Thanks, I'll have to keep an eye out. I checked last night too and they had 0 in stock, not even these dual core now.
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 Stops Selling Mac Mini With OS X Server, No Longer Offers 2TB Storage Option
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Thanks, I'll have to keep an eye out. I checked last night too and they had 0 in stock, not even these dual core now.
No. The biggest difference is the HD 4000 vs Iris graphics. Depending on how it's benchmarked and who you believe, it's good for anywhere from a 40-90% improvement. I call that vast.
And you keep changing your choices to make various points. Let's go back to the original discussion.
My 2012:
2.5 3rd Gen processor
HD 4000 graphics
8 GB ram
500 GB drive
cost ~$700
My preferred 2014 model:
2.6 4th Gen processor
Iris graphics
8 GB ram
1 TB drive
cost ~$700
Honestly, I don't care about the hard drive (I have 6TB of storage hooked up to my current Mini).
Even discounting the drive, the mid level 2014, with it's 15% improvement in CPU and 40% improvement in GPU (I'll go conservative here), is a nice upgrade from my 2012.
iMac is a better solution for a church anyway. We are currently using a 27" 2.8 i7 quad core from 2009. It's plenty to encode 720P sermons in a timely manner. We are running FCPX as well.
----------
Why not get another MBP or iMac? A top end mini is really not a good value when you consider the cost vs. what you actually get. You still need to supply the monitor. Even then if you do have a monitor you will have two monitors with the MBP or iMac.
Last edited:
It was $589, but with my Discover card I got an additional 5% off, making it $559.55.
Would you be able to tell me, or point me to where I can find out, what the power difference would be replacing my entry level 2011 Mac Mini (1st gen i5) with a 2012 Mac Mini Quad Core (that I'm hopeful to see in the refurb store), versus the dual core versions currently being offered?
I understand that the graphics card also makes a big difference year to year, but I don't play games on it or video edit. So I think the processor matters more.
Unsure of what upgrade is smartest. I don't really want to upgrade, but no handoff is irking me.
----------
Thanks, forever refreshing until I see another pop up.
Go to refurb.me and you can sign up for a notification (SMS and/or email) when they pop up. That's how I've almost always bought mine (4 of 5 minis bought that way as well as a few MacBooks.).
Also, Geekbench 2 scores: your 2011 base mini is 5839 and the lower quad-core 2012 is 10784. Nearly twice as fast, providing you can utilize all four cores. Otherwise they would be about the same per core. The mid range 2014 will be about 7599 while the entry 2014 will be about 6012. Basically there is no good reason to buy the 2012 quad core unless you really need the extra cores. The 2014 models will be faster.
Last edited:
Thanks very much. That's extremely helpful. Much appreciated.
I have read threads here where people are suspecting the new 2014 mini to have non-upgradable ram. That's a bit discouraging and will also play a role in deciding.
Put me in the disappointed in lack of quad-core option camp.
Everything else about the machine is ok, except the price of upgrade options, but that's par for the course with apple.
Was considering upgrading an older MP that is used as a media server and encoder to a mini+thunderbolt storage solution. I can hold out, so guess I'll wait until next rev. With luck, perhaps we'll get a silent upgrade sooner rather than later.
Everything else about the machine is ok, except the price of upgrade options, but that's par for the course with apple.
Was considering upgrading an older MP that is used as a media server and encoder to a mini+thunderbolt storage solution. I can hold out, so guess I'll wait until next rev. With luck, perhaps we'll get a silent upgrade sooner rather than later.
You keep moving the goal post. Who are all these people using these mac mini's as server on this forum. You said most are. You said that the 2014 was a good upgrade because of the 1TB drive, now you say you do not even need more storage as you have 6 TB connected with thunderbolt.
From anandtech's review
The data ranges from a meager 2.3% advantage over Ivy Bridge ULV to as much as 40.8%. On average, Intel's HD 5000 offered a 15.3% performance advantage over Intel's HD 4000 graphics. Whether or not that's impressive really depends on your perspective.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7072/intel-hd-5000-vs-hd-4000-vs-hd-4400
So you want to pay 700$ plus tax to get a "huge vastly improved machine" that has a 2.4% graphics increase or an average of 15%. An $80 SSD would give an apparent increase in performance of over 100% in many situations. Since as you say most of your usage is general desktop stuff I don't even think you would see the benefits of your 2.3% GPU 700$ ultimate upgrade!
How could it not have a 2.5" drive slot? The base model ships with a 500GB 5400 RPM hard drive. My plan is to replace that and the RAM just like I did with my last mini.
----------
That's strange because someone posted a chat with an Apple rep on this site and that's what gave me the idea to verify for myself. I haven't seen anything to the contrary yet.
----------
I asked and then re-asked in a different way. I wish I had my chat transcript but they would have to be lying for me to be wrong.
All of which makes no sense at all - from a business point of view. It suggests that the only reason Apple are adding the 1.4Ghz models to their inventory is to create a perception of low power/efficiency across the board.
