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.
Quad-Core 2012 Mac Mini Mysteriously Reappears on Apple's U.S. Online Store [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Could you give me a brief list ?
I know for a fact photoshop ( maybe some filters do ) , the os and most games don't require multi cores over 2 , so what apart from handbrake needs all these cores that you're all missing so much in the 2014 model ?
FCP ?
You wouldn't run that on a mini anyway
----------
It's because everyone on here buys a mini to run 50 virtual machines
The mini is designed as an entry-level computer for personal computing. It is not meant to be a powerhouse. The current line up is more than sufficient for 99% of Apple users.
I agree totally
What about a 1680x1050 matte screen with 2.7GHz quad-core i7? Shoot me a message if you're interested.
Of course the store posting was a mistake
Of course the store posting was a mistake.
Allowing a mid-priced machine with a quad core CPU, easily upgraded RAM, and two drive slots gives too much choice to users. These users must be herded into buying more expensive hardware, or be happy with the newer, more limited offerings.
A week or so after Apple announced the 2014 Mini, I went to visit an Apple Store and I told the sales rep that I was interested in buying a Mac Mini. His face brightened, as if I were the first to ask such recently. But then his expression sagged when I said I wanted a 2012 quad core model like the one I already owned. "Sorry, all out."
Once Apple takes away a feature from a model, they don't put it back. The list is long; it starts with having an easily replaceable clock chip battery which was taken away in the 1987 Mac SE. The hobbling of the 2014 Mini is just more of the same.
"Sheep are meant to be fleeced" -- unofficial slogan of Apple Marketing
Of course the store posting was a mistake.
Allowing a mid-priced machine with a quad core CPU, easily upgraded RAM, and two drive slots gives too much choice to users. These users must be herded into buying more expensive hardware, or be happy with the newer, more limited offerings.
A week or so after Apple announced the 2014 Mini, I went to visit an Apple Store and I told the sales rep that I was interested in buying a Mac Mini. His face brightened, as if I were the first to ask such recently. But then his expression sagged when I said I wanted a 2012 quad core model like the one I already owned. "Sorry, all out."
Once Apple takes away a feature from a model, they don't put it back. The list is long; it starts with having an easily replaceable clock chip battery which was taken away in the 1987 Mac SE. The hobbling of the 2014 Mini is just more of the same.
"Sheep are meant to be fleeced" -- unofficial slogan of Apple Marketing
ULV intel chip only allows 1 design for quad-core vs. dual core. I am just saying had this not been a limitation in Intel's part they could of used the new processors offering a mixture of dual core/quad core. Obviously Apple switched to the chips to get the 1.4hrtz chip into the baseline and drop it is $499.
The new NUC's have the same problem, Intel says quad-core/dual-core for the same design is coming in Skylake.
Apple never publicly announces they've been wrong
It'll just quietly disappear without a trace.
Yes Apple. Bring that thing back with 2014 specs and I will throw serious money in your direction.
The entire OS and many OS frameworks, services, tools are optimized for >= 2 cores via GCD (Grand Central Dispatch). File Vault uses all available cores, if necessary. The OS RAM compression/decompression code can use all available cores. Chrome can use all available cores. VM software can use all available cores. VLC can use all available cores.
...
Also adding on that the OS scheduler can also spread multiple threads accross multiple cores, even if a specific application isn't taking advantage of multi-threading.
So yeah, you might be running 4 programs at once that are single core threaded. But the OS will spread those 4 threads accross 4 Cores to give better parralel throughput. It might not benefit the individual application directly, but the more cores will improve overall system performance.
For a moment I gained faith in Apple again!
I do not own a laptop anymore, just an ipad (plus wireless keyboard) and a mac mini 2011. I need more power though... mostly because I am a consultant and I use several virtual desktops and applications in order to serve more customers at the same time.
I love my mini but I have no idea how to replace it if they do not come out with a proper new product! Also I cannot afford to buy a new one with maxed ram and HDD at once. My business is still pretty small, therefore upgradeability is key in order to improve its power step by step before changing the model, while buying it at a relatively low price... but maybe there are not many customers like me - thus my segment is not interesting for apple.
I do not own a laptop anymore, just an ipad (plus wireless keyboard) and a mac mini 2011. I need more power though... mostly because I am a consultant and I use several virtual desktops and applications in order to serve more customers at the same time.
