Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Stops Selling Mac Mini With OS X Server, No Longer Offers 2TB Storage Option

Wanted to replace my 2012 iMac with this, since I really only use it as a PLEX server.

But lack of quad-core and potentially soldered RAM? No thanks.

It's too bad, since the Mac Mini is such a neat little machine.
 
I'll keep using the cheese grater macs for servers because of internal hard drives and expandablity.
 
Tankmaze said:
Soldered ram. It uses LPDDR3, damn Apple why can't you make this one proudct right. Was planning to buy the entry level and upgrade the ram myself, but nope can't do that :mad:
Click to expand...

I asked Apple today and verified that the ram and hard drive are user replaceable/upgradeable right before I ordered the base model. Not sure what you're talking about.
 
Tankmaze said:
Soldered ram. It uses LPDDR3, damn Apple why can't you make this one proudct right. Was planning to buy the entry level and upgrade the ram myself, but nope can't do that :mad:
Click to expand...
No user upgradability would be understandable if they gave better options to choose from, but I have to admit that this year's Mac mini line-up is seriously lacking.
 
TXCherokee said:
How is a 90% improvement in graphics performance, a 40% improvement in CPU performance, and 2x the storage, for the same price I paid two years ago, 'funny'?

I have a feeling everyone complaining here uses their machines for vastly different purposes then I (for me it's just a desktop computer). And for what I use it for, the update is definitely an upgrade.
Click to expand...

First the Base 2012 was the only $599 model, the only 2014 mini for "the same money is the base 2014 with 8Gb ram. That Base 2014 mini is vastly inferior to the Base 2012 mini. The Mid 2012 mini which costs 100$ more is 50% faster than the mid 2014 . Only the high end 2014 model is able to definitively beat the base 2012 model. So paying 400$ to beat a 2 year old computer is kinda funny. Look how the 2011 mini spanked the 2010. Thats is what i call a huge upgrade.



The Mid 2012 mini is 50 % faster than the mid 2014 mini and 20% faster than the high end 2014 mini.


The HD 5000 more like 40% faster than the HD 4000, not 90% as you claim. There is aslo no way you can pay the same $599 this year and get a 40% increase in CPU performance of the Base 2012 model.

Since you said you "just need a desktop", why would you even care about a marginal increase GPU/CPU performance?

I can see value in the 2014 Mac mini for certain people, but not for people upgrading from a 2012 mini. You also probably think the iPad Mini 3 is a huge upgrade, at least with the Ipad mini 3 they did not make it slower than the mini 2.
 
wigby said:
I asked Apple today and verified that the ram and hard drive are user replaceable/upgradeable right before I ordered the base model. Not sure what you're talking about.
Click to expand...

Really ? hope this is true. I truly am.
 
farmkittie said:
Back in the Panther days. We had eMacs, iMacs in every fruit-tutti color, and MacBook Pros.
Click to expand...

The MacBook Pro wasn't around for Panther and Panther wouldn't even run on it. The MacBook Pro 1,1 originally shipped with Tiger, or more specifically Mac OS10.4.5.
 
KylePowers said:
Wanted to replace my 2012 iMac with this, since I really only use it as a PLEX server.

But lack of quad-core and potentially soldered RAM? No thanks.

It's too bad, since the Mac Mini is such a neat little machine.
Click to expand...

I'm in the same boat, I'm planning to just build myself a Linux box and stuff it full of 4tb hard drives over time. Plex media sever runs great on Ubuntu.

Lack of quad core is a deal breaker for me, quad is a must if you want to be able to transcode extreme high def videos like I do.
 
Chiming in with the "no server left in the lineup" complaint.

No quad-core, no dual-2.5" drive option. Between OS X Server completely relegated to "just an App," and now the complete and total demise of any hardware oriented toward a server use, I think the writing is beyond "on the wall" now.

This is an odd lineup. It is now purely "cheapest Mac" with little oomph. The $499 one is fine. The lowest-end mini has always been low-end; and like the ultra-low-end iMac, the specs make sense for it.

