Late 2014 Mac Mini Gained Option for 2TB Fusion Drive in December

[MacRumors]

When the newest Mac mini first launched in October of 2014, Apple did not give the option for it to be configured with a 2TB drive, much to the disappointment of many Mac mini fans.

As noted by 9to5Mac, Apple reversed its decision to only offer 1TB of storage space in December and quietly updated the Mac mini build-to-order options, adding an option for a 2TB Fusion Drive for an additional $100. Before the change, users could only choose a 1TB Fusion Drive or 1TB of PCIe-based flash storage.

Though the return of a 2TB storage option will likely please some potential Mac mini buyers, the new 2014 machine has not been well received due to its soldered RAM and lack of a quad-core processor option.

Apple's Mac mini can be purchased from the company's online store, with pricing starting at $499. The high-end 2.8GHz option with a custom 2TB Fusion Drive and 8GB of RAM is priced at $1,099.

Article Link: Late 2014 Mac Mini Gained Option for 2TB Fusion Drive in December

 

[farewelwilliams]

nah, once you go ssd, you can't go back to fusion/regular hd.

 

[PowerBook-G5]

I think that I can say this for many potential Mac Mini buyers:

QUAD CORE! QUAD CORE! QUAD CORE!

If only they'd silently add that option...

 

[SD-B]

nah, once you go ssd, you can't go back to fusion/regular hd.

Why, is it really that much different? Yes, I know what fusion drive is, but as someone that has one but is yet to use SSD, is it just speed that is the factor?

I just bought the 27" retina iMac and its got Fusion drive and I find it very fast.
BUT I am a also not perhaps doing some of the uses some do that require as much as can be.
Am about to install one in my 2011 macbook pro and people have said that should take me from bogged down to good enough i wont likely even have to upgrade that ram...or so i was told.

So curious. i don't want to change the subject of the thread but with regards to this Mac Mini, WHAT exactly is the SSD drive going to give over the Fusion?

It just seems like a hell of a lot of money, $800 + for the top end flash drive so I am really curious to know what the flash drive would do for it, the mac mini, that would make it worth paying an extra $600 for flash?


TIA

 

[rdlink]

Why, is it really that much different? Yes, I know what fusion drive is, but as someone that has one but is yet to use SSD, is it just speed that is the factor?

I just bought the 27" retina iMac and its got Fusion drive and I find it very fast.
BUT I am a also not perhaps doing some of the uses some do that require as much as can be.
Am about to install one in my 2011 macbook pro and people have said that should take me from bogged down to good enough i wont likely even have to upgrade that ram...or so i was told.

So curious. i don't want to change the subject of the thread but with regards to this Mac Mini, WHAT exactly is the SSD drive going to give over the Fusion?

It just seems like a hell of a lot of money, $800 + for the top end flash drive so I am really curious to know what the flash drive would do for it, the mac mini, that would make it worth paying an extra $600 for flash?


TIA

Yes. I have had straight SSD iMacs and MacBooks, and Fusion Drive iMacs. The SSD is much faster. Fusion is faster for most uses than a straight spinner, but SSD smokes them both.

I've also run tests on hybrid Windows drives with the same comparative results.

 

[marcelvelky]

thats my case .)

 

[Crosscreek]

Why, is it really that much different? Yes, I know what fusion drive is, but as someone that has one but is yet to use SSD, is it just speed that is the factor?

I just bought the 27" retina iMac and its got Fusion drive and I find it very fast.
BUT I am a also not perhaps doing some of the uses some do that require as much as can be.
Am about to install one in my 2011 macbook pro and people have said that should take me from bogged down to good enough i wont likely even have to upgrade that ram...or so i was told.

So curious. i don't want to change the subject of the thread but with regards to this Mac Mini, WHAT exactly is the SSD drive going to give over the Fusion?

It just seems like a hell of a lot of money, $800 + for the top end flash drive so I am really curious to know what the flash drive would do for it, the mac mini, that would make it worth paying an extra $600 for flash?


TIA

Fusion will break at some point because of the spinner drive which will have to be replaced.

SSD should last for the life of the machine and probably 25 years more.

There is no way the Mini is worth putting an extra $600 in and it is way over priced for what you get anyways.

