Some of the older SSD’s had more durable technology although the speeds were not as fast as they are today so it’s a trade off. But remember, if your SSD fails you can replace it with another device. You can’t do that on the 2018 Mini.
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.
My Mac Mini 2018 is running entirely on external TB3 SSD. Perfectly.
- Thread starter pejx72
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The OP did not have to do this. He chose to. There is virtually zero chance a modern 256 GB SSD dies from overuse in any reasonable timeframe. Could there be hardware failure that affects the SSD? Sure. But no more likely than the CPU itself or the motherboard.
If the SSD fails from overuse 15 years from now, you can just buy an external drive at that time. You’ll probably be able to get a 100 TB SSD for $50 by that time.
Last edited:
But you can't assure that because it depends what the machines workload will be. A heavy user could impact it's life in a big way. And from what i've read on this forum unless I read it wrong, if the onboard SSD or T2 chip fails there's no solution other than to have your motherboard replaced because the Mini is useless at that point.
Going from a paltry 128GB cost a lot more, like $300 to jump to the i5 base model. If we were allowed to swap out the SSD that would have been great but Apple purposely cutoff that option for financial gains.
Key from what you quoted is the word "reasonable". Yes, if you're writing hundreds of GB's to your SSD every day, that could be a problem. But that's not "reasonable" usage for typical usage, and that's not what the OP suggested their usage was anything like.
And anything can fail on the logic board and require replacement. You can avoid using the SSD, and the T2 chip could still fail.
As others have suggested, the OP is free to do whatever they want for whatever "reasons" they want, but this is just doing something for the sake of doing it, not because it makes any rational sense.
Expobill wrote (about my just-retired 2012 Mini):
"Awwww, sorry to hear that, what or where is the mini?"
Well, it's not fully-retired, it will live on as my "backup Mac".
I moved it over to the other table and hooked it up to an old Dell 1905FP 19" display I had sitting around. Works fine.
But then... I went to the local recycle center yesterday, and looked in the "computer/tv recycle bin". And there was -- another Dell 19" display, very similar to the one I had. So I grabbed it out of the junk pile... brought it home. It only has a VGA connector, but hooked it up to the 2012 Mini and... it looks great, too!. So now I have TWO 19" displays for the old Mini. No, they're not "big" displays, but they both work.
It almost pains me to say this, but in some (non-demanding) operations, there seems to be little perceivable "difference" between the performance of the 2012 (2.6ghz i7) and 2018 (3.2ghz i7) Minis. For other things, of course, the new one is faster.
I could have been content to use the old Mini for another year or two, easily.
But I wanted to have one of the last Macs that will continue to run 32 bit software into the future. The 2018 Mini will be right for that.
"Awwww, sorry to hear that, what or where is the mini?"
Well, it's not fully-retired, it will live on as my "backup Mac".
I moved it over to the other table and hooked it up to an old Dell 1905FP 19" display I had sitting around. Works fine.
But then... I went to the local recycle center yesterday, and looked in the "computer/tv recycle bin". And there was -- another Dell 19" display, very similar to the one I had. So I grabbed it out of the junk pile... brought it home. It only has a VGA connector, but hooked it up to the 2012 Mini and... it looks great, too!. So now I have TWO 19" displays for the old Mini. No, they're not "big" displays, but they both work.
It almost pains me to say this, but in some (non-demanding) operations, there seems to be little perceivable "difference" between the performance of the 2012 (2.6ghz i7) and 2018 (3.2ghz i7) Minis. For other things, of course, the new one is faster.
I could have been content to use the old Mini for another year or two, easily.
But I wanted to have one of the last Macs that will continue to run 32 bit software into the future. The 2018 Mini will be right for that.
Moore’s law hit a brick wall around 2012. There’s very little noticeable difference between a 2012 machine and 2019 machine, except for certain things like editing 4K video or displaying 4K content, and gaming of course. Otherwise, the vast majority of users can get away with using very old computers these days.
