or you're paying for a service technician's time to install it. You do understand that, when you get someone else to do something for you, it's always going to cost a fair bit more than if you do it yourself right? People don't seem to have a problem paying extra for home renos/repairs, car repairs, etc. But they'll scream from the rooftops if it's for their computer.
Yes, I understand the points you've made. Your philosophical view ignores the very obvious practical reality. The issue is not that it costs more, but how MUCH more.
In order to question how MUCH more, one should put the photos of both original Apple RAM and OEM's RAM side by side, matching all the specifics as can be read on the photos along with OEM RAM's street price, then ask "why?" also taking into account labor costs.
I forgot how many times I heard in my Mac life since 1984 "those are not suited to Macs, Apple uses those ones, which are more expensive..."
Apple is not using exotic RAM components. They buy from the same sources as everyone else. They may be selective about QC levels, but there's no magic fairy dust.
That's certainly not true for the new Mac Pro. Check the specs out for yourself. Apple used very specialized RAM and SSDs. When I updated the fairy dust fell all over the invoice too!
apple engineers are getting freaking lazy. They could have spent a few more hours making the damn thing easier to upgrade. and while they're at it stick with common M.2 PCI-E SSD. not that hard people.
GeorgeBMac said: The limitations here are for visual appeal -- which many serious geeks would willingly sacrifice for added functionality. In this case specifically, it seems Apple could have easily flipped the memory over to the back side of the board and then simply put a door in the frame to get to it as countless laptops have done for decades. But, that would interfere with the visual design.
I need to watch the video to get a better feel for it, I suppose... but one thing that is puzzling me is why the exhaust is at the bottom rather than the top. Wouldn't reversing that put the RAM at the bottom where it would be more accessible, plus help with moving the heat the way it wants to go? I can understand them not wanting to saw a door in the top of the unit, but as you say, the serious geeks wouldn't mind.
anome said: Everywhere except in the US, I believe. Even here we have a lot of SUVs that never do anything useful or sporty, but we do have a lot of smaller cars as well.
What I'm finding interesting about the discussion is that the people who want to "tinker" and install their own RAM are complaining about the amount of tinkering needed. It's possible, it just isn't recommended for people who aren't comfortable removing the motherboard in order to save money on the memory upgrade.
re: SUVs, I think it's often more of a user preference for being bigger or higher-up (to the annoyance of everyone else). Or, unfortunately, it has become an 'image/fashion' thing for some stupid reason. Best case, it is actually practical... as you say where they need to haul something (i.e.: need the extra space), or use them off-road for the few models that are actual capable of such things.
re: tinkering - I think there is a 3rd category which may have just been forgotten. Back in the older days of Macs, most people bought them with the base RAM, and then upgraded them or had a friend do it. It wasn't all that tinker-y or unusual. Now, it is unusual, but wasn't back then.
I'm not sure which drove which though... whether more modern designs lead to less people tinkering, or whether the culture just doesn't tinker anymore. I'd say more of the latter, but it's some combination.
sflocal said: ... Most people will NEVER, EVER open their computers post-purchase to upgrade ANYTHING. Now, for that < 1% of people that do, most will upgrade ONCE and never crack it open again...
While true, as I said above, is this the tail wagging the dog? When Macs could upgrade the RAM by just opening a cover, the majority of people upgraded the RAM, not < 1%. They might not have done it themselves, but a lot of people had someone like me do it for them. It was kind of standard upgrade practice. Computer feeling slow? How much RAM do you have? Oh, we'll order a couple sticks and put them in.
There are no options right now for 64GB (dual 32GB) sticks outside of Apple. The nearest one coming soon will run over $1100 w/ tax, so really, if you're going to do it right, just buy it from Apple with coverage and call it an amortized cost over the 5 years of its expected service.
Three days ago it wasn't yet available, but it is exactly the memory I was alluding to being over $1100 for the upgrade. So just buy the system with the 64GB from Apple and be done with it. Any failures will be on their end.
To me, the cool thing about being able to upgrade the RAM is to provide some proof against future obsolescence. There are some critical requirements for long life of a desktop personal computer. RAM size, HD size, CPU speed, Display size, compatibility with software, compatibility with external hardware. We're told we can't update the CPU but all that has done to us is make the old computer slow. Apple still gives us 8 or so years of Software support. In this architecture the HD can be external and there is lots of potential for external HW capability. So do we need more RAM 4 years in the future? Will RAM be just as expensive then as now? If Yes and Yes, then buy now. If RAM will be cheaper in 4 years, or we can only guess if we will need more in the future, then we buy for today and then be happy we have upgrade capability in the 2018 Mini.