Best thing to do IMHO is SSD on inside and external HD.

 

[Glassed Silver]

Wow, really? Do you know what conventional HDDs come with these days?

Top models go up to 5TB, some even beyond, that's very recent, yes, but 2TB is all you can get?

And then it's pretty hard to change the drives with the iMac for example (3TB option available there, but come on)?
If you're gonna have the balls to make changing one of the most wear-and-teary parts of the computer, at least be so considerate to offer something in the higher range of capacity so people don't feel pressured to open up the damn machine right after unboxing.

Because you know, an Apple Store or anyone CERTIFIED to do repairs that don't harm your warranty MUST NOT - by contract with Apple - use non-certified drives.

Genius!

Glassed Silver:mac

 

[Yvan256]

Wow, really? Do you know what conventional HDDs come with these days?

Top models go up to 5TB, some even beyond, that's very recent, yes, but 2TB is all you can get?

The Mac mini uses a 2.5" hard drive. Those 5TB hard drives are 3.5".

On another note, I wish even the low-end Mac mini would at least ship with a 128GB SSD instead of an extremely slow, low-end 500GB HDD.

 

[Analog Kid]

Huh, hadn't realized it was a new option when I bought one last December...

For me it was so I could break apart the hybrid and use the SSD to boot and the 2TB as a Time Machine. Turns out that's tricker that I'd imagined (possible though). Apple really wants to protect you from doing that accidentally.

Yes. I have had straight SSD iMacs and MacBooks, and Fusion Drive iMacs. The SSD is much faster. Fusion is faster for most uses than a straight spinner, but SSD smokes them both.

It depends on how you use it. If the data you need is on the SSD portion of the Hybrid it really doesn't make much difference. For personal use, most of us have the files and applications that we're using today and a bunch of stuff that we're keeping but haven't touched in years. Fusion makes the current stuff about as fast as pure SSD while keeping the archives available on the same logical drive.

Top models go up to 5TB, some even beyond, that's very recent, yes, but 2TB is all you can get?

The Mini uses a 2.5" drive. 2TB is relatively new in that form factor.

 

[JustThinkin']

Fusion will break at some point because of the spinner drive which will have to be replaced.

SSD should last for the life of the machine and probably 25 years more.

Ho Ho Ho somebody has a sense of humor! SSDs started out less reliable than HDDs, if anything. Only a few companies (such as Samsung) took reliability and longevity seriously enough that SSDs could even begin to live up to their promise.

BTW, how are those files doing that you archived to CDs or DVDs 10 or 12 years ago? You say you can still read some of them? Almost half your photos and documents are still accessible? Very good!

 

[roadie.f]

When I got my previous generation Mac mini, I ordered a 256GB SSD and installed it in parallel with the stock 1TB drive using the OWC kit; I then configured it as a fusion drive. It's been a couple of years now, and it still boots in seconds. Even apps like FCPX and Aperture open in seconds. It manages the files by itself between the SSD and the HDD, so I don't have to worry about moving files between internal and external drives, and I'm very happy about its performance.

I can open it up again and put in bigger SSD and HDD as I wish.

 

[JustThinkin']

Yes. I have had straight SSD iMacs and MacBooks, and Fusion Drive iMacs. The SSD is much faster. Fusion is faster for most uses than a straight spinner, but SSD smokes them both.

I've also run tests on hybrid Windows drives with the same comparative results.

Which applications (uses) have you found this benefits you for (the SSD over the Fusion drive), and by how much?

 

[nutmac]

Fusion will break at some point because of the spinner drive which will have to be replaced.

SSD should last for the life of the machine and probably 25 years more.

Wrong unfortunately. Each cell on MLC (flash storage used on Macs) are good for perhaps 5,000 times before failing. Aside from extremely light users, cells on typical flash storage will probably fail much earlier than 25 years.

Having said that, SSD tend to be more durable than hard disk because there are no moving parts. Which is very common cause for disks to fail on notebooks. I don't think it's as common on desktops, although many desktop hard disks tend to fail after 5-7 years.

