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

[toke lahti]

-1. Soldered ram
-2. No 2nd hdd
-3. No quad
-4. No dGPU
-5. no bigger than 1TB hdd
-6. no FW

+1. Another TB
+2. Amazing and gorgeous metal door behind the other door to use all free & wasted space! Hobbyist can tinker with this door, they don't have to change those electronic parts anymore! Yippie!

Mini used to be for switchers. Now it seems to be for first timers and halo from iOS. For people who don't know better. Goodbye Mini!

Btw, what is the cheapest Mac with dGPU now? Preferably with least head, when you can't have headless?

 

[talmy]

-4. No dGPU [/q]

No dGPU in 2012 models either. Have to go back to the 2011 models for that option. But substitute:
-4. No FW800

Mini used to be for switchers. Now it seems to be for first timers and halo from iOS.

Still is for switchers. Just not for power users or tinkerers.

Btw, what is the cheapest Mac with dGPU now? Preferably with least head, when you can't have headless?

dGPUs are going away as Intel's integrated GPUs are getting faster and more Intel processors don't support dGPUs. If you want headless, a used 2011 mini or perhaps a used oMP. With a (least) head that would be a used 15" non-retina MBP. For new Macs, it would probably be an iMac, followed by the 15" rMBP, then the nMP. That's all the lineup in increasing price and decreasing head order. Anything else? Ain't gonna happen. And there is no real demand outside of games (get a Windows PC) or professional 3D CAD and Video production (get a nMP since price is no object).

 

[toke lahti]

dGPUs are going away as Intel's integrated GPUs are getting faster and more Intel processors don't support dGPUs. If you want headless, a used 2011 mini or perhaps a used oMP. With a (least) head that would be a used 15" non-retina MBP. For new Macs, it would probably be an iMac, followed by the 15" rMBP, then the nMP. That's all the lineup in increasing price and decreasing head order. Anything else? Ain't gonna happen. And there is no real demand outside of games (get a Windows PC) or professional 3D CAD and Video production (get a nMP since price is no object).

Intels GPUs have been lagging behind so man years and still have.
I'm not saying cheapest mini should have more, but at least most expensive mini should have at least iris5200. I just can't be happy that present model has less GPU power than 3 years old model. So maybe I have to refrase: Mini used to be also for power users, not any more.
2011 mini does not have usb3.
2012 nonRmbp has just 1 TB1 port. I'd like to have at least 2 monitors...
2011 17"mbp no usb3
rMbp's are damn expensive for desktop with no use for the screen...
2012 21.5"imac with GT 650M might be it then... Was this the iMac without VESA, so it can't be used in potrait mode?

Or just hackintosh. I can't understand why Apple has made it so hard to put usb3 and dGPU with ability to drive 2 non-Apple screens. So frustrating that I'm gonna downgrade my next phone from 6+ to 6-...!

There's network traffic in our house, so my old MP is awake all too much; I'd guess that in two years, you could buy cheap mini with electricity this oMP eats, but iMac it's another thing; screen on all the time even when using remote connection...

 

[FloatingBones]

Mobile CPU = BGA (Ball Grid Array) = soldered

Right. Nobody knew before the machines were sold.

 

[thekev]

Intels GPUs have been lagging behind so man years and still have.
I'm not saying cheapest mini should have more, but at least most expensive mini should have at least iris5200. I just can't be happy that present model has less GPU power than 3 years old model. So maybe I have to refrase: Mini

It's probably at least close to the old model at this point, given that the 2011 mini didn't have that great of a gpu. It was also a similar chip to those that have failed in many 2011 macbook pros and imacs. If they used cpus similar to those of the cheapest 15" macbook pro, it would have been a very nice upgrade from the 2012 model.

 

[toke lahti]

It's probably at least close to the old model at this point, given that the 2011 mini didn't have that great of a gpu. It was also a similar chip to those that have failed in many 2011 macbook pros and imacs. If they used cpus similar to those of the cheapest 15" macbook pro, it would have been a very nice upgrade from the 2012 model.

Or if they would have offered optional quad core + iris5100 or iris5200 it would have multiple times more both cpu and gpu processing power. But they chose to shrink mini to lowest grade there is.

 

[cjmillsnun]

Or if they would have offered optional quad core + iris5100 or iris5200 it would have multiple times more both cpu and gpu processing power. But they chose to shrink mini to lowest grade there is.

Optional quad core requires a different logic board.

It would either have been all quad core (which would outpace the base model iMac) or they'd cost more, because the actual logic board would've been different between dual and quad core machines.