Technology advanced so quickly in the past that the thought of using a 7 year old computer in 2012 would have been painful. Now it’s no big deal. Like you said, you could easily get several more years out of that 2012. It will likely be fine until 2022. 10 years! The real reason to upgrade to 2018 models is 4K (which is a good reason).
In my opinon, I would use the internal SSD and if/when that wears off, start using the external SSD as the main drive.
What happens if the external SSD wears off? will you get another one and leave the internal SSD untouched?
I am using the internal SSD for the OS and apps, and an external USB SSD for the files, IMO this is the way that will keep my internal SSD for longer.
When I started using the internal SSD I too was feeling that "it will wear off and I won't be able to replace it", but then I commited to the idea that the computer is to be used. Since then I don't care anymore (mind you that I am one of those that plan to keep this Mini for several years, so I gave some thought to it).
Just use it, heck, use both drives (internal and external).
What happens if the external SSD wears off? will you get another one and leave the internal SSD untouched?
I am using the internal SSD for the OS and apps, and an external USB SSD for the files, IMO this is the way that will keep my internal SSD for longer.
When I started using the internal SSD I too was feeling that "it will wear off and I won't be able to replace it", but then I commited to the idea that the computer is to be used. Since then I don't care anymore (mind you that I am one of those that plan to keep this Mini for several years, so I gave some thought to it).
Just use it, heck, use both drives (internal and external).
The OP can't be serious (well, he either is serious, or he's a troll).
Nobody on this forum has the experience I have in booting/running Macs from external drives. I've been doing it since the days of the Macintosh SE (1988), all the way up through my 2012 Mini -- which I just retired a couple of days ago.
I booted and ran my 2012 Mini from an SSD in a USB3/SATA docking station from the day I took it out of the box in January 2013 (the Mini itself had an internal 5400rpm platter-based drive). It always ran great, right up to its final day of regular operation as my "main" Mac (it will live on as my "2nd Mac" on the other table).
But when I got my 2018 Mini (i7/16gb/512gb), I knew it was time to take advantage of the superb speeds offered by the internal SSD.
So I set up the internal SSD with 4 partitions, ALL of them (including the boot partition) running under HFS+. No APFS on this 2018 Mini. I might be the only user in the country with one running this way.
Having said that, the speeds of the internal drive are FAR faster than the OP gets with his external X5:
View attachment 830496
OP:
Since you "keep your hardware a long time", by the time you DO give up the 2018 Mini, it will have long been superseded in power by newer Macs. Whether the internal drive is "used" or not will make little difference.
You might be the only Mac user there is who is "saving it for resale"...
Using Carbon Copy Cloner I cloned my MM(2014) 2.8GHz, 8GB Ram,256SSD using a 1 TB "WD Passport Ultra" External USB3 HD the other day. I then booted up my MM via the External WD Passport HD which seemed to take forever(around 5 minutes) to Finnish the boot. I then opened some of my files which also was a slow process. I then switched-back in booting from my MM's Internal SSD which made a world of difference.
I guess it is time to purchase an External SSD??
Last edited:
The OP CHOSE to spend more money but it was an irrational choice based upon no factual data. The OP didn't have to do this.
Well, I will be probably the only one here that has factual data (my experience with my SSD drives) that even the best SSD drive that claimed to have the most durable memory chips that would survive multiple writes will outlast my Mini. Well, my 2011 Mini is still working but the 2 SSD drives that were my boot drive died.