 

[macduke]

Yeah, as someone who daily uses a Fusion Drive in my 2013 work iMac and a 512GB SSD in my personal 2012 rMBP, I have to say that the rMBP wins hands down in terms of drive speed. Even though the iMac is faster in every other regard (fairly top of the line 27"), apps load slower, as do other tasks like saving large PSDs. This is especially true later on as the devices fill up.

As for nobody noticing this until now, it's because many people aren't buying the product any more. It's fairly clear that Apple was trying to kill of the Mini when they gutted its features last autumn. If they're going this far then why not make it the size of an Apple TV? At least do something better than same old box but slower. Ridiculous. I was thinking about picking one up whenever we get gigabit fiber to run server software on, but a little Linux box makes much more sense now. If you're considering a Mac Mini and are somewhat knowledgable about computers, just build a hackintosh. There are lots of instructional videos online. I feel like OS X has degraded in quality to the point where I'm fiddling with it enough already, so a hackintosh shouldn't be much different.

Grumble grumble…I'm feeling a bit salty today about Apple stuff for…reasons.

 

[JustThinkin']

Having said that, SSD tend to be more durable than hard disk because there are no moving parts. Which is very common cause for disks to fail on notebooks. I don't think it's as common on desktops, although many desktop hard disks tend to fail after 5-7 years.

Not if your desktop drive was an old Maxtor! They tended to be a little slower than the competition, so you might wish you had a different model. But you never had an excuse to replace them, because those stubborn things would never die!

Agree on all your points, however. I wonder if 2.5" drives tend to last any longer in desktops (since they're a little more rugged)? Not sure if people have been using them quite long enough (or frequently enough) in desktops to know yet.

 

[yjchua95]

Stick a quad core i7 and Iris Pro graphics and we'll thank you.

 

[Toltepeceno]

Not if your desktop drive was an old Maxtor! They tended to be a little slower than the competition, so you might wish you had a different model. But you never had an excuse to replace them, because those stubborn things would never die!

Funny, I had bad luck with maxtors, one I even had the replacement fail.

 

[Crosscreek]

Ho Ho Ho somebody has a sense of humor! SSDs started out less reliable than HDDs, if anything. Only a few companies (such as Samsung) took reliability and longevity seriously enough that SSDs could even begin to live up to their promise.

BTW, how are those files doing that you archived to CDs or DVDs 10 or 12 years ago? You say you can still read some of them? Almost half your photos and documents are still accessible? Very good!

Yeah, and your point is that SSDs are no good now and it's better to have a spinner? Good luck with that and I do have CD's and DVD that read just fine from 10 years ago.

You must like to pay people to tare your machine apart when your fusion quits working. Hope you have a backup.

 

[kwikdeth]

As for nobody noticing this until now, it's because many people aren't buying the product any more. It's fairly clear that Apple was trying to kill of the Mini when they gutted its features last autumn. If they're going this far then why not make it the size of an Apple TV? At least do something better than same old box but slower. Ridiculous.

Theyre testing the waters much like with the low-end 21" mac to see how well they sell. If they do, then theyll repackage the machines into smaller, less upgradeable packages (see Intel's NUC machines for an idea), or, if you really wanna get conspiratorial, if people will accept osx running on slower hardware as a means of easing a transition to using ARM cpus in their computers.

----------

Not if your desktop drive was an old Maxtor! They tended to be a little slower than the competition, so you might wish you had a different model. But you never had an excuse to replace them, because those stubborn things would never die!

Agree on all your points, however. I wonder if 2.5" drives tend to last any longer in desktops (since they're a little more rugged)? Not sure if people have been using them quite long enough (or frequently enough) in desktops to know yet.

I still have a working 6Gb IDE maxtor from my old G3 minitower. Still works fine. Damn thing is like 17 years old.

 

[Crosscreek]

Wrong unfortunately. Each cell on MLC (flash storage used on Macs) are good for perhaps 5,000 times before failing. Aside from extremely light users, cells on typical flash storage will probably fail much earlier than 25 years.

Having said that, SSD tend to be more durable than hard disk because there are no moving parts. Which is very common cause for disks to fail on notebooks. I don't think it's as common on desktops, although many desktop hard disks tend to fail after 5-7 years.

Regardless of my guess, the SSD will last way past the machine life.