It's the same reason why there is no quad core 13"rMBP

It's a no-win situation, especially as they would've been lambasted had they continued to use Ivy Bridge.

http://www.primatelabs.com/blog/2014/10/estimating-mac-mini-performance/

 

[lie2me]

No built in back up disk

The beauty of the mac mini line in the past was that a backup hard drive could be added. A time machine backup could readily be made in the same machine. Without this option, backups are now more difficult to make.

The non-volatile memory in an SSD does wear out over time. People had best be sure they are making external backups now.

This sure looks like a downgrade all around to me in my opinion. Slower clock rates means slower processors. Soldered memory will deter the value of the machines over time because they can't be upgraded with denser memory when it becomes less expensive.

Quite a few steps backwards with this lineup.

 

[talmy]

The beauty of the mac mini line in the past was that a backup hard drive could be added. A time machine backup could readily be made in the same machine. Without this option, backups are now more difficult to make.

The non-volatile memory in an SSD does wear out over time. People had best be sure they are making external backups now.

One should always be making external backups, and kept off-site as well. A second internal drive as a backup will fail in the case of electrical or controller failure that would take out both drives, theft, fire, or natural disaster.

What's missing in the 2014 model is the ability to have 2TB of disk capacity inside the box.

 

[toke lahti]

Optional quad core requires a different logic board.

It would either have been all quad core (which would outpace the base model iMac) or they'd cost more, because the actual logic board would've been different between dual and quad core machines.

Nope.
They chose BGA1168 and chips with 27 W TDP.
They could have chosen BGA1364 and chips with TDP of 37 W.
With BGA1364 there would be cpus from i3 to quad core i7 with iris5200.

Clearly Apple chose to make mini "entry level only". Maybe next they will kill it, since clearly no-one was buying it...

 

[talmy]

I just had a "back to reality" thought about the demise of the server mini. It wasn't making any sense to have it.

Over a year ago I wrote this review of the server mini on Amazon, and got flamed for it:

I just want to point out the pricing of this product. For an additional $240 over the MD388LL/A model [the midrange model] here at Amazon you get an extra 1TB drive and the $20 Server application. Assuming you are buying this for server use, thats $220 for a 1TB drive. You will undoubtedly need external drives for more capacity anyway, so ask yourself is $220/1TB worth it?

I don't have this model, but bought and continue to use the original Mac mini with Snow Leopard Server. Back then the $1000 price got you the second hard drive instead of a DVD drive over the mid-price model, but Snow Leopard Server OS cost $500, so you were only paying $500 for the hardware! Apple reduced the price of the server [software] $480 but didn't lower the cost of the system at all.

These minis work well as server computers, but I'd recommend buying the "regular" Mac mini and Server app separately to save money.

And I eventually put my money where my keyboard was, buying the mid range 2012 mini with the goal of replacing my 2009 server. The deleted model just wasn't worth it.

Still, I weep over the demise of quad core. I suspect they will be back with the next generation, but I should be good for another 5 years with what I've bought.

 

[SlCKB0Y]

Not from me. I bought a base 2012 Mac Mini as my first Apple computer and am looking forward to getting a vastly improved machine in the next week or two.

Well the 2014 Mac Mini will not be it. Enjoy your downgrade...

So how's your new Mac Mini going? You bought it right?

 

[pietrov]

No no no.
Please, Apple you have to clarify which kind of platform you want enterprise to use.
Or ask IBM to develop a specific server...

 

[talmy]

No no no.
Please, Apple you have to clarify which kind of platform you want enterprise to use.
Or ask IBM to develop a specific server...

Apple's only real server was the Xserve, and it flopped in the market. Currently one can use any Mac as a server for $20, and the mini is the most cost effective. But it is only suitable for home or small business use, and those have never been marketing targets for IBM, at least not very effectively. I've bought maybe half a dozen IBM software packages aimed at SOHO customers and they all became abandonware.

Even when Apple was selling the Mac mini server, it was never a real server. Not only does it not have the redundancy and monitoring features of a good server, it was not even configured like an entry level server would be.

 

[pietrov]

Apple's only real server was the Xserve, and it flopped in the market. Currently one can use any Mac as a server for $20, and the mini is the most cost effective. But it is only suitable for home or small business use, and those have never been marketing targets for IBM, at least not very effectively. I've bought maybe half a dozen IBM software packages aimed at SOHO customers and they all became abandonware.

Even when Apple was selling the Mac mini server, it was never a real server. Not only does it not have the redundancy and monitoring features of a good server, it was not even configured like an entry level server would be.

I totally agree with you. talmy. I'd really like to have a server from Apple (like Xserve), maybe also with virtualization (and Apple has the tech for that), that is capable to create the same infrastructure they are selling as a service, but totally private...