When I bought the 2011 Mini, the first thing I did was I bought the dual bay drive carrier that allow my Mini to accommodate 2 internal SATA drives. The original Samsung 160Gb HD was cloned using CCC and then in place of that were 2 Corsair 64Gb top of the line SSD that had claims that it will survive years of writes and reads. They were very expensive at the time because of their claims and they are meant to be used and abused, so I bought 2 64Gb because that's all I could afford at the time. I knew then that I would be using the boot drive for iMovie as I did with my G3 and G4 as I had experienced killing HD drives then, so I decided to pay extra more for the most durable SSDs sold at the time. I even bought an extra exchange store warranty so they would give me a new one without getting a RMA. Anyhow, 2 years down the road after 2011, the boot SSD drive died. I took my Mini apart and took the drive to the store and they shipped it off RMA to the manufacturer. They DENIED the warranty claim citing my fault -- huh and how could that be?!? Anyhow, I complained to no avail and I think they lost my drive shipping it back (I'm in Canada), but since I bought an extra extended no question asked warranty replacement, the store gave me a new drive instead, but because they didn't have a 64Gb, they replaced it with an equivalent value 128Gb Performance Series Pro. Well the replacement drive lasted me 5 years before it too died at the end of 2018. Surprisingly enough, the second 64Gb that I bought 8 years ago still works. I only used that drive for transcoding via Elgato turbo 264HD and saving to for the final movie rendering with iMovie. The boot drive basically took the brunt of the writes and reads. And I'm not even doing any commercials -- just home family movies twice or three times a year for 8 years and a lot of photoshop manipulation. Anyhow, the store that sold me the drives 8 years ago went out of business and I probably wouldn't get a new replacement drive anyhow. So now, I'm on my 3rd SSD and I currently have a Kingston A400 240Gb drive with the 8 year old Corsair 64Gb that hasn't died yet. I bought the cheapest SSD because I no longer believe about the so called claims that SSD will outlast my Mac. Maybe I'm just so unlucky to have 2 best of the best SSD drives that went bad on me. But 2 SSD drives died because they were boot drive and my 8 year Corsair second SSD drive didn't led me to believe that if I use it a lot, then 2-5 years lifespan is fair with Trim or with no Trim don't matter much in my situation either.
Right now, I'm not too worried about my Kingston A400. If it dies, I have a clone of it on the original 160Gb that came on the Mini and I'll just buy another Kingston. It's cheap. That's the beauty of the older Mac Minis; I can take the SSD drive out. I am also looking towards upgrading to a Mini 2018 and its built-in SSD worries me. And I have a legitimate worry because of my experience with the best of the best SSD failing me twice, so if I am to buy a Mini 2018, I will spend the extra money to get the TB3 external SSD drive and boot it from there, so I can understand from the point of view of the OP coming from my own experience.
When I bought the 2011 Mini, the first thing I did was I bought the dual bay drive carrier that allow my Mini to accommodate 2 internal SATA drives. The original Samsung 160Gb HD was cloned using CCC and then in place of that were 2 Corsair 64Gb top of the line SSD that had claims that it will survive years of writes and reads. They were very expensive at the time because of their claims and they are meant to be used and abused, so I bought 2 64Gb because that's all I could afford at the time. I knew then that I would be using the boot drive for iMovie as I did with my G3 and G4 as I had experienced killing HD drives then, so I decided to pay extra more for the most durable SSDs sold at the time. I even bought an extra exchange store warranty so they would give me a new one without getting a RMA. Anyhow, 2 years down the road after 2011, the boot SSD drive died. I took my Mini apart and took the drive to the store and they shipped it off RMA to the manufacturer. They DENIED the warranty claim citing my fault -- huh and how could that be?!? Anyhow, I complained to no avail and I think they lost my drive shipping it back (I'm in Canada), but since I bought an extra extended no question asked warranty replacement, the store gave me a new drive instead, but because they didn't have a 64Gb, they replaced it with an equivalent value 128Gb Performance Series Pro. Well the replacement drive lasted me 5 years before it too died at the end of 2018. Surprisingly enough, the second 64Gb that I bought 8 years ago still works. I only used that drive for transcoding via Elgato turbo 264HD and saving to for the final movie rendering with iMovie. The boot drive basically took the brunt of the writes and reads. And I'm not even doing any commercials -- just home family movies twice or three times a year for 8 years and a lot of photoshop manipulation. Anyhow, the store that sold me the drives 8 years ago went out of business and I probably wouldn't get a new replacement drive anyhow. So now, I'm on my 3rd SSD and I currently have a Kingston A400 240Gb drive with the 8 year old Corsair 64Gb that hasn't died yet. I bought the cheapest SSD because I no longer believe about the so called claims that SSD will outlast my Mac. Maybe I'm just so unlucky to have 2 best of the best SSD drives that went bad on me. But 2 SSD drives died because they were boot drive and my 8 year Corsair second SSD drive didn't led me to believe that if I use it a lot, then 2-5 years lifespan is fair with Trim or with no Trim don't matter much in my situation either.
