Sadly, older non-BTLE Macs are not able to take advantage of the Continuity features, even with 3rd party BTLE adapters. I expect hackintoshes will suffer the same fate.
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.
Apple Announces New Mac Mini Starting at $499
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Sadly, older non-BTLE Macs are not able to take advantage of the Continuity features, even with 3rd party BTLE adapters. I expect hackintoshes will suffer the same fate.
Unfortunatelly it does not support 4K@60Hz, only at 30Hz. That may be ok for video, but not for a desktop. I wanted to hook one up to the cheap Samsung U28D590D. Intel Iris Pro is needed for 60Hz, the new Mini does not have it.
You sound tech savvy with regards to the needs to your work, What is the memory footprint per application that is making 8 GB too small? There is no disputing that 8GB can feel small these days, however I am curious to hear what is absorbing so much of your RAM in an office scenario.
In my case, I am reaching the limits of 8GB on my daily driver Mac MINI (2011 2.3 GHZ i5). I run twin 1080P Monitors, always have Safari, Messages, Mail, Text Edit, Terminal open, and often times have Aperture or FCPX open (sometimes at the same time).
My Mini is no longer my main FCPx system, however I do often do light retouches to projects before publishing them. I am just now now running into memory limits with my machine, however I am not doing it any favors having a Video, and Photo editing application open at the same time.
In the case of my use below, Apreture is pasting edits to 200 Photos, FCPX is currently working on stabilizing a 20 minute video clip. I don't Normally have both applications processing files at the same time like this on my Mini
Current Memory division
Detailed Usage (there are also Child processes not listed using less than 8MB)
Needless to say it is time for me to take the plunge and upgrade the memory on this, however I am still curious as to what the footprint is for office applications you may be using!
I use a Seiki 39" with my rMBP 15" @ 30Hz and while I noticed a tiny bit of at first, it is not noticeable now that I got use to it. It works ok as a desktop.
Well on the first point you're wrong. It has. And it could be a surprise because just because a device has something one year doesn't mean it will have it (or have something else) the next year. People aren't surprised. I think some are disappointed. Different thing.
As to your other point I pulled out from your post - I'm not sure I agree that the mini is an "entry-level" computer. Personally I think the iMac is. I could be wrong, but most of the people I know like to buy all-in-ones these days. Esp if they are going mac. The minis I know in use are all as secondary computers/servers/media centers and for tinkering (hobbyists.) Again - my experience and sphere of influence might not tell the whole story. But I don't think you can simply classify the mini as an entry level just because of the specs.
FWIW I don't see that bus powered FW is much of an issue for a Mini (desktop computer). As most will have AC power available nearby for powered FW devices.
That said, I have never run into a bus powered drive that actually reaches anything faster than USB 2.0 speeds. I am sure they exist, however the 3 FW800 Bus powered drives that I have from different manufacturers (okay one is an enclosure) struggle to even reach FW400 Read / write speeds. I have only ever seen good speeds from Powered drives.
I'll wait for the experts to weigh in they're opinion before I'll listen to someone who hasn't looked under the hood (like a iFixit breakdown) or a benchmark test on the Mac Mini in question.
It's a shame neither this nor the iMacs (except for the 5K model) can drive a 4K monitor @60hz. This thing has Thunderbolt 2 but not iris pro, iMac has iris Pro but no Thunderbolt 2. I want a consumer level mac to hook up to an affordable ($550) 4K monitor 
The retina iMac does, shame they didn't update the other models with that but it should be in the next update.
Mine is not a pro. Is the very first generation unibody alu MacBook. It's a litmus test to see if the masses like the alu construction. And it did so it was then put on the pro and so on...
I don't like the iMac. Like one of the poster here point. I really don't like all in one item. I love my screen on the second deck of my desktop, the mini slot seamless inberween the deck and my apple keyboard trackpad mouse nicely tuck in as well when not in use. Neat and tidy haha. Abit OCD here. Actually the primary thing for mini was the upgradability but now.. All gone
Last edited:
I have one of those. And a 2012 i7 Mini.(2.6gHz, 16GB, 1TB Fusion) Night and day. I used to use the Macbook for development, but it got to be a drag. I still occasionally use the Alu Macbook for development if I'm away from home. For emergencies.
The new Mini gives me no reason to upgrade. I'll probably upgrade my notebook next, as I suspect it will drop-off the OSX support list soon. Glad it made the cut for Yosemite.
See if you can find a used 2012.
That's what the thunderbolt ports are for. Apple's thunderbolt-to-DVI and thunderbolt-to-VGA adapters run $29, but some third-party ones are much cheaper.
The retina27 iMac has four user-accessible SO-DIMM RAM slots.
That's via the HDMI port. It's still unclear what refresh rate one could get via the thunderbolt port. It's likely higher than 30Hz, but could very well be less than 60Hz.
You just have to buy the BCM94360CD card and a PCIe adapter and you're Apple native.
2014 Mac Mini Update - A Strategic Blunder
The previous Mac Mini was a better machine. Upgradeable, more powerful, more bang for the buck. In this move, Apple has removed the cheapest tiny powerhouse system from the market. No amount of money can get you what $1000 would get you with the prior system.
Why?
#1 - The older system was too good. Why buy a Mac Pro when this tiny thing would do the job?
