My II+ takes 2-3 seconds to boot into basic. I'd like to see you beat that with any Mac.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
2014 Mac Mini Is Neither Here Nor There
- Thread starter cinealta
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
My II+ takes 2-3 seconds to boot into basic. I'd like to see you beat that with any Mac.
I picked up a couple of minis through best buy's $399 clearance today. One of them was a 2014 by accident, I guess they ran out of 2012s or something. For the money, I don't even care. My laptop has the same 4GB ram soldered on. It's for my mom, and if she asks for a more powerful machine I'll be ecstatic to get it for her. 
In the meantime though, it's perfect! I'm happy they made the $499 model again, even if I'm somewhat disappointed they didn't make a more powerful quad with discrete graphics.
In the meantime though, it's perfect! I'm happy they made the $499 model again, even if I'm somewhat disappointed they didn't make a more powerful quad with discrete graphics.
Other computer is a classic Mac Pro 3.33 GHz 6-core.
I'm not doing digital audio/video on the 2009 Mini. But for general usage (web browsing, email etc) it's fast. Safari especially is snappy.
Last edited:
I could not agree more. Apple has all the resources in the world, to bring customers what they demand, at a reasonable price.
All this talk about how apple had to use soldered ram because of this or that, why they could not use quad core....i don't care about them having to go with 2 logic boards, and whatever hoops they have to jump through, to get me the product i want.
They are the experts, they should be able to figure this stuff out, and get the product to the market, so that they will address my needs. If they want my money, they need to work for it.
Alas, apple seems to care about their iPhone and iPads way more than about desktop computers. From a business perspective, given where the profits are, it's understandable.
But it's also understandable people will start looking elsewhere, if what they need is a computer.
I happen to own early 2009 mini. Even with 8GB RAM and a speedy SSD, it still leaves a lot to be desired. I'm finding it hard to believe you find it "lightning quick", maybe you lack a good comparison with a really fast machine ?
Either way, the new mini, even at the basic config, should absolutely destroy it. May seem like an underperformer at 1.4GHz, but there is turbo on these things, and especially under normal use, it should kick in quite often, and you will get a performance of a very fast CPU, leaps and bounds ahead of core2 cpus used in 2009 minis.
Last edited:
Yeah Apple is definitely greedy offering a newer system for $100 LESS than the previous model.
As far as quad core, do you know the sales stats? Apple might have found that AT THIS TIME, it would be pointless to do ALL of that work to add quad core when only 5% (for example) of their Mac Mini sales are quad core. They probably felt like it would be best to wait for the new Intel release.
That's in the category of things i don't care about. I do care about how they improve on their last gen products with new products. If they fail to do so, then i will complain. I have no doubts they had their reasons for going down this route, these may even seem reasonable to some, but in the end, the feeling i end up with, is one that they are either incompetent, or lazy.
I was never going to buy a quad-core mac mini whether they released one or not.
I'm really struggling to figure out why everyone thinks the 2012 is so much better.
I'm really struggling to figure out why everyone thinks the 2012 is so much better.
Interesting point. Do we know what the volume price of quads would have done to the minis retail? $100 more per model may have been palatable if they were also 100% quads.
I would say since the quads were mid tier for the 2012 that a majority of sales were quad because most people go for mid tier or I maybe wrong.
You are right. One of the most successful companies on planet earth is incompetent and lazy. Yup. You are right. What was the name of your company again?
Good pointIf Apple decides to stick with 28w U series processors, I doubt we will see any Quadcore even on Skylake.
I hate your argument. Guess what -- people can have objective, and valid, opinions without being the CEO of a Fortune 500 company.
If you're willingly ignoring all the recent laziness and incompetence of Apple then I'd call you an apologist. However if you genuinely believe they're not screwing over consumers and taking advantage of their brand loyalty then I'd say you've been supping a little too much of the Apple Kool-Aid.
