Late 2010 Mini Upgrades?

Discussion in 'Mac mini' started by CaelThunderwing, Oct 13, 2016.

  1. CaelThunderwing, Oct 13, 2016
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2016

    CaelThunderwing macrumors newbie

    CaelThunderwing

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2016
    #1
    i got from a friend thier old 2010 Mini (sported the P8600 Core 2 Duo)
    i gave Windows 7 a try via bootcamp and omfg No. Too pokish on stock CPU/Ram to be usefull.

    Looking into it it uses the BGA479 (SocketP) and the wiki on the Socket type itself Shows
    "Intel Core 2 Quad
    Q9x00"
    for Support. anyone know if this generation of Unibody Mini "Can" support a Q9X series Core 2 Quad?

    and for Ram, i can get teh hint while it looking to the Wiki page for Mini Models shows it supports upto 8GB but it doesnt state if 4GB Support is only by a 2x 4gb kit or if a single 4GB Memory Module could be used. im not looking to store a crapton of apps/music etc so its 350GB HDD is fine. (besides stuff would either be loaded of Network or from my 2TB External)

    To add to it its running Yosemite what would be better suited for this Mini ?
     
  2. California macrumors 68040

    California

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2004
    #2
    It will take 16gbs of Mushkin ram. Someone just said they used Crucial on it for 16gbs.
     
  3. curmudgeonette macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Location:
    California
    #3
    The CPU uses a BGA package that is soldered in place. No chance of upgrading...
     
  4. CaelThunderwing thread starter macrumors newbie

    CaelThunderwing

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2016
    #4
    thanks i'll snag then atleast a 4GB or potentialy an 8GB kit depending how cheap i can get i dont have much left (if i was to get if i was correct about the CPU that at the cost of being w/o a few meals.)

    Glad i didnt go jump ahead soly on the info on the cpu and its Socket type, you saved me about 90$ there.

    to @curmudgeonette @California and anyone else reading, i guess the 2GB Ram was why this Mini was So slow to the point of pointless w/ Windows 7 under Bootcamp? and would XP atm be a better alternative? (i'd haveto trackdown the Bootcamp Support drivers for Windows XP that is) and would 10.9 be better on this mini than 10.10(Yosemeti) ?

    sorry for alot of Questions i mostly owned PowerPC Macs, the Mini is my first intel Mac. (the newest PPC Mac i have is a Dual 2.0GHZ G5 tower with the oldest being a AIO Fruity iMac G3)
     
  5. jpietrzak8 macrumors 65816

    jpietrzak8

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #5
    The answer, of course, is "it depends". ;) If what you are doing with your machine consumes all available RAM, that will most certainly lead to extreme slowdowns. But there are, of course, other reasons for a machine to run slow; you may have an application sucking up all the CPU cycles. You might be performing a task that constantly polls your long-term storage (hard drive or SSD).

    Probably the most effective thing you can do is to run a performance analysis tool. Apple provides one with OS X, called "Activity Monitor". You can find it in the "Utilities" folder inside the "Applications" folder. When your machine starts running slow, the Activity Monitor can tell you if you have used all your RAM, or if your CPU is pegged, or if the HD/SSD is being hit hard. You can use that to determine the most effective speedup will be for your situation.

    (Windows has a similar tool, but I'm afraid I can't remember it off the top of my head; it's been a while since I last really used Windows...)

    I can say that modern versions of OS X (say, about 10.9 and later) really need more than 2GB of RAM to run well. However, beyond that they can run just fine on a 2010 Mini. I'm writing this right now from a 2010 Mini with 8GB of RAM, running El Capitan (OS X version 10.11.6), with no problems.
     
  6. ActionableMango macrumors 604

    ActionableMango

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2010
    #6
    An SSD would probably be the most noticeable improvement by far, and I would do memory too if you're still at 2GB.

    Nothing can be done about the CPU unless perhaps you are friends with an electronics rework guy.
     
  7. CaelThunderwing thread starter macrumors newbie

    CaelThunderwing

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2016
    #7
    this was SLow even at Just using the OS itself Slow. opening up Explorer or even IE took awhile.
     
  8. jpietrzak8 macrumors 65816

    jpietrzak8

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #8
    I believe you. I'm just saying, the next step to take is to find out _why_ it is slow.
     
  9. CaelThunderwing thread starter macrumors newbie

    CaelThunderwing

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2016
    #9
    could it be any related to ho wi split the space before? i left 250GB to windows and 100 to OSX as i probbly would be (if i get this Working) using windows More than OSX on it. atm i remade the partition at a minimum of 20GB to Windows fresh installed and no more lag atleast for now.
     
  10. jpietrzak8 macrumors 65816

    jpietrzak8

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #10
    Hmm. Let me make sure we're all on the same page here, first. A modern computer system is generally made up of the following components:

    1) A Central Processing Unit. For most computing tasks, this is where all of the work is done. Data must be brought into the CPU, processed, and sent back out of the CPU.

    2) A Graphics Processing Unit. Much of the work needed to display graphics on the screen is off-loaded from the CPU to the GPU.

    If one (or both) of these processors become overloaded, your machine will slow down. Alternatively, if there is a snag somewhere in the process of providing data to these processors, your machine will slow down.

    There is a hierarchy of data storage mechanisms in your computer. Generally speaking, they break down as this:

    a) The on-chip cache. Both the CPU and the GPU will have a very small amount of cache memory right on the chip with the processor; if you can keep all your data within the cache, your process will run extremely fast. However, few applications can live entirely within the cache.

    b) The RAM. This data storage system is slower than the cache, but much much larger. If you can keep all your data within RAM, your process should run plenty fast. Most modern applications are designed to fit entirely within the amount of RAM available on a computer; but, if you have a limited amount of RAM or run multiple applications, you can run out.

    c) The long-term storage (typically hard drives or SSDs). These data systems have the advantage of maintaining data when the computer is turned off (unlike RAM or cache), are relatively inexpensive, and can store vast amounts of data. However, both are much much slower than RAM. If you are running an application directly off your long-term storage device (i.e., you can't even fit it into RAM), your machine will run VERY slow.


    So, back to your question. Would the partition size affect the speed of an operating system? In short, no. If an OS can fit itself entirely into RAM, it will run at normal speed. You can see this if you try using a "live disk" Linux distribution: this is a way of running Linux directly off of a CD or DVD. Those devices are extremely slow (much slower than a hard drive), and yet once it is loaded, the OS will run at full speed (assuming there is sufficient RAM on the target machine).


    I think the key here is to get a little more information. As I mentioned above, the Activity Monitor is a fine tool that will allow you to understand precisely what the problem is when you experience a slowdown...
     

Share This Page