But the $699 (and definitely the $999) one should have quad-core! And the dual-2.5" drive option would be nice to continue. ESPECIALLY if the PCIe SSD remains an option. (ooooh, SSD boot drive with dual-spinny RAID would be wonderful as a server!)
 
wigby said:
I asked Apple today and verified that the ram and hard drive are user replaceable/upgradeable right before I ordered the base model. Not sure what you're talking about.
Click to expand...

I've seen at least two others on this forum report the exact opposite after speaking with Apple.
I really hope you're right, although the lack of quad core has already ruled out my intended purchase.
 
If Apple wants to stop selling Minis, they should just stop selling Minis. :)
 
thedeejay said:
Cue "they got rid of server" and "no more 2TB" complaints:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Be interesting to see the MoBo... do they still have the SATA plug for a 2nd hard disk?

The server was always a rip because it was pretty well the same thing but with dual HDs and OS X server.

For whatever reason you couldn't buy a Mini with two drives (unless it was a server... which was weird because it was the same MoBo). I installed my own 2nd HD (breaking the IR sensor in the process... which s*cked) saved me lots of money and gave me a second SSD though! (I always buy a small HD and RAM config from Apple then upgrade using my own parts as it's usually much cheaper).

S*x if you can't do that anymore. Although the new graphics are welcome (previous gens of Intel graphics have been really poor). I like having dual HDs in my portables incase one has issues.
 
wigby said:
I asked Apple today and verified that the ram and hard drive are user replaceable/upgradeable right before I ordered the base model. Not sure what you're talking about.
Click to expand...

The RAM being soldered or not is one question. The other regarding storage is what I am most interested in. They say it has new PCIe flash storage....

- Is that PCIe flash storage replaceable? (They told you it is apparantly).

- Does it ALSO still have a normal 2.5" drive slot for adding a second drive?

Have to say it is a pretty unimpressive "upgrade". I was holding out for this update, but no way I would buy these current models...
 
occamsrazor said:
The RAM being soldered or not is one question. The other regarding storage is what I am most interested in. They say it has new PCIe flash storage....

- Is that PCIe flash storage replaceable? (They told you it is apparantly).

- Does it ALSO still have a normal 2.5" drive slot for adding a second drive?

Have to say it is a pretty unimpressive "upgrade". I was holding out for this update, but no way I would buy these current models...
Click to expand...

Since you can spec it with a fusion drive, it must have the ability to have both - however, that doesn't mean that the connectors are on the board if you don't order a fusion drive. That was the case with the early SSD iMacs.

What Apple's done is actually quite good from a supply chain point of view - all of the entry level products (MBA, iMac, Mac Mini) now use the same components - they all have the same 1.4GHz ULV i5. I would imagine, therefore, that the remaining components are the same - making everything cheaper to build.
 
This blog completely misses the point that quad-core options have been lost across the board. Why?

Whilst it is great to offer a cheap-as-chips 1.4Ghz option, why has Apple needed to cut the top-end dual drive, Quad i7 version? In 2012, this model used to match the MacBook Pro 15inch (minus discrete graphics). They could have easily asked for $1500 for a Quad i7 with Iris Pro and dual drives and those that wanted it would pay for it.

I am running a 2.0Ghz (turbo to 2,9Ghz) Quad core i7 from 2011. The only tangible benefit the 2014 machine offers is the HD5000 iris (and a turbo that is only 0.6Ghz/20% greater!), but at the expense of two cores! Given that these offer hyperthreading, I'd be going from 8 cores to 4. A huge loss in CPU ability for multitasking/VM etc.

The difference between the 2012 and 2014 models is even less: For a 2 year wait!

All they needed to do was drop in the MBPro 15inch chip into the old set-up and everyone would have been ecstatic!

Totally confused and disappointed.

Instead of trying to paint a happy picture, MacRumors should be calling out Apple for unnecessarily killing off an entire sub-line of this product.
 
I bought a nMP mainly because I need loads of RAM for VMware, but if I didn't need that I would be saying bye bye to Apple right now. I've said this for a while, but there is simply too much of a gap between the mini and the nMP and sorry Apple but I don't want an iMac, even the one with the 5K screen. And while we are on about that screen why didn't you make an external one that I can plug into the nMP, it's not like you boasted about the graphics capabilities at all? Guess I'll be buying a 4K Dell monitor then.