Right now, I'm not too worried about my Kingston A400. If it dies, I have a clone of it on the original 160Gb that came on the Mini and I'll just buy another Kingston. It's cheap. That's the beauty of the older Mac Minis; I can take the SSD drive out. I am also looking towards upgrading to a Mini 2018 and its built-in SSD worries me. And I have a legitimate worry because of my experience with the best of the best SSD failing me twice, so if I am to buy a Mini 2018, I will spend the extra money to get the TB3 external SSD drive and boot it from there, so I can understand from the point of view of the OP coming from my own experience.
Endurance has improved a lot since 2011. I’ve probably owned a dozen SSDs and these days it takes a rigorous workload to put a dent in mine. The only drive I’ve owned where I exceeded the endurance rating was a Samsung 840 EVO 1TB, but it still worked fine. The endurance rating for the replacement is leaps and bounds better.
As mentioned by brentsg, the technology has advanced considerably since you bought the 64GB SSD. Also, you may have been the victim of marketing hype at the time. The other question I would have is whether the failure was due to the NAND chips or to some other part of the SSD. If the SSD went into read-only mode (not all SSD's can do that) or if the SMART data was indicating regular erase/write/read failures, then that's a good indication that the NAND chips can no longer safely sustain additional erase/write cycles. Otherwise, you can't ascribe the failure due to the NAND chips - it could have been any of the other chips or surface-mount components on the SSD.
However, what your story does highlight is whether or not the extended warranties of many SSD's (5 years or even 10 years for some older Samsung SSD's) is actually going to be honored if the SSD does fail (obviously, something not applicable to the soldered Apple SSD's).
Well, when I bought the Corsairs, I bought them as a pair 8 years ago. The one that died twice (64Gb and 128Gb additional in-store extended warranty replacement) were boot drives. The other pair, which is now 8 years old already, in my Mac Mini today still works. The reason I assumed it was the NAND chips was that the other 64Gb is working and alive today, so why did both other Corsairs died earlier and this one didn't?!? Obviously, I used this 64Gb Corsair for transcoding the finished iMovie via Elgato Turbo 264HD into different formats for sharing purposes so it gets quite a few uses though not as much as the boot drive.
In regards to the warranty issue, that's the sticking point with the manufacturer and pro drives should last at least 5 to 10 years of reasonable use. At the time of my warranty claim, they were saying I had unreasonable expectations. Perhaps I was a victim of their marketing hype and how I understood the hype and what their warranty would be willing to cover were of 2 different and unrelated issue. So they declined the warranty. But the store I bought sold me under the influence of the marketing hype, so they had to honor their own extended warranty claim which I was very happy with. The cost of the extended warranty more than cover the new 128Gb drive replacement and I got to enjoy the speed and storage space it provided. With my current Kingston A400, it is definitely consumerish -- slightly slower than my older Corsair and takes a bit of time to boot. But being an 8 year old Mac now, I really didn't want to sink more money into a new Corsair , Samsung EVO or the new Sandisk Extreme Pro. Rather, I want to save to get the Mac Mini 2018 in 2021. But being a soldered SSD drive, I'm a bit nervous about its own durability. Can I reasonably expect the built-in SSD to last 10 years to 2031 if I buy the Mini 2018 in 2021? So I share the same worries with the OP. Certainly if I upgrade computers every few years or so, then I wouldn't need to worry about its built-in SSD drive.
