Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

New 2014 Mac Mini Has Soldered RAM, Not User Replaceable

Not surprised by the soldered RAM - actually predicted it.

But the rest, wow, just WOW. Last year's base model is now the midrange for an extra $100? High end downgraded from quad-core to dual-core?

The Mac Mini was originally designed for switchers to be an introduction to OS X. So now Apple expects to create a first impression with 1.4 GHz, 4GB soldered RAM, and a 5400 rpm HDD?

This move stinks of short-sighted greed. First time I've ever gotten that vibe from Apple.
 
rGiskard said:
Not surprised by the soldered RAM - actually predicted it.

But the rest, wow, just WOW. Last year's base model is now the midrange for an extra $100? High end downgraded from quad-core to dual-core?

The Mac Mini was originally designed for switchers to be an introduction to OS X. So now Apple expects to create a first impression with 1.4 GHz, 4GB soldered RAM, and a 5400 rpm HDD?

This move stinks of short-sighted greed. First time I've ever gotten that vibe from Apple.
Click to expand...

I said it in 2012 and it is more valid today: in 2014 apple should not sell any computer without at least fussion drive, 5400rpm is killing every machine - fussion drive should be default... if anyone buys base mini as his first mac, it may be his last as well
 
Worst Upgrade Ever - Cancel my order

I was waiting almost a year for a new Mac mini, ready to order. Cancel that order with this horrible downgrade. My 2012 mini was better than this. The Apple show on October 16 said the price was cut by $100--completely untrue. In the $499 model, the processor was downgraded way below 2012 levels. I am very disappointed in Apple. As a loyal user for 15 years and currently running 12 Apple devices in my family, I expected a better product. Soldered RAM? Extortionist prices for additional RAM! Apple used to be known for quality products. Apparently, the product engineers and designers got kicked out of this team and the marketing types took over. Tim Cook did you approve this? Shame on you. Apple is better than this.
 
SdkDel said:
Yeah... sorry to burst your bubble:

Image

Top one is the 2.6 GHz Quad i7 that you could get on the 2012 Mini / Mini server. Bottom one is the top tier 2014 Mini Dual-core i7.

As you can see, quite a stretch in performance. I'll be holding on to my quad 2012 Mini for a looooong time! I cannot even consider downgrading to a dual core EVER, specially for music production.

And the whole RAM issue, well...
Click to expand...

Good to know. I can still return my mac mini if I regret it.
 
Since new redesigned Mac Pro (practically un-upgradeable gpu, single cpu), Apple lost me as customer. At this point, only product that I might consider buying next year or so is redesigned Macbook Pro Retina.
 
Better an hackintosh Intel Nuc

At least I can configure it as I want. Lame Apple. Glue, solder... enough!
 
majkom said:
I said it in 2012 and it is more valid today: in 2014 apple should not sell any computer without at least fussion drive, 5400rpm is killing every machine - fussion drive should be default... if anyone buys base mini as his first mac, it may be his last as well
Click to expand...

I agree that spinning drives should have been obsoleted years ago. Perhaps it's business or politics, but several years ago, I could buy a computer with 500GB or 1TB, why am I being offered the same stuff today? I would expect a spinning hard drive to be at least 10TB for $200 by now. The speed at which they make new improvements has been slow for the last few years. Maybe they reached a technical limit and can't do it anymore?

Again, I am surprise Apple, or any computer makers, still have computers with spinning disks now, SSD should already be in the 4-8TB but at the current price point of a 512GB to 1TB SSD.

Remember the iPod 160GB? That was the last spinning disk iPod, back in 2007. Ever since, spinning disks hard drive improvements has slowed down. By now, if it were to be a viable product, it would need to be at least a 4TB iPod for $200. I know it seems silly to have a 4TB iPod, but if we were to have the same rate of improvements, storage space and technology should have been much much better as of right now. Improvements have been flat-lined.

testing_point_of_diminishing_returns1.png
 
Last edited:
Still Intel GFX and now the RAM is soldered in. -.-

This is very weak Apple. The entire product lineup is very weak. Its almost as if you don't want me to buy your products anymore. :(
 
Can anyone enlighten me on this? I was looking to upgrade to the base model of the new mac mini, and use my old one as a media center

My old mac mini (2012 Base model): 2.5GHZ intel core i5
The new mac mini (2014 Base model): 1.4GHz dual-core Intel Core i5

Why the hell would i upgrade? Wireless AC & TB2, lol? Is haswell alot faster even with slower clock rates?


