New 2014 Mac Mini Has Soldered RAM, Not User Replaceable

[wilycoder]

its really pathetic watching people on this forum blindly defend apple on this issue.

apple told us the soldered-in ram in the rMBP was for reducing the overall thickness of the device.

there is no excuse or justification WHATSOEVER to have soldered-in RAM on the latest mini.

and to top off the ridiculousness of the latest mini, they removed the quad core option.

then there's people on here talking like this is a good thing! "well if you dont like it just spend another $2000 to get what you want"

what the hell is wrong with you people?

steve jobs wanted to make things thin. tim cook wants to....make money. i'm done with apple now. i sold my rMBP and ipad air a month ago. replaced it with a surface pro 3.

i had to laugh at the latest ipad announcement.

this modern skeleton of apple cant even give us a touch screen on a laptop, and wont give us OSX on a hybrid tablet.

the innovation is not happening at apple anymore.

if you think a higher res screen is innovation, no wonder you are cheerleading for apple without thinking critically.

if you think soldered-in ram on a non-portable device is a good thing, just stop pretending to be a computer enthusiast for any meaning of the term.

 

[jgfceit]

Really, Apple? 4 GBs is WAAAY too slow for my Mac Mini, which is why I put in 10. And customizing it with Apple costs too much.

This is really going to turn (some) people off the Mac Mini...then again, the vast majority won't care. XD

 

[BigHonkingDeal]

No surprise here, since apple has been moving in that direction from the get go. Disappointing yes, surprising no.

Not surprising is right....

 

[Ibjr]

I'm done. Look at my join date on this forum, over 11 years ago, but the Apple that exists today is not the Apple I recognize. I will probably stick to the iPhone, buy a better tablet, and stick to Windows 10. I use Win7 at work and it is serviceable, as long as it isn't Win8 I'll be fine.

For those saying it's about energy: nobody cares about it on a desktop.

 

[Spectrum]

Send feedback here:

https://www.apple.com/feedback/macmini.html

Apple don't monitor MR threads. The best is to voice your displeasure directly:

https://www.apple.com/feedback/macmini.html

 

[flyinmac]

Because the Mac Mini has soldiered RAM and specs that most casual users don't care about?

Um....ok.

Most casual users could give a damn about dual core vs quad core. They could give a damn about user replaceable RAM. They just want something cheap that they can use to check their email and update their Facebook status.

That's who this is for. If you are a power user that requires quad core processing, then Apple has other parts of the product line they'd like you to look at.

Well, Apple's strategy has just cost them a lot of sales. I have absolutely zero interest in an iMac. In fact, I would say that if I had a choice between a $200 iMac and a $5000 PC as my only options, I would go with the PC. I've been through too many garbage iMac systems over the years. Everything after the iMac switched to LCD's is garbage and only meant to be used for a short while and tossed in the trash.

I've never been able to keep an iMac running for more than a matter of weeks. They've all died horrible deaths and been through so many shops to get them up and running, that it was best to sell them at a loss before it died again. Reminds me of the car shop that sells used cars with a 90 day warranty, then patches them over and over again to get you past the 90 day warranty and hopes you won't smarten up and return it instead.

I've been through that game too many times with the iMac's. Never again.

And, the Mac Pro is a ridiculous price tag for my use. So, not spending that much money.

They've strategized themselves to a position that insures my immediate next machine will unfortunately have to be a PC.

You cannot deliberately create huge gaps in your product line and think that's going to force people to buy in a totally different category.

You leave the big holes, and someone that needs a machine that is somewhere in that gap will have to go somewhere else. I'm not going to jump from a Mini to a Mac Pro just because my needs are somewhere in the middle.

 

[33man]

Wait, what?

Lol yeah,

RIP IN PEACE

Rest In Peace in peace.... Nice

 

[Spectrum]

It would not be terribly difficult for Apple to add a quad-core version if there will be sufficient demand. If enough people walk into Apple stores and ask to buy a quad-core Mac mini and then walk out empty-handed when told they aren't available, Apple will produce them.

And/or send feedback here:

https://www.apple.com/feedback/macmini.html

 

[tubular]

Speaking as an owner of a year old quad 2012, I am not displeased.

As the owner of a five-week-old quad-core mini at 2.6 GHz, because all that four-thousand-post thread did was convince me it *wasnt* coming, I'm not as dismayed now as I was when the news model was announced.

Having said that, I owned the first model iMac, and that was a surprisingly beefy machine for surprisingly cheap. I thought the same about my 2010 mini. I dont think that about the new models.

 

[JetLaw]

It seems to me that this story and it's 15 pages of comments are a bit premature. This is not much different than bashing Apple based on a rumor of an unreleased product. Shouldn't we wait until someone pops the lid on this thing before swearing off Apple forever? I especially like the posts from people who claim that this will cause them to never buy another Apple product because their products "aren't inspiring anymore" - good luck with that; I'm sure you'll find the Surface 3 to be a windfall of inspiration.