The Mac Mini 2014 made it so if we didn't buy enough RAM, at time-of-computer-purchase, for 4 or 8 years in the future, we were screwed. I'm pleased that the 2018 Mini gave us that upgrade capability, even though I'm not going to take advantage of it immediately after receiving the computer.
Similarly I really love the existence of the 4 x M.2 OWC "Express" enclosure. I don't want to pay the price for one today, but it's a dead giveaway that I can add fast storage to the Mini 2018. Hopefully when I feel the need for it, the price comes down a tadd.
Previous version: soldered RAM, people complain. New version: slotted RAM, people complain.
Look man, if you're not comfortable using screwdrivers, you're not even a real DIY tinkerer, so why even both complaining since this is something only DIY folks do?
I am an avid tinkerer and maker, thank you. But upgrading RAM shouldn't be this risky for the average user. Apple could've made the RAM easier to access, but they decided otherwise. Which is a dick move.
The average user is NOT messing with this stuff...
Dunno why people are backing Apple on this one, it's a lazy implementation of a premium product and a crappy user experience. They managed to block more tinkerers from attempting to upgrade their own RAM. Fewer people will buy it and Apple will end-up discontinuing it.
Look, I'm someone who has done very difficult tinkering with computers in the past. For example, to get more performance out of an old G4 TiBook, I moved one of the resistors on the motherboard which controlled the CPU speed (the hardware equivalent of BIOS overclocking on PCs).
However, I also am open minded enough to see that I'm in a very small group of people who knows how to do this, cares about it, and/or is willing to spend my time doing it. And I also understand that it requires extra product design, engineering, and assembly line complexity to include a RAM access panel or similarly easy access. If this was an Arduino or Raspberry Pi type of device targeted at tinkerers, then I'd definitely question the decision. But because it's a device targeted at the mass market, I completely understand why it was made.
So you're saying that for a device to be user upgradable it must to fall in the category of an Arduino. Gotcha!
Nope, you missed the point and changed the language to fit your own personal agenda. To tie my original point in with your agenda, replace the term user upgradeable with tinkerer upgradeable and then it fits. The word user means the entire group of people who will use this computer. But the reality is that DIY upgrades are only done by a very small subset of Mac Mini users (what I define as tinkerers).
But I understand that you're so deep in your rabbit hole that it's difficult to see the big picture, so let me try another way of thinking about it. Try to name any other mass market electronic device or appliance which is designed to have the hardware components within it be user upgradeable (TV, stereo, microwave oven, dishwasher, refrigerator, etc). Like it or not, mass market computers are appliances for the vast majority of people (users).
I did not miss your point, nor do I have an agenda, and my point still stands. Apple has made this harder than it should be, and it's being echoed by most technology outlets including this one, hence this entire conversation. But the Apple can do no wrong attitude blocks any reasonable conversation on these forums.
Previous version: soldered RAM, people complain. New version: slotted RAM, people complain.
Look man, if you're not comfortable using screwdrivers, you're not even a real DIY tinkerer, so why even both complaining since this is something only DIY folks do?
I am an avid tinkerer and maker, thank you. But upgrading RAM shouldn't be this risky for the average user. Apple could've made the RAM easier to access, but they decided otherwise. Which is a dick move.
The average user is NOT messing with this stuff...
Dunno why people are backing Apple on this one, it's a lazy implementation of a premium product and a crappy user experience. They managed to block more tinkerers from attempting to upgrade their own RAM. Fewer people will buy it and Apple will end-up discontinuing it.
Look, I'm someone who has done very difficult tinkering with computers in the past. For example, to get more performance out of an old G4 TiBook, I moved one of the resistors on the motherboard which controlled the CPU speed (the hardware equivalent of BIOS overclocking on PCs).
However, I also am open minded enough to see that I'm in a very small group of people who knows how to do this, cares about it, and/or is willing to spend my time doing it. And I also understand that it requires extra product design, engineering, and assembly line complexity to include a RAM access panel or similarly easy access. If this was an Arduino or Raspberry Pi type of device targeted at tinkerers, then I'd definitely question the decision. But because it's a device targeted at the mass market, I completely understand why it was made.