An SSD, besides the NAND chips which store most of the data, will have a controller, which is really a powerful CPU in it's own right. It's common to also have DRAM chips. It might have secondary NAND chips which are used as a buffer. There also may be other chips and then the surface-mount discrete components (typically capacitors). Finally, there's the board itself and the assembly of the board. So there's a lot going on besides the primary NAND chips. Like I said, there are indicators of NAND chip failure but if one doesn't observe them, I wouldn't assume it was the NAND chips that failed. Also, even if a NAND chip fails, it may be some other component on the SSD or logic board it connects to which allowed an out-of-spec condition (say, too much power) although in your case, it's likely not something outside the SSD since you've had other SSD's in it that lasted a long time.
I am not judging your choice, which you are well within your rights to make and decide what is best for you...but I would ask for your indulgence with a small axiom that has served me well for the past 10 years - "Nothing Lasts Forever".
[doublepost=1555095846][/doublepost]
Personally, I wish Apple would provide a clear upgrade path for their SSDs by using the form factor they developed for the 13" nTB MacBook Pro and/or the iMac Pro. They were two different sizes with the iMac Pros resembling the old 2012 SATA based SSDs and the 13" MacBook Pro's resembling a CF card with exposed pins.
I know they have no interest in moving to an industry standard m.2 blade, but at least standardizing on one or two form factors and outlining an upgrade path or licensing the specs to OWC, Samsung, Toshiba would allow users to upgrade their storage at some point in the future. At least a strict license and a proprietary pin out might make it possible to exclude the "value" SSD vendors who might not care to ensure consistent speed and compatibility with macOS.
All of this is predicated on the notion that Apple would share this tech with others, which I suspect they are loathe to do and I cannot necessarily blame them. However, simply moving to a modular blade that allowed for Apple provided upgrades at the Apple Store or a third party officially sanctioned facility would probably be welcomed.
I suspect this will never happen because the less third parties know about the T2 chip, the better, in terms of trying to find a weakness or allowing any sort of intermediate connector that could be plugged into the motherboard while the blade was plugged into the cracking device.
Why on earth would Apple ever consider doing this? This type of "I wish" is based in complete fantasy on where the computer market is going for appliance-based computing devices, and that's what Macs now are.
I hate to explain the obvious, but the marketplace and therefore the business model is:
- user buys a Mac with a reasonable amount of "stuff" on it (the only caveat being RAM on some machines).
- user uses Mac for a period of time within the uses such a machine could ever possible handle (eg. you don't buy a Mac Mini 2018 for vast data performance).
(- OPTIONAL: user needs more graphics/storage, with the bandwidth of TB3, user can bump the machine a bit with an external eGPU/storage - tip: guess what, Apple will sell you a super-quiet one, for an Apple-esque price!)
- user later needs more "stuff" performance, so they buy a new Mac.
- user subsidises new Mac by selling old Mac to the next tier in the 2nd-hand market (usually good money for Macs).
Rinse and repeat.
The idea that 99% of the market are geek enough in Mac-land to bother to update the fundamental components within their machine has disappeared. They're virtually appliances now, like iDevices are, and nothing anyone endlessly filling vast "wish lists" of functionalities across forums is ever going to change that. You buy a machine, use it for say 2-4 years, sell it and upgrade.
I suspect, even this so-called "modular" Mac Pro, will come with whole swappable enclosed components, that are proprietary to Apple. So like a Red camera: you buy the main body (CPU), then nearly all the other parts are interchangeable mostly if not wholly with other proprietary ones from the Red system, until the main body isn't powerful enough for you, so you upgrade to the newer one, but again; directly from Red.