I can't see how anybody can apologise for what Apple did to the Mac Mini, and quite a few other products. There's absolutely no excuse.
and when apple did not so? you all forgot about previous iteration of product? always something missing, always pushing to buy expensive upgrades.. but thats how you build the wealthiest company on planet Earth... mac mini 2014 is no disaster, actually, it only lacks quad core and thats it (and this decision is understandable - thx intel for that)...
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmomega
Ok, we can't swap RAM. Worse things have happened..
yeah the spinner 5400 rpm hdd is stock on the 2014 mini far bigger issue then the ram.
Apple knows that if they put in an ssd or pcie stock you can get away with the ram at 4gb.
I will tell you right now the stock 5400 hdd is slowwwwww. Beach balls galore.
Originally Posted by mmomega
Ok, we can't swap RAM. Worse things have happened..
yeah the spinner 5400 rpm hdd is stock on the 2014 mini far bigger issue then the ram.
Apple knows that if they put in an ssd or pcie stock you can get away with the ram at 4gb.
I will tell you right now the stock 5400 hdd is slowwwwww. Beach balls galore.
[rant]
2014 Mac Mini is a huge disaster. It's using the same Logic Board from the 1.4GHz MacBook Airs, in order to save on costs. That immediately shows that Apple aren't committed to dedicating resources to the Mac Mini.
The 'new' Mac Mini comes in the old shell, with the disadvantage of soldered RAM. If the Mac Mini was in a different, smaller case, perhaps that would be understandable; however Apple removing this feature (which they touted heavily) is nothing short of planned obsolescence.
The stock 5400rpm hard-drive is dog-on slow and also not user-upgradeable. Apple have never coupled the 1.4GHz processor with only 4GB RAM and a standard slow hard-drive. It's quite frankly the slowest computer they've ever made.
People who buy this computer from new aren't going to get a good experience. It'll be slow from the get-go and practically unusable when the RAM pages. And with the lack of upgradeability options the user is literally powerless to make it work any better for them. Nothing can be upgraded (and if you upgrade the hard-drive, your warranty's voided). The only way to upgrade the machine would be to buy a new one.
The idea of 'buy a new Mac if you need to upgrade it' would perhaps be acceptable if a non-upgradeable Mac is at the cutting edge of specifications and technology. That way you at least have some assurance and comfort that it will perform well for a reasonable amount of time before you need to shell out for a new Mac.
However, as mentioned before, the new Mac Mini is the slowest product they've ever made. It's the laziest product they've ever made. They've reduced functionality from the previous model, reduced performance from the previous model (yes, the i5 isn't much better than the 2012 model), got rid of the quad-core option, and essentially f*cked anybody who wanted an entry-level Mac which will perform as a Mac should.
'We make products we'd use ourselves'.
Really, Tim Cook? So, let me get this straight:
- You'd be happy to use an 8GB iPhone 5C, which essentially requires wiping of all data if you want to update the operating system
- You'd be happy to use and sell a ****-slow, sloppily-designed Mac Mini, that will be many people's disappointing first experience of a Mac
- You'd pay £800 for a MacBook Pro with an optical drive, with the idea that it will be suitable as it's a 'Pro' machine. And you'd be perfectly happy when you realise that its specifications are nearly 3 years old and don't hold up on the latest OS.
- You'd buy an entry-level iMac that's glued, soldered, and performs more poorly than an entry-level MacBook Air (due to the Air's SSD).
No, Tim. No you wouldn't.
And yeah, they're entry-level products. But people who buy them will not be getting a good experience. People will often buy the cheapest products. But with all the self-satisfying-smugness that Apple drone on about, with all the 'only Apple can do this', with all the 'we're the best, we make the best', people begin to believe that -- only to be thoroughly disappointed when they get a crappy, cheap experience with your crappy, cheap products.
Manufacture quality across the line, or don't offer a cheap option. End of.
[/rant]