#2 - Margins. Apple will make more money per unit. It is normal to optimize a product.
#3 - It's a better fit the consumer segment Apple is trying to address.
But it is a strategic blunder. The Mac Mini was the tinkerer's mac. Maybe Steve Jobs might relate to the beardy guys who build things out of computer parts, but Tim Cook obviously does not. Apple made huge strides, at least in part, by winning the nerds with a Unix-based OS with a better UI than Microsoft. This move offends those tinkerers. The message is: "we don't value you. We are taking away the best form factor on the market for a tiny VM host, the do-it-yourself home media system, the almost invisible non-windows utility box.. and frankly a pretty nice tiny windows box. Your second best option is bigger, uglier, and not a part of a uniform set of like servers."
In 2012, when Apple released the previous Mini, the same consumer segment saw that Apple maintained the product's upgradability even as it took the options away in its laptop line. The Mini looked like an olive branch in 2012 for these users. Apple should have simply upgraded the product with the processors, wifi, etc while maintaining the upgradeability. What it is doing with this product will be interpreted as a betrayal. Not only is it weaker, but it is not upgradeable. The 2012 i7 quad-core will be worth more!
The new Mac Mini doesn't fit the requirements if you need one or many reasonably priced, compact, workhorse systems that could purchased down the street and put into use solving problems immediately. Now, there is no product with a household name that can do it. Even the dual i7 is a custom option, meaning that they may not even carry it at the Apple Store.
It won't break Apple, but this will become a classic example of how what looks like a perfectly sound business decision end badly. Marketing wants to increase margins, focus on the right customer segment, don't compete with the high end line. In reality, it means alienating a crucial customer segment (frequent buyers, trusted recommenders), selling no product instead of one product, and leaving a obvious vacuum in the market.
Too bad. Time to see if Ebay has any of those fancy 2012 Mac Minis.
The previous Mac Mini was a better machine. Upgradeable, more powerful, more bang for the buck. In this move, Apple has removed the cheapest tiny powerhouse system from the market. No amount of money can get you what $1000 would get you with the prior system.
Why?
#1 - The older system was too good. Why buy a Mac Pro when this tiny thing would do the job?
#2 - Margins. Apple will make more money per unit. It is normal to optimize a product.
#3 - It's a better fit the consumer segment Apple is trying to address.
But it is a strategic blunder. The Mac Mini was the tinkerer's mac. Maybe Steve Jobs might relate to the beardy guys who build things out of computer parts, but Tim Cook obviously does not. Apple made huge strides, at least in part, by winning the nerds with a Unix-based OS with a better UI than Microsoft. This move offends those tinkerers. The message is: "we don't value you. We are taking away the best form factor on the market for a tiny VM host, the do-it-yourself home media system, the almost invisible non-windows utility box.. and frankly a pretty nice tiny windows box. Your second best option is bigger, uglier, and not a part of a uniform set of like servers."
In 2012, when Apple released the previous Mini, the same consumer segment saw that Apple maintained the product's upgradability even as it took the options away in its laptop line. The Mini looked like an olive branch in 2012 for these users. Apple should have simply upgraded the product with the processors, wifi, etc while maintaining the upgradeability. What it is doing with this product will be interpreted as a betrayal. Not only is it weaker, but it is not upgradeable. The 2012 i7 quad-core will be worth more!
The new Mac Mini doesn't fit the requirements if you need one or many reasonably priced, compact, workhorse systems that could purchased down the street and put into use solving problems immediately. Now, there is no product with a household name that can do it. Even the dual i7 is a custom option, meaning that they may not even carry it at the Apple Store.
It won't break Apple, but this will become a classic example of how what looks like a perfectly sound business decision end badly. Marketing wants to increase margins, focus on the right customer segment, don't compete with the high end line. In reality, it means alienating a crucial customer segment (frequent buyers, trusted recommenders), selling no product instead of one product, and leaving a obvious vacuum in the market.
Too bad. Time to see if Ebay has any of those fancy 2012 Mac Minis.
lol im not THAT tech savvy.
running virtual machines (using parallels), usually a windows, and a windows server OS to test our ERP backend. sometimes we had to load huge amounts of data. logmein, team view, power builder, eclipse, IIS servers, visual studios, and all the typical office apps, evernote, skitch, Skype, iMessage, mac email. of course not running all at the same time, but running parallels already takes around 6-8 GB of ram and it starts using virtual memory.
and the OSX side for Xcode and to see if data is sent and received correctly, and some people use OSX for their office apps, depending on the user.
i guess my statement was a little bit misleading as most offices wouldn't have to but ours does.
i havent tracked the office computers since we upgraded all of them to 16 GB, but 8GB it was crawling.
Edit: I'm on my MBP 2010 with 8GB of ram and it crawls after a day or two being on. I'm using virtual memory, as of right now too. again I'm not that tech savvy, it isnt the processor being the bottle neck correct? its the lack of ram?
----------
oh ok cool, i was like WHAT?!?!??!
wait so are the new mac minis, the ram and storage soldered in? that is the question
I saw a post that the Mini's user guide states it is not user-accessible as of this generation.
That could just mean you have to take it apart to install it (like a hard drive, for example).
I have access to GSX (apple's service system). I can confirm (though won't post the screenshot) that the RAM is now integrated.
The statement in my previous post was copied & pasted from the service guide.