I make a practice of keeping my OS and Apps on the SSD and data on NAS. Solves the problem of over use on the SSD and provides data files available where ever I may be or what ever device I have access to.

 

[JustThinkin']

It's fairly clear that Apple was trying to kill of the Mini when they gutted its features last autumn. If they're going this far then why not make it the size of an Apple TV? At least do something better than same old box but slower. Ridiculous. I was thinking about picking one up whenever we get gigabit fiber to run server software on, but a little Linux box makes much more sense now. If you're considering a Mac Mini and are somewhat knowledgable about computers, just build a hackintosh. There are lots of instructional videos online. I feel like OS X has degraded in quality to the point where I'm fiddling with it enough already, so a hackintosh shouldn't be much different.

Count yourself lucky that you don't yet know the true joys of maintaining a hackintosh. Want to upgrade from Mavericks to Yosemite? Perhaps you wanted to months ago, but you still haven't because a simple upgrade becomes a major project. Say you have 3 Macs or MacBooks and one hackintosh. Guess which one you'll be spending the most time tinkering with and maintaining (more time than all the others combined)? There will nearly always be something that doesn't work right. And if it's only one thing you should probably be happy.

A hackintosh has value as a hobbyist's project, and in this role I think it actually benefits Apple more than it hurts them - eventually growing their customer base. This is probably why they haven't cracked down on them in a significant way.

I suppose it's conceivable that an IT staff could come out ahead if they had many identical hackintosh machines they maintained. But most companies wouldn't want to do this. In the end almost everybody's better off just spending the money for a Mac Pro (or whichever model is appropriate for the task) - especially if that machine makes money for them! If time costs anything, the hackintosh is usually more expensive.


BTW, I'm hoping that Apple handicapped the Mac Mini because Intel delayed the release of the processors they were going to use in them. If Apple is wise, I believe they should make the next Mac Pro start at 6-cores, and bring 4-cores back to the Mac Mini as an option. This should be technically feasible with Intel's recent/upcoming processor releases.

 

[oneMadRssn]

Ho Ho Ho somebody has a sense of humor! SSDs started out less reliable than HDDs, if anything. Only a few companies (such as Samsung) took reliability and longevity seriously enough that SSDs could even begin to live up to their promise.

BTW, how are those files doing that you archived to CDs or DVDs 10 or 12 years ago? You say you can still read some of them? Almost half your photos and documents are still accessible? Very good!

Actually burnable CDs and DVDs do have a shelf-life, and not as long as most people think. That coating on them, that the laser altered, is just a chemical reaction - it diminishes over time. There is a good article (maybe I'll look it up later) published by the library of congress years ago that compared various storage mediums for long-term archives. They concluded most cheap CD-Rs last about a decade, whereas expensive name-brand ones might last double that. In any event, if you want those files to last, you have to re-burn them every decade or so to be sure, or start chiseling 1s and 0s on marble.

 

[OriginalMacRat]

I think that I can say this for many potential Mac Mini buyers:

QUAD CORE! QUAD CORE! QUAD CORE!

If only they'd silently add that option...

Nope.

That requires a completely different motherboard.

And if you look up the Intel announcements at CES for the new version of the i7, there was no quad core mentioned.

 

[JustThinkin']

Yeah, and your point is that SSDs are no good now and it's better to have a spinner? Good luck with that and I do have CD's and DVD that read just fine from 10 years ago.

You must like to pay people to tare your machine apart when your fusion quits working. Hope you have a backup.

Not even close to what I said.

And I admit I was shocked when (a while back now) I first realized that a number of the optical disks I'd burned only a few years earlier were not longer readable. I fell for the "marketing line," just like many others. Fortunately I never lost anything serious, but I feel bad for anyone who banked on ordinary blank optical disks as a true archival solution.

My point is that if what was considered "common knowledge" were actually true then all of your older disks would still be readable - and I'm guessing this isn't the case. We were effectively told they should "last about 100 years," but more than a few couldn't even make it past 3!

And most of those who were marketing SSDs were happy for people to get the impression they'd last a quarter of a century or more, and were more reliable than HDDs. Perhaps they are more reliable now - but I still hope you have a backup!