 

[fa8362]

It seems to me that this story and it's 15 pages of comments are a bit premature. This is not much different than bashing Apple based on a rumor of an unreleased product. Shouldn't we wait until someone pops the lid on this thing before swearing off Apple forever? I especially like the posts from people who claim that this will cause them to never buy another Apple product because their products "aren't inspiring anymore" - good luck with that; I'm sure you'll find the Surface 3 to be a windfall of inspiration.

People have popped the lid. It's soldered.

 

[DudeDad]

if I had a choice between a $200 iMac and a $5000 PC as my only options, I would go with the PC.

And, the Mac Pro is a ridiculous price tag for my use. So, not spending that much money.

Hmmm...perhaps you need to take a deep breath. You would choose a $5,000 PC over an iMac, but find that the Mac Pro ($3,000) is to expensive. Go for the $5,000 PC over the $3,000 Mac Pro. Sounds like you are a financial wiz.

 

[flyinmac]

It seems to me that this story and it's 15 pages of comments are a bit premature. This is not much different than bashing Apple based on a rumor of an unreleased product. Shouldn't we wait until someone pops the lid on this thing before swearing off Apple forever? I especially like the posts from people who claim that this will cause them to never buy another Apple product because their products "aren't inspiring anymore" - good luck with that; I'm sure you'll find the Surface 3 to be a windfall of inspiration.

Value for the money... Simple...

And, if Apple isn't innovating to make products more desirable, then they are stagnant.

Worse than stagnant, they are going in reverse.

OS X just simply is not valuable enough to warrant blindly blowing tons of money on obsolete overpriced hardware.

They deliberately create huge gaps in their product line in hopes of forcing us to buy products in a totally different category. They're pricing themselves out of a market.

Maybe a PC isn't full of inspiration, but it's priced right. The value is there for the money... Unlike Apple's "inspiration" to price gouge us because we like OS X.

 

[wordsworth]

I have to say that while I think the entry-level iMac will sell very well to 'casual users' and particularly those wishing to migrate from Windows (after experiencing the iPad and iPhone) in an affordable way, I am puzzled by Apple's decision to use soldered memory across the range. Is the new Mac mini merely a stop-gap until a revised design/spec, perhaps?

I believe it to be true that for millions upon millions of people who use computers for e-mail, surfing the Web, YouTube, Facebook, streaming movies and music, etc, and maybe some home office (typing letters, accounts, online bill paying and banking, possibly even the club newsletter) and more, modern entry level computers are well capable of the tasks required.

The loss of after-sale upgradability in the Mac mini and the latest CPU specs, however, are certainly puzzling. I want to believe that a new design will be on its way, to supersede the current mini. Or even an addition to the desktop range. Mac mini Pro?

 

[Santabean2000]

That'd be a decent excuse if Apple were going for a super thin laptop, but here it's just money gouging. You have to pay them $300 for an $80 upgrade of ram.

Intel NUCs are a helluva lot smaller than the Mini, sport roughly the same hardware (the Mini does have a better integrated GPU), yet have replaceable HDDs and ram. The Mini, on the other hand, is exactly the same size as it was before, and was well known for being easy to upgrade.

There's no excuse for it, other than, quite literally, Apple doesn't want you to.

It sucks no doubt, but I just think that Apple can't stomach having one product using parts that aren't in any other; economies of scale. The cMBP 13" is the last last remaining product that had the same RAM - and it's clearly not much longer for this world.

It's not an excuse as Apple can afford to do whatever they want at this point. But I guess it's how they keep their profit margins high.

As long as they use this extra cash to reinvent the mini into something special... *holds breath*

EDIT: The 27" iMacs still use the same RAM. I've revised my opinion back to 'Apple are just greedy b******'. All the bs about wanting to "just make great products"... yeah, right.

 

[Nozuka]

steve jobs wanted to make things thin. tim cook wants to....make money. i'm done with apple now. i sold my rMBP and ipad air a month ago. replaced it with a surface pro 3.

surface pro sounds good in theory, but sucks in reallife. it wants to be too many things but ends up being a bad notebook and bad tablet at the same time.

we were planing to use these in our company and had some pilot users work with it..

main problems:

- programs are not optimized for touch.
- you cant really use it as a laptop on your.. lap. because everything falls apart, since the keyboard and monitor are only loosely connected.
- alot of windows applications are not optimized for high resolution displays yet and are either too small or look terrible and unsharp when blown up.


the lenovo yoga 3 pro at least fixes the laptop part. would love to test that. but it adds alot of weight..

 

[MikeyMike01]

iOS 7 drove me away into Android's arms.

You mean the Android that is being redesigned shortly and will look almost exactly like iOS 7/8?

 

[flyinmac]

Hmmm...perhaps you need to take a deep breath. You would choose a $5,000 PC over an iMac, but find that the Mac Pro ($3,000) is to expensive. Go for the $5,000 PC over the $3,000 Mac Pro. Sounds like you are a financial wiz.