I love my mini but I have no idea how to replace it if they do not come out with a proper new product! Also I cannot afford to buy a new one with maxed ram and HDD at once. My business is still pretty small, therefore upgradeability is key in order to improve its power step by step before changing the model, while buying it at a relatively low price... but maybe there are not many customers like me - thus my segment is not interesting for apple.
This is the one I have now. I love this machine. It's one of those rare moments that I'm happier with the older version and not wishing I'd waited.
Running Mavericks, 16Gb RAM, 2 24" monitors. It's all I need.
Running Mavericks, 16Gb RAM, 2 24" monitors. It's all I need.
Yeah seriously. The prices for this model on ebay are a joke. They dont even profit that much cuz they've gotta dish out around $100 in fees. Initially was gonna get a used but glad I grabbed a refurb instead.
It's because everyone on here buys a mini to run 50 virtual machines
The mini is designed as an entry-level computer for personal computing. It is not meant to be a powerhouse. The current line up is more than sufficient for 99% of Apple users.
It's an entry-level computer, yes, but historically, it was also commonly used as a low-end server. With four cores, it was viable in that capacity (though I would have preferred ECC RAM). With two cores, it just doesn't have enough power to handle even my relatively modest server needs.
Unfortunately, Apple has been systematically making life more and more miserable for people running servers on their Macs. First, they ditched the Xserve (high-end server), then they redesigned the Mac Pro (midrange server) in a manner that prevents it from being rack mounted, and now, they turned the Mini (low-end server) into a toy. There's no usable Mac server hardware left for us at this point, so when my current box dies, I'll have no choice but to move to Linux and generic PC hardware.
Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying that Apple needs to make the server market a primary focus in their design decisions, but completely throwing away that entire market segment is a strategically foolish move for a company that really ought to know better.
It might be a glitch but its very peculiar that it would be this model and not the 2.5 dual if it were indeed a glitch. Maybe they are planning to add a quad option. Obviously would be with Yosemite though.
I still would not have bought one (I bought a 2014 3.0GHz i7). I need the second mDP/TB port and the faster graphics found on the new model. Plus the single-thread performance for me is more important than faster multi-core performance.
I'm running an old plastic case Mac Mini as my Plex Media Server - connected to a 40" display in the living room for viewing directly, but also serving content to the outside world as requested (Fire stick, Roku and iPad in house - friend's Roku boxes outside the house). Works like a charm. I use Remote Desktop when detailed tweaking needs to be done, which is not often.
If all you want to do is serve info from PMS on the Mini, even the cheapest Mini available will do the trick.
It's because everyone on here buys a mini to run 50 virtual machines
The mini is designed as an entry-level computer for personal computing. It is not meant to be a powerhouse. The current line up is more than sufficient for 99% of Apple users.
The 2014 mini is ridiculously overpriced if it's only meant as an entry level computer. You can buy an entry level Chromebox for 1/4th the price and an entry level Windows pc for 1/2 the price. Now as for it's more than sufficient for 99% of Apple users, does Apple put an asterisk saying, "hey, all of those power hungry apps, yeah, this isn't meant to run those. Buy an iMac or Mac Pro instead."
Apple has made some horrible decisions in recent years. Abandoning the professional community is just one of them, but now they are screwing over their regular consumers.
I've read up on it and lots of people disagree
Can't be bothered to argue the point
Just know the cpu is no way the most important link in the chain , faster pcie-flash in the 2014 is more important imo . Especially for the fusion drive.
----------
Yeah an $18bn profit this quarter
They're REALLY struggling .
Is it possible that we've reached a plateau where quad core introduces more heat and becomes less desirable considering ever increasing single core processing speeds and overall system performance is already undertasked for most users. Yes, there's always going to be those that want more cores. Five years ago, I would have thought multi-core was the way of the future and wouldn't have been surprised to see six, eight cores in the Mini by now. Those holding out for the 2015/2016 Mac Mini quad core might be disappointed. Simpler to bump the speed to get a little more performance at a similar speed increase? Graphics becoming more important?
...Question about HTPC application of the mini...
For that use case would the 1.4 GHz option make more sense so it's not sucking down as much juice?
I am semi tempted by the base model for this reason. Maybe I'm just trying to justify its existence.
For that use case would the 1.4 GHz option make more sense so it's not sucking down as much juice?
I am semi tempted by the base model for this reason. Maybe I'm just trying to justify its existence.