And no doubt, given it's Apple, each of the physical add-on parts will be several thousand bucks each, which means most people will be priced-out from buying a MP in the first place, but then the secondhand market will flourish as the second/third/fourth tiers of users buy-up the first tier of users' old stuff.
[doublepost=1555339016][/doublepost]
And then the X5 is lost/stolen/corrupted/broken, just after a major project you completed was saved onto it...Although many are correctly questioning the need to go to such drastic lengths to save the internal SSD, I must confess that I have a variant setup.
I run the internal SSD as the boot disk, but my Desktop, Documents, Download, Pictures, etc folders are all symbolically linked to the Samsung X5, as well as all my projects such as source code. This allows me to simply unplug my SSD and take it with me to work.
The SSD via TB3 is so fast, I giggle like a little girl when using it.
Result of the benchmark I just ran (though running this benchmark reduced my SSDs' lifespan, I sacrificed for the good of MacRumors readers
Code:Write Read --------------------- 512GB Internal SSD 1840 MB/s 2779 MB/s 1TB Samsung X5 1942 MB/s 2571 MB/s
How do you handle backing-up? As TM can't handle this kind of thing, I presume you use an identical copy technique...?
Last edited:
My rationale as to why Apple might do this would be to reduce their own in-warranty repair costs (when a customer is within the 1-year or has AppleCare) and speed turnaround times for repairs to their computers, which would be beneficial to customers from a satisfaction standpoint.
I didn't write "Apple should" or "Apple had better", I wrote, "I wish Apple" which is clearly self-explanatory.
I don't need you to explain the obvious to me...you can read any of my other posts and see my thoughts on how I believe Apple actually conducts business.
I have no illusions about how Apple is going to conduct their Mac business going forward. I agree 100% that the 2019 Mac Pro will be a series of mostly sealed boxed that fit together in a modular, "expand as needed" type of manner, which should certainly have potential customers frothing at the mouth once Apple previews the machine.
However, and for whatever reason, Apple relented and allows 2018 Mac mini customers socketed DRAM as opposed to soldered DRAM. Both size iMacs continue to use socketed DRAM and the PCIe storage is still removable via a proprietary connector. The CPUs in both iMacs is socketed, which means that a user could replace them later if they decided to do so. They certainly don't make it easy for anyone to service any of their computers precisely because they are more like appliances. My wish was only that Apple would standardize on a storage format and move away from soldered storage in Macs. It is certainly not impossible, give that the storage in the iMac Pro is removable yet it has a T2 co-processor. Apple could have done so with both the Touch Bar 13" and 15" MacBook Pro, but chose not to...they could have done it with the 2018 Mac mini and the 2018 MacBook Air. The soldered DRAM in the MacBook Pros and Airs has never been a huge issue for me and we have had 7 years to get used to the idea. I am sure you remember how intensely disliked and controversial Apple's decision was when the Retina MacBook Pros were introduced in 2012.
A modular slot, even if proprietary to Apple, might make buying a 2018 Mac mini a bit more palatable for some. I know I would need at least the 256GB model, 128GB is useless to me. I have successfully lived with 256GB on my 15" MacBook Pros for a while now. However, things change and even paying for an Apple sanctioned upgrade might be preferable to buying a new Mac. Apple is very inconsistent in their approach to this. It's more a matter of how skilled I am in tearing a sealed box apart and whether I want to do it or not. I have a Late 2013 27" iMac with a 3TB Fusion drive. We all know that the HDD is going to go long before the SSD portion, especially since its a 3TB drive. When it goes, I have to decide if it's time to move on to a new (or refurbished, or used) iMac or crack it open and replace the HDD and the PCIe SSD and continue to use it. Installing a Samsung 860EVO 2TB SATA SSD and a genuine Apple 256GB or 512GB SSUAX(or UBX) PCIe SSD would be my preferred upgrade path given that the 128GB is too small and I am not sure I really want to homebrew a Fusion Drive with a non-Apple firmware HDD. I know the limitations of the PCIe slot (x2/5.0 GT/s) and finding drives is not easy or cheap. I don't expect Apple to use a standard m.2, even though they use a standard SATA 3.0 connector for the HDD and standard 144-pin SO-DIMMs for the DRAM, but at least I have an option. All I am wishing for is a bit more consistency or commitment from Apple with regard to DRAM and storage formats moving forward. My wish also suggests a benefit for Apple, however, I readily concede that Apple's business model may not see it the same way as I do.
