Live data from Hacker News

Apple Mac Mini

apple.com

41–50 of 134 posts

Re: Apple Mac Mini

#42

I seriously do not understand how can it ship with a 500GB 5400rpm drive by default. This gives such poor experience to the user that Apple should have opted for all-ssd approach two generations ago. Very disappointed by that.

Agree - a 128gb ssd