And while I'm at it I've just replaced my Macbook Pro with a Dell M4800. Yep, it's ugly and heavy, but guess what? I can have 32GB RAM, that I can upgrade myself, I can have up to 3 SSD's in there, I can have an optical drive if I want one and it still has an ethernet port - wireless isn't always available, especially if you work in a datacenter and instead of Starbucks. And finally, it has a matt screen option if I like. Yes i have to run Windows or Linux, but if that's the price I have to pay to get a 'professional laptop' that's not so bad.

Apple, yes you are making a load of money out of consumer, but don't forget who got you there in the first place - the enthusiast. Forgetting that market will cost you a lot in the long run.
 
Spectrum said:
This blog completely misses the point that quad-core options have been lost across the board. Why?

Whilst it is great to offer a cheap-as-chips 1.4Ghz option, why has Apple needed to cut the top-end dual drive, Quad i7 version? In 2012, this model used to match the MacBook Pro 15inch (minus discrete graphics). They could have easily asked for $1500 for a Quad i7 with Iris Pro and dual drives and those that wanted it would pay for it.

I am running a 2.0Ghz (turbo to 2,9Ghz) Quad core i7 from 2011. The only tangible benefit the 2014 machine offers is the HD5000 iris (and a turbo that is only 0.6Ghz/20% greater!), but at the expense of two cores! Given that these offer hyperthreading, I'd be going from 8 cores to 4. A huge loss in CPU ability for multitasking/VM etc.

The difference between the 2012 and 2014 models is even less: For a 2 year wait!

All they needed to do was drop in the MBPro 15inch chip into the old set-up and everyone would have been ecstatic!

Totally confused and disappointed.

Instead of trying to paint a happy picture, MacRumors should be calling out Apple for unnecessarily killing off an entire sub-line of this product.
Click to expand...

Probably sales figures show most people go for the base. If you're dropping that much $, you might as well get an iMac.
 
Brian Y said:
Probably sales figures show most people go for the base. If you're dropping that much $, you might as well get an iMac.
Click to expand...

But the iMac is a poor long-term choice due to lack of upgradeability. Also poor for those that already own a good display (I have two, 1x27 inch, 1x24 inch). The 21 inch iMac is a downgrade, the 27 inch iMac (to get an i7 with hyperthreading is very expensive!).

Mac minis WERE great with many options depending on need/budget. Now they are all mediocre.
 
Spectrum said:
But the iMac is a poor long-term choice due to lack of upgradeability. Also poor for those that already own a good display (I have two, 1x27 inch, 1x24 inch). The 21 inch iMac is a downgrade, the 27 inch iMac (to get an i7 with hyperthreading is very expensive!).

Mac minis WERE great with many options depending on need/budget. Now they are all mediocre.
Click to expand...

Totally agree - but 99% of people who buy them won't look at future upgradability. They'll look at the price, especially when buying a high end one since people who cared about upgrading would've bought the low one and maxed it themselves) and said "for a couple hundred more I can get a much better machine".

It'd be interesting to see the sales figures for the old Minis - I'd bet that a very insignificant proportion bought the higher models.
 
Brian Y said:
Totally agree - but 99% of people who buy them won't look at future upgradability. They'll look at the price, especially when buying a high end one since people who cared about upgrading would've bought the low one and maxed it themselves) and said "for a couple hundred more I can get a much better machine".

It'd be interesting to see the sales figures for the old Minis - I'd bet that a very insignificant proportion bought the higher models.
Click to expand...

But at least if you'd bought the previous low-end model (because of price), you could, after 3 years, upgrade it with more RAM and SSD etc. Now that is not possible.

My question to you is this: If so few people bought a top-end mini, why do Apple offer top-end specs in the 15-inch MacBook Pro line then? (i.e. Quad core CPU).

Surely most users don't need this either (they may want/need the larger screen though.)

I personally don't care too much about the HD options and soldered RAM (I'll just buy the max, which benefits Apple), but the lack of Quad core and Iris Pro makes the 2014 model relatively pointless (compared to a 2011 model!)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back