I certainly understand that I am in the minority of Mac users at this point in Apple's business, but they do allow certain upgrades after the sale, so there is at least an acknowledgment that users may want to do these things in the future to extend their Mac's lifespan. Again, it is a wish and hopefully I have at least coherently argued a benefit worth considering. Apple can and will do what they want and what they deem best for themselves and their customers.
Fair enough. One thing I can tell you is, very obviously, Apple will go all-SSD in the future, so any need or want to fix Fusion drive machines will be redundant. It'll suck in the short term, and the 'appliance box' concept will likely increase nonetheless, meaning the sales of AC+ will be more of a 'highly recommended' thing they can get people to buy.
And then when people's 3-year period of first warranty ownership ends, many will just say for the sake of convenience 'time to sell and upgrade to a new machine with new AC+' in an effort to avoid the potential for costly out-of-warranty repairs on already older hardware (may as well put these potential future high out-of-warranty fix costs towards a newer warranty'd machine in the first place) – thus more sales throughput to Apple.
On why they socket the storage on current iMacs and not the laptops/MM; who knows? But my obvious guess would be space considerations in the smaller laptops/MM, and also because they still offer Fusion machines on iMacs, and maybe that fits-in with their general setup? But one would strongly suspect that will go out the window over the next year or two, when even these (highly aimed at the average consumer who wants big enough internal storage) machines go all-SSD as the prices for 1/2/4TB PCIe-type storage become more affordable to offer as the only upgrade options.
Almost-socketed CPU... perhaps an old design they couldn't be bothered to update to a newer one? But changing out CPU's is a job likely no one in the mainstream is ever going to do, given how many potential points of failure there would be in doing so for even the more techie average user.
The thing is, sure, any number of components may be swappable in the future on a current machine, but most users want the other "new stuff" that newer machines may offer regardless of swapping any of their current components. Quicker external connection types (Thunderbolt 4?), faster internal buses (next gen PCI, et al.), newer screen technologies, (oh, not forgetting the shinny new smell, haha!), etc, all make spending the money on upgrading in totality more attractive than spending more money swapping new internal components on old hardware that's already been used a reasonable amount. Old stuff in the micro-electronics world gets "crufty" (for want of a better word?!) in one way or another (software or hardware), so people and companies end-up cutting their losses at some stage and just upgrade the main system as a whole, rather than mucking around time and effort wise with mix'n'match old/new hybrids, that may introduce inconsistencies and incompatibilities down the road.
Last edited:
Apple should offer a BTO option for the Mac mini with NO internal storage. Since going from 128 GB to 256 GB internal storage adds $200 to the price, I would expect a Mac mini with no internal storage to sell for $599. Then a user can add his own external storage and boot from that.
Although many are correctly questioning the need to go to such drastic lengths to save the internal SSD, I must confess that I have a variant setup.
I run the internal SSD as the boot disk, but my Desktop, Documents, Download, Pictures, etc folders are all symbolically linked to the Samsung X5, as well as all my projects such as source code. This allows me to simply unplug my SSD and take it with me to work.
The SSD via TB3 is so fast, I giggle like a little girl when using it.
Result of the benchmark I just ran (though running this benchmark reduced my SSDs' lifespan, I sacrificed for the good of MacRumors readers
Code:Write Read --------------------- 512GB Internal SSD 1840 MB/s 2779 MB/s 1TB Samsung X5 1942 MB/s 2571 MB/s
My internal 1TB SSD has a write speed of 2800 MB/s