So you're saying that for a device to be user upgradable it must to fall in the category of an Arduino. Gotcha! Apple could've easily made the bottom twistable, or require a standard screwdriver, or even better, no screws at all, no hidden access points. Any combination of these efforts, which Apple has done beautifully in the past, would've kept the same circuitry yet made the RAM accessible.
Quit whining...the video doesn't look hard and you only need to do this maybe once.
That's a pathetic reply. This is a forum, I am not whining, just replying to those who replied to my comment.
Just checked MacSales/OWC and their RAM for this model costs $169.99 vs the $200 upgrade price Apple charges ($188 if you qualify for their EPP and (possibly) educational discounts). I use MacSales all the time but regardless of the warranty, the price difference doesn't make sense to me considering the lack of ease in replacing it. Using cheaper RAM is not something I do or recommend so for those who just have to be able to change or upgrade RAM, good luck.
disclaimer: OWC charges $1079.99 for a full 64GB of RAM vs Apple's $1316 (EPP price) so it might be worth it if you really want to spend that much money on a Mac mini.
from https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT205041 Couldn't quickly find actual warranty but when Apple says something like this, it sounds to me like they aren't allowing it.
We asked. We're also very clear in our warning about the procedure.
The fact you have to put back Apple's RAM if you need to go in for a repair should ring alarm bells here! That's also called deception in my book. What is the 'guidance' here on what to say if the Apple tech asks if you have replaced the RAM and put the Apple RAM back ... lie?
I always have upgraded my RAM (and internal storage) on any Mac I own (I keep them all a long time) where it is feasible even if difficult. However, never until my extended warranty is out. In my case, I make sure I purchase a Mac with the correct configuration for my needs for the two years under coverage. If you figure out what it costs to take out Apple's RAM and replace within those two years you have to add the two sets of RAM together to get the true cost unless you can get a trade in. I don't see how that can ever make mathematical sense otherwise. Two or three years later the cost of RAM has usually fallen enough to make that upgrade cost effective but even then you have to do the math. For my 2013 Mac Pro, it was nearly four years before that RAM was worth the cost and only then thanks to a trade in. It obviously varies but Apple never use cheap RAM so the calculations have to take that into account. On several Mac Mini 2012 models I have, it was a no-brainer to upgrade RAM and HDD to SSD at four years old, same with a 2010 MBP i7 15".
So the bottom line is this is a great article to file away for reference in two to three years.
They fixed my MacBook Pro many times with 3rd party RAM in it, and it always came back with 4GB of their memory and my 16GB wrapped up in the package. However they would not service it when I had removed by optical drive and put the hard drive in that bay and an ssd in the main bay, so I had to install macOS on my iTunes drive and put that back in the main slot, and reinstall my optical drive and drive it back before they’d take it in. I don’t know about “alarm bells”, they literally didn’t care that I had reconfigured my MBP. The safe option is just keep your old RAM around in case you do need to swap it.
Comments
I'll continue after quoting your next comments, which are very relevant...
iPads and iPhones are the perfect example here. While Macs sell in the low single-digit millions per quarter, iPads sell around 2x that amount over the same period of time, and iPhones sell around 10x.
All of these devices fit the definition of a personal computer, but as you said, iPhones and iPads are much more like what we think of when we think of appliances: all of the components are built together and they aren't user upgradeable. And we can see that such devices have much more appeal/use to people than traditional computers. While portability is a big part of that, it's also the simplicity which is driving people to them. Most people don't place value on (need) modularity and upgradeability. Especially given that the basic configurations of modern computers/devices meets the needs of the most common tasks people use them for. And the cost of the components, when built all together, is cheap enough nowadays.
But, you're right... there is still a pro market out there which has a wider variety of requirements. The problem is that it's a very wide variety given the various "pro" classifications. And so companies like Apple need to decide which pros it's worthwhile to design for and which it isn't. Given how long it's taken them to update the Mac Pro, I'm guessing that the market for a completely modular and upgradeable computer like that is diminishing, even among the pro classifications.
The Dell's own ribbon cabled were already long enough not to need these.
When I write late 2013 it seems like yesterday but wow what a hell of a long time to wait for a new model Mac Pro!
Knowing the adapter exists, if it requires considerably less teardown (even without factoring in how much faster a PCIe-based connector and SSD stick would be) I'd heavily consider the cost of the adapter and a SSD stick.