And besides, have they removed mac mini from the refurbished section? Ive checked my Singapore store and the US one, seems the mac mini section is blanked out
 
majkom said:
I said it in 2012 and it is more valid today: in 2014 apple should not sell any computer without at least fussion drive, 5400rpm is killing every machine - fussion drive should be default... if anyone buys base mini as his first mac, it may be his last as well
Click to expand...

Yeah but a fusion drive consists of two drives, seems like an odd requirement for a default configuration. I'm more surprised that the PCIe option is not available at all in the entry level model, regular drive or fusion drive. So at $499 it's more of an entry level than previous ones, the mid level does have the PCIe drive option and defaults to 8GB of ram and a 2.6 Ghz CPU.
 
hachiman said:
I agree with you that Apple has to keep it non-competitive against their other products. If I were to compare the Mac Pro to the Mac mini, the main difference is the dedicated graphics card, extra USB/TB ports, and the CPU. Everyone is different, but when it comes to a full desktop computer, the mac mini makes the most sense, with the exception that if you need some hardcore computing, either graphics for gaming or visual rendering, or require computation power, most users will find the mac mini is more than sufficient. I don't think the mac mini, including this update, is still meant for video editing or intense gaming. Even if benchmark reports in the coming week shows that there is an improvement with these new CPU, I think it will be marginal, since Haswell is only roughly 8% faster than Ivy Bridge, given the same specs, which is what the mac mini 2012 has.

I still use my custom built PC that I put together back in November 2011, basically Intel 2600K, 16GB RAM, 580 GTX, and a 128GB SSD. I still use this machine for my gaming, mainly battlefield 4 with ultra settings. I see no bottleneck, because in my years of owning computers, it's always the hard drive that is the bottleneck.

I'm not comparing this to a gaming machine, but the idea is that I can use this as a media PC for browsing or watching movies, or music, not exactly intensive stuff, but it'll still be snappy. I ordered the $699 mac mini, knowing I will be upgrading it to an SSD soon. the form is still the same, so that means I'll be able to put in a new SSD, hopefully a 512GB or 1TB SSD when prices are more reasonable later on, and move the 1TB drive that came with it as a secondary storage.
Click to expand...

I suppose the real test would be a maxed out new 2.6 dual core vs the last 2.6 quad core (16 gigs RAM, same size SSD) and simply let both real world and synthetic tests settle this. I am sure that on some GPU intensive apps that can* exploit the Intel offering, there may be advantage but for the myriad of apps out there, I'll put my money (again) on the quad core.

If I were a gamer, I would only consider a PC given the ability to really customize the machine with either/or ATI and Nvidia as well as some other processors and drives. Luckily (grin) I didn't start this addiction yet and do so vicariously through friends.
 
Well that's *********g killed it. Waited for this as have many others and now it turns out it's all a load of s***. How rediculous that people are even considering a two year old machine over this brand new model, they really ********d up here as the guy doing the presentation knew when he spent less than a minute on it.

Apple is about an ecosystem as a who, but they just killed off a big part of that system.

I'm emailing apple feedback as everyone else should!

They reverted on the camera roll, maybe the redesigned mini for next year will be good again...

Im still running my unibody macbook from about 7 years ago! This new Mac mini just made me keep it for another year...
 
nt5672 said:
Yep, another apple product that isn't for me.

17 inch laptop,
upgradable mini
Click to expand...

same here, and as a fan boy for years I'm fed up with the increasing nickle n dimming.

Additionally Apple continues to push their 'we are green' bs, but the reality is something as simple as replacing failed RAM or a HD is now a replacement unit instead of just a part. Plus another non-green approach of having to transport the unit back to Apple , then back to yourself.

What a load of crap.
 
hinkelman said:
I was waiting almost a year for a new Mac mini, ready to order. Cancel that order with this horrible downgrade. My 2012 mini was better than this. The Apple show on October 16 said the price was cut by $100--completely untrue. In the $499 model, the processor was downgraded way below 2012 levels. I am very disappointed in Apple. As a loyal user for 15 years and currently running 12 Apple devices in my family, I expected a better product. Soldered RAM? Extortionist prices for additional RAM! Apple used to be known for quality products. Apparently, the product engineers and designers got kicked out of this team and the marketing types took over. Tim Cook did you approve this? Shame on you. Apple is better than this.
Click to expand...


Apple will find themselves back where they were before long... A once powerful company that dominated the market and finding themselves struggling and dwindling.

Greed killed them once. It can kill them again.

Pushing overpriced garbage doesn't create brand loyalty. It sends your customers somewhere else.