Yes, the $3000 Mac Pro is out of range.

The point of the $5000 PC reference is to illustrate that the iMac is not even on the radar. If I'm not buying a $3000 Mac Pro due to price, the fact that I'd consider a $5000 PC over a $200 iMac is an illustration that the iMac isn't even a possible contender. If you can read between the lines, and I know that's hard for a blind defender, the point being I would go without a computer before I'd touch another iMac.

 

[ppnkg]

it seems to me people are disappointed because they expected apple to offer a mini mac pro. It was never going to happen. The idea of 'power user' looking at the mac mini range also seems to me ridiculous - we need a definition of 'power user' so we know what people are talking about in these forums. In my mind, even a used-upgraded maxed out mac mini would not come close to being a machine for 'power users' (whatever this means - I guess we need a definition of 'power user' so we know what people are talking about in these forums).

I think if a) you definitely want *a mac* b)you don't want to get a low and mid-range iMac and c) have your own monitor etc, the mid- and hi-end mac mini is still a good offer.

 

[DEMinSoCAL]

i wanted a mac mini since early this year, held back because lack of an update and expected this to happen. no idea why people that have been waiting so long are surprised by this. glad i went with a hackintosh and looking forward to adding to it been stable for 8 months now with yosemite working great

Responded to the wrong post. Too early! Sorry!

 

[fa8362]

it seems to me people are disappointed because they expected apple to offer a mini mac pro. It was never going to happen. The idea of 'power user' looking at the mac mini range also seems to me ridiculous - we need a definition of 'power user' so we know what people are talking about in these forums. In my mind, even a used-upgraded maxed out mac mini would not come close to being a machine for 'power users' (whatever this means - I guess we need a definition of 'power user' so we know what people are talking about in these forums).

I think if a) you definitely want *a mac* b)you don't want to get a low and mid-range iMac and c) have your own monitor etc, the mid- and hi-end mac mini is still a good offer.

As a 2012 quad i7 user, I think the "mid and hi-end" 2014 minis are bad jokes. A 2012 quad will run circles around any of the 2014 models with any multithreaded application.

 

[Miat]

Playing Devil's Advocate for a second, considering the parts, this could just be an interim release. A half step between old and new, so Apple will have something to tide everyone over until the "real" Mini update with Broadwell comes out next year.

Certainly looks like this is the last Mini we shall see in this form.

I will be taking good care of my 14 month old 2012 quad. All it needs now is an SSD, and for me to finish off that custom combined air filter & stand for it to lock the dust out. More on that project later.

 

[loon3y]

Please... what on earth are you thinking? This is so much 20th century... I've been there, too. I built my first PC from parts seperetaly ordered and I was proud like hell. But this is the past. "Casual" users don't even need 500 gigs of storage, and if they notice some slowdown, they sure as hell don't come to think of upgrading the internals...

so they just buy spend 800 dollars- 2grand on a new computer or mac book?


that makes no sense. why would casual users just get a brand new computer when they feel like their old is sufficient?

500 Gigs of storage is good for the casual user? that depends on what the user does for a living.


Whatever work you do for a living requires a computer these days, even if you have you're industry has nothing to do with technology.



What determines a casual user? Isn't a casual user someone that downloads games? multiple apps/programs? Streams or downloads videos (for offline usage)?

seriously that casual user is really broad.

an you're talking about the present right? So what kids and adults do you not know that don't take advantage of computers.


Its common knowledge that you can upgrade computers, its not common knowledge that they know how or if its compatible with your computer/mother board.

the first thing a per say "casual" user usually says is "how can i make my computer better without buying a new computer"

I dont understand your logic of why casual users would be so keen on wasting money on new computers without seeking a cheaper option.

You're talking about people that don't care much about getting the new technology

Unlike Us, so you're saying they're more willing to buy a whole new computer which probably they aren't even invested in computers?

that makes no sense. Besides Guys, cuz most guys usually know by now at this generation an age, girls asked me thousands of times if they can upgrade their computer.

 

[DEMinSoCAL]

It would not be terribly difficult for Apple to add a quad-core version if there will be sufficient demand. If enough people walk into Apple stores and ask to buy a quad-core Mac mini and then walk out empty-handed when told they aren't available, Apple will produce them.

Unlikely. If you look at the CPU's Apple has chosen to offer in the new Mac Mini, you would see that one thing they all have in common is the type of package or socket they use (FCBGA1168). All the CPU's are Intel's "U" series (Ultra low power) and looking at the 4th Gen, i7 series, there is NOT a quad core i7 that uses the same package/socket. Hence, Apple would need to make a 2nd system board for a quad core, not to mention the higher power requirements and heat produced by 4 cores.

Their choice to go "U"-series seems to be the nail on the coffin for any chance of a higher performance quad chip. I think that's why we don't see one.

 

[diipii]

Hugely disappointed at the lack of a quad core. What the hell is Apple playing at ?