Okay. So when I start up the Mac mini the first time I just choose migration assistant from the options.
Yes and no. If I go with the fusion drive Mac mini and iPad then it would be cheaper than the rMBP.
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.
Mac mini 2014 questions.
- Thread starter bigpoppamac31
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Okay. So when I start up the Mac mini the first time I just choose migration assistant from the options.
Yes and no. If I go with the fusion drive Mac mini and iPad then it would be cheaper than the rMBP.
Any computer will do that.
That much $$$ for tasks any phone does is a tad weird.
Correct, correct, correct.
I got the Late 2014 mini with 8GB, of RAM 2.6GHz, and 1TB FD. It is just as fast with everyday tasks as my Late 2013 Mac Pro with 256GB SSD, 16GB of RAM and 3.7GHz.
OP wrote above:
[[ I'd simply get the high end Mac mini which comes with the fusion drive. I'd just add 16gb ram. But when it has to write to the HDD wouldnt 5400rpm be really slow? ]]
You can save some $$$ by buying the mid-level Mini with the Fusion drive and 16gb of RAM.
Unless you are a user who runs apps that HEAVILY tax the CPU, you probably would see little or no "perceptible performance increase" between the mid-level's CPU and the high-end CPU.
The fusion drive WILL provide much of the "snappiness" to the overall performance.
Also, I'm not sure if you'll be satisfied hooking the Mini up to a tv.
You might take the money saved (by buying the mid-level) and get a nice 27" display instead. This will yield the most "bang for the buck".
My opinion only, others' will be different...
[[ I'd simply get the high end Mac mini which comes with the fusion drive. I'd just add 16gb ram. But when it has to write to the HDD wouldnt 5400rpm be really slow? ]]
You can save some $$$ by buying the mid-level Mini with the Fusion drive and 16gb of RAM.
Unless you are a user who runs apps that HEAVILY tax the CPU, you probably would see little or no "perceptible performance increase" between the mid-level's CPU and the high-end CPU.
The fusion drive WILL provide much of the "snappiness" to the overall performance.
Also, I'm not sure if you'll be satisfied hooking the Mini up to a tv.
You might take the money saved (by buying the mid-level) and get a nice 27" display instead. This will yield the most "bang for the buck".
My opinion only, others' will be different...
Well the high end already has the fusion drive. I'd just up to 16gb. But yes I'd save a bit of money doing that with the mid level model. Also the tv as a display would only be until I get a monitor. Gotta shop around for that.
Perhaps you're right, the OP should forget about the rMBP and get a PowerBook G3 266 MHz with 128 MB RAM and 8 GB HDD instead.
Keep in mind that a Mac mini or rMBP does not work the same way as a iPhone or iPad. A lot more apps and tabs are stored in RAM, a lot more processes run at the same time. I need to be sure that any computer I recommend will last the OP for years to come and will take anything they will throw at it in planned usage without lagging.
----------
As already mentioned there really isn't any need to do that based on the usage you provided. But, do what you will.
That's obvious.
----------
That is nonsense
----------
By the time a base mini or mba lags for what the OP is doing, every other part of those machines will also be hopelessly outdated. With that logic you have to always recommend every upgrade possible.
Are you seriously trying to say that the OP needs upgrades to run iTunes and safari?
Any computer sold right now or the last few years. I am not talking about a C64.I'm confused, you said any computer could do that.
You should have been more specific.
I certainly don't try to recommend every upgrade possible, in fact I recommend against 16 GB which the OP seems intent on. I just want to see the OP get reasonable bang for their buck, never have to worry about running out of RAM, and have a fast machine with a SSD.
People don't always have to get the absolute minimum for their needs, either. There should be some wiggle room there, to account for the future and changing needs.
Going back to the very first post, this seems to be a case where the OP knows just enough technical information to lead everyone on a wild goose chase.
After four pages of posts, it's still unclear how the computer is going to be used. One minute it's a desktop, the next it's a laptop, the next it's for tv, the next that's just temporary, etc.
You guys are sucked into an argument over semantics and hyperbole.
After four pages of posts, it's still unclear how the computer is going to be used. One minute it's a desktop, the next it's a laptop, the next it's for tv, the next that's just temporary, etc.
You guys are sucked into an argument over semantics and hyperbole.
Last edited:
For what the OP is doing there is plenty of wiggle room even with the base models.
Not where RAM is concerned, 4 GB is the minimum. It also doesn't have an SSD, a huge downside.
No. 2GB is the minimum. 4GB is double that.
For safari, iTunes, Word processing and emails 4GB Ram is already overkill. All these tasks work fine with 2GB.
I agree with the ssd, because contrary to RAM there is always a speed difference, even with basic tasks.
I don't have an issue with 8gb ram. I just want my Mac to last me for hopefully 5 years or close to it.
Also what about this for a used Mac. I could easily upgrade it. What would you pay for it?
http://www.kijiji.ca/v-laptops/ottawa/upgraded-2011-15-macbook-pro/1052905195
Also what about this for a used Mac. I could easily upgrade it. What would you pay for it?
http://www.kijiji.ca/v-laptops/ottawa/upgraded-2011-15-macbook-pro/1052905195
Like I and others have told you, any mac sold today will last 5 years easily.
----------
Why would you buy a used mac for this kind of price?
That depends on specs. Apple is essentially making their Macs non upgradeable. So if I get 8gb now I can't upgrade later to 16gb if I felt I needed it.
That's why I asked what you guys would pay for it.
Again, being too overly general in your posts. Sure 4 GB models will continue to work in 5 years time, but they will slow down due to lack of RAM. And, that price is perfectly acceptable for a used Mac, just not that particular one.
----------
Not much, because as I said that model is effected by Radeongate. The GPU is a ticking time bomb.
Why would they slow down because of lack of RAM?
If they slow down it won't be because of RAM, it will be other factors.
The 2gb models haven't slowed down.
Folks like you are confusing people like the OP who thinks now he needs 16gb soon to read his ****ing email.
That is nonsense! He won't need 8gb in any foreseeable future. You are just confusing him.
In the MacPro forum someone recommended 64gb!! RAM for word and safari ...
Computers slow down over time. The OS and Apps and whatnot become bigger and more extensive which required more ram. Look at video games. At one point there was no games which even came close to being multiple gigs in file size and requiring 1gb or more of video ram (or system ram). Now look at the gaming landscape.
You keep saying despite not having used one for a prolonged period of time. Maybe I need to remove 2 GB from my 2010 Mac mini and find out what it's really like.
Seriously, are you sure it wasn't sarcasm?