It took some of us a long time to come back to Apple after the last round. It took Steve Jobs to bring Apple back to profitability. And, oddly, it was a less experienced and more arrogant Steve Jobs that initially made the decisions which killed Apple the first time. It was a wiser and more creative Steve Jobs who brought Apple back when it seemed no one could.

But, with what Apple is doing now, releasing downgrade after downgrade (iMac low end, reduced Mac Mini, etc.) and becoming essentially a stagnant company, they're not far off from revisiting their past.
 
The one good thing about this thread is...

The one good thing about this thread is that any poster who supports this pathetic "upgrade" of the Mac Mini has blown their disguise as a paid Apple shill.

Or they have access to some very good weed.
 
subsonix said:
Yeah but a fusion drive consists of two drives, seems like an odd requirement for a default configuration. I'm more surprised that the PCIe option is not available at all in the entry level model, regular drive or fusion drive. So at $499 it's more of an entry level than previous ones, the mid level does have the PCIe drive option and defaults to 8GB of ram and a 2.6 Ghz CPU.
Click to expand...

This was the big surprise for me when I went to buy it. In the keynote, I was happy it was $100 lower, but looking at the specs for the $499, The first thing I saw was the CPU clock, I was "WTF?" 1.4GHz? That reminds me of one of those cheap netbook with a low voltage (low performance!) CPU.

I really didn't want to get the $699, but comparing it to the base model, it made more sense. I was hoping the $499 is equal to or better than the mid or top tier mac mini 2012, especially when it's been 2 years. The questionable CPU offerings of this update compare to the 2012 versions is making me wonder.

There's only one way to really find out how it performs, not just as a CPU spec-sheet, but as a whole machine when I run some benchmarks.
 
Last edited:
John Lewis (UK) have the 2012 model for £399 (i5 base version) if anyone is interested. Might be tempted to get one as an upgrade for my 2011 model.

Still on the fence about the mid range new model. I currently have 8gb and have no issues with that. I just need to find out how easy an SSD upgrade would be - that said a decent capacity external SSD might be a better / easier solution.
 
Macrumors should start a union which represents apple users and provides very firm feedback to apple from it community.

Apple has kind of tied us down to their operating system and then trying to force feed crappy overpriced products on us. I now want them to burn for a few years as a result of their greed. Billions of dollars in the bank doing nothing and they are releasing products like this...

Even Yosemite doesn't have me excited for any new features.
 
hachiman said:
This was the big surprise for me when I went to buy it. In the keynote, I was happy it was $100 lower, but looking at the specs for the $499, The first thing I saw was the CPU clock, I was "WTF?" 1.4GHz? That reminds me of one of those cheap netbook with a low voltage (low performance!) CPU.

I really didn't want to get the $699, but comparing it to the base model, it made more sense. The questionable CPU offerings of this update compare to the 2012 versions is making me wonder.
Click to expand...

The 1.4Ghz model is likely the same as the MacBook Air, that should be base frequency which then scale to 2.7Ghz on work that requires it (yep turbo boost to 2.7Ghz). But the mid level seems like a better option, it also has better graphics it seems (intel iris).
 
Remembers how the old theory that computer speed would double every X number of months.... and thinking what a trend setter Apple actually is... Apple, the company that decreases processor speed every X number of months.

Way to go Apple, proving once again that you are innovative and a trendsetter... unfortunately, while you are the only one setting this reverse trend, you are also the only company willing to follow the reverse trend as well. Way to go...

Looks at my Mac Mini from 2004, and ponders how far we've come only to see those humble clock speeds again...

Looks at my kids toys on the floor, and ponders how they have more processing power than the new Mac Mini.
 
groovyd said:
i'm really surprised people still make an effort to upgrade their ram and not just pass off their 3 year old machine on ebay for half price and buy the next model new. my guess is this is not the case for 95% of the people who buy computers and so this soldering of the ram just makes sense. i'd rather have a unit that is smaller and cheaper and has nothing to tinker with which has been optimized to work with what it has installed.
Click to expand...

On your last point, the new Mac Mini is neither smaller nor cheaper than it was a few days ago. The 'base' 2012 model was cheaper than its 2014 equivalent, which is now marketed as mid-range. To go from base to base model would be a downgrade in many respects if you had 8GB of RAM in a 2012 model. Hell, I just bought an SSD for my 2011 Mini and a thunderbolt to USB 3.0 adapter and I feel that it's a more viable machine than the current base model. That's pretty sad...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back