But it is relatively false: Once the chip starts doing some work, won't it turbo up and use more power anyway? And/or take longer to get the same work done?
It also suggests that the rest of the product line may be subsidising the use of ludicrous overspecced (in terms of ultra-low-power) chips for a desktop comp.
All of this still doesn't explain the lack of the Quad core/Iris Pro as an OPTION. Does Apple really think a user with a £1000 budget (who already has a screen. Or two) is suddenly going to plump for a Mac Pro at £2500-£3000?
What use have I got for pointless dual graphics cards? None.
The Pro is made for one thing: video editing with FCProX. It is a total niche product.
But it is relatively false: Once the chip starts doing some work, won't it turbo up and use more power anyway? And/or take longer to get the same work done?
It also suggests that the rest of the product line may be subsidising the use of ludicrous overspecced (in terms of ultra-low-power) chips for a desktop comp.
All of this still doesn't explain the lack of the Quad core/Iris Pro as an OPTION. Does Apple really think a user with a £1000 budget (who already has a screen. Or two) is suddenly going to plump for a Mac Pro at £2500-£3000?
What use have I got for pointless dual graphics cards? None.
The Pro is made for one thing: video editing with FCProX. It is a total niche product.
The previous quad mini is very good value. To get a quad with hyperthreading on the iMac you need to stump up to the i7 model.
The RAM was serviceable. As were the two SATA bays. It offered great value.
MBPro: I can see your point about a MBPro. However, at the time I bought my first mini (2011), the MacBook Pro did not have dual video out, so could not drive two displays. I can see that the 15 inch could now achieve that. But that would require a minimum spend of about £2000 to match the HD and RAM capacity of an upgradeable mini. I'd also need an ethernet adapter and a USB hub for external DVD, storage, wired mouse and keyboard. All doable of course. Just seems crazy to need to spend £2000 just to get a slightly faster processor and better graphics. And in a form factor that would get more in the way on my desk (larger footprint). I guess I could hide it on the floor like an old tower!
iMac: As well as cost and lack of upgradeability (and the fact that I already now have two screens), I've avoided the iMac because I don't like the design (the chin and the glossy screen). But I can see that it works for a lot of people. Maybe one day I'll migrate that way and suck it up like everyone else does.
They are not lying, just misinformed and doesn't know what they are talking about. It is confirmed soldered ram which is a shame.
https://www.macrumors.com/2014/10/17/mac-mini-soldered-ram/
Yeah I think we are going to do that. It's just that we could of gotten two mini and use our same 27 inch monitors. Now we will just buy one iMac instead. Myself wanted the server version, just going to keep my recently build Windows 2012 R2 server instead.
They just needed to keep one 2012 model as a server, up the CPU to the 2.6Ghz quad i7 and offer the recent 9.5mm 2Tb drives as a BTO option for a lower price than the ridiculous 3Ghz dual-core option and a lot of people would still have a Mac Mini worth buying.
It's not vastly improved. The biggest improvement is graphics, but again it's not a massive leap over the HD4000 integrated graphics.
If you have the 2012 model, what are you hoping the late 2014 model does better?
For many people like me an iMac isn't an option. I do not want an all in one computer, I have a screen and I do not want a glossy glass screen. For many the options are Mac mini (too slow), Mac Pro (too expensive) or a Window/Linux PC.
For so long so many on the forum were begging, pleading, sobbing for a new mac mini. And now that it's here, i don't know that I've ever seen an angrier reaction to a product release.
Mobile CPU = BGA (Ball Grid Array) = soldered
... and they're gone.
I posted here on that long "new mini is coming" thread back in January (I think) that I was waiting for new minis because I wanted an extra $100 off on a refurb 2012. I didn't want a 2014 mini! When the 2014's came out I grabbed that 2012 quad core. I'm overjoyed!
There will certainly be more. Mini refurbs always go fast (an hour or two) and my hunch is the quad core minis will go really fast.
I use refurb.me to get a notification as soon as they appear then immediately go to the store. Bought 4 out of my 5 minis that way.
Which one did you get and how much was it?
After seeing the refurb store empty I managed to snatch up one of the last brand new 2.3 Quads from Abt for $699 before they sold out (I just couldn't justify paying $839 for the 2.6 at B&H). I did save $100 off what they were last week but I think I would rather have had the use of this computer for the last 2 years instead of the $100 in my pocket now.
It is nice to be finally moving up from a G5 but I am still disappointed that I just bought a new 2 year old computer. It takes a lot of the excitement out of the purchase. I have never had that feeling when buying from Apple before.
$589 less 5% discount with my Discover card, $550. Thats the 2.3GHz quad core.
Age doesn't matter -- it is faster than the new models and has FW800 which I need for now until I move to Thunderbolt and USB3. Using it as a server the improved graphics of the 2014 don't matter in the slightest. This will replace my current server when I get the time to set it up.
