Live data from Hacker News

Mac mini

apple.com

51–60 of 259 posts

Re: Mac mini

#51
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, but a more charitable take is that the high price goes to subsidize macOS development. Having just moved to a Windows 10 shop running on cheapest-possible Dell hotdesking workstations, I’m starting to miss macOS and all its command-spacebar glory!

Try pressing the windows key (granted, it's not as pretty as Spotlight).

This is honestly the thing I miss most while using macOS. The windows key search always seemed to work better than Spotlight.

Re: Mac mini

#52
post #11
post #5

The Mac Minis are still expensive and underwhelming (even when maxed out) when compared with the top of the range NUCs with even AMD GPUs. The Skull and Ghost Canyon NUCs are great for Linux CIs or building large projects or I could even go far to either Hackintosh a few NUCs to surpass the need to buy a Mac Mini anyway for next 5 years. Thanks, but I would skip this Mac Mini and go for the latest maxed out NUC inste…

Are Hackintosh a practical reality? (genuine question)

Depends on what you mean by practical. The software and hardware works (for now, until T2s become required). It allows you to build configurations that Apple does not (and probably will not) ever sell. They are not cost effective if you have a way to turn time into money though. I would not recommend it unless you have lax security & availability requirements and genuinely enjoy low level tinkering with the basic functions of your computer.

Re: Mac mini

#53
post #15

Any music production geeks have a recommendation on whether a relatively maxed out new Mac Mini could be a worthy DAW? Keep in mind I need macOS to use Logic, and don't want the hassle of a Hackintosh.

It should be enough to be suitable for your needs. If it were for being a gaming machine with macOS then a 16-inch MacBook Pro + AMD GPU would be also fine.

For a CI or compiling machine, neither are good enough.

Re: Mac mini

#54
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The performance depends very greatly on the resolution you run the 4K screen at. If you're using a non-evenly scaled resolution (i.e. not exactly 1x or 2x rendering) it's not gonna be fantastic. Running at 'default' 2x my 2018 runs 2x 24" 4Ks without issue - the problem most people have I think is that they buy much larger displays and then want to use a higher rendered resolution, which is where the iGPU will strugg…

Isn't "4K" the resolution??

Yes, but since you can get 4k on everything from 24" to 84" you'll want to choose between more space or bigger fonts depending on the setting. macOS can do 'fractional scaling' when the integer scaling isn't to your preference, but the implementation works by rendering to a much higher resolution internally and then scaling down which needs a beefy GPU to run without noticeably overhead.

Re: Mac mini

#55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The performance depends very greatly on the resolution you run the 4K screen at. If you're using a non-evenly scaled resolution (i.e. not exactly 1x or 2x rendering) it's not gonna be fantastic. Running at 'default' 2x my 2018 runs 2x 24" 4Ks without issue - the problem most people have I think is that they buy much larger displays and then want to use a higher rendered resolution, which is where the iGPU will strugg…

> the problem most people have I think is that they buy much larger displays and then want to use a higher rendered resolution I'm not going to buy a 4k screen with the intention of running it at 1080p. There are plenty of large 1080p screens out there. If I buy a 4k screen it's because I want to run it at 4k.

I'm using a 4k display on a mac mini, but I've got it set halfway between the 'larger text' (1080p x2) and 'more space' (4k with no pixel doubling).

This doesn't mean I'm running it at a lower resolution - behind the scenes, the mac is actually rendering the display at 6016x3384 and then smoothly scaling it down to the native 4k of 3840x2160.

Because it's having to draw everything at a higher resolution than the actual screen, performance does take a hit, but I find everything still works perfectly smoothly and responsive (just don't try playing games at this resolution on the mac mini!)

Re: Mac mini

#56
post #5

The Mac Minis are still expensive and underwhelming (even when maxed out) when compared with the top of the range NUCs with even AMD GPUs. The Skull and Ghost Canyon NUCs are great for Linux CIs or building large projects or I could even go far to either Hackintosh a few NUCs to surpass the need to buy a Mac Mini anyway for next 5 years. Thanks, but I would skip this Mac Mini and go for the latest maxed out NUC inste…

True, but a more charitable take is that the high price goes to subsidize macOS development. Having just moved to a Windows 10 shop running on cheapest-possible Dell hotdesking workstations, I’m starting to miss macOS and all its command-spacebar glory!

Have used mac for many years. Never miss spotlight on Linux or Windows. First, you do have that functionality if you need it. Second, the spotlight indexing takes a non-trivial amount of CPU time and is honestly annoying when I need the juice to finish a render or compile code. My guess is you're just suffering from "unfamiliarity" syndrome.

Re: Mac mini

#57

Still no real GPU. It's the reason I went back to a MacBook. What drew me in is the desktop class i7. At the time the Mini outperformed all other Macs in benchmarks, and it is noticeable and fast during compile times etc. Once you connect a 4k Screen (or even more screens), an eGPU becomes a must have. The integrated one just can't do smooth UI rendering. For example typing in IntelliJ always felt laggy, because it t…

Mac Mini doesn't need a real GPU in my opinion -- what they need is a mid-level desktop that accepts a real GPU. $1000 - $1500 with decent specs. But, we know they won't move into that space.

You can get a new Mac Mini and a Thunderbolt 3 eGPU for $1500 or less.

Re: Mac mini

#58
post #6

Only up to 6-core 8th generation CPUs, and it looks like the base 6-core SKU is the i5-8500, which doesn’t have Hyperthreading. Ouch. It’s such a shame that’s the best Intel can do in that thermal envelope. AMD is about to ship Ryzen 4000 mobile chips with lower TDP, great integrated graphics, higher clock speeds and more cores. It would have worked fine in the Mac mini. Imagine how good the desktop APUs will be when…

>> Imagine how good the desktop APUs will be when those come out. I'm starting to think there won't be any more desktop APUs. The next logical step would be an 8 core CPU with better GPU than the 3400G. That would be good enough desktop for a huge swath of the market and might kill sales of higher end chips. I use a 2400G for software development. It's the fastest cpu I've ever owned. It runs a 4k desktop, 4k video,…

I'd love to see a 4800G chip with 8 cores, 20-30 CUs, and 16/32GB onboard HBM2 unified memory in the $400/600 range (depending on RAM).

Re: Mac mini

#59
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

more than easily. Fantastic albums have been made with way less CPU / Mem grunt than these new Mac minis.

Some of them without any CPU horsepower at all! (I jest, I know what you mean. I made one with pretty much just an iPhone although it's definitely not fantastic.)

Steve Lacy recorded his entire debut album on his iPhone into Garageband, and it's definitely fantastic.

Re: Mac mini

#60
post #54
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't "4K" the resolution??

Yes, but since you can get 4k on everything from 24" to 84" you'll want to choose between more space or bigger fonts depending on the setting. macOS can do 'fractional scaling' when the integer scaling isn't to your preference, but the implementation works by rendering to a much higher resolution internally and then scaling down which needs a beefy GPU to run without noticeably overhead.

Anything bigger than 24" or so and the blurriness gets bad. The pixel density just isn't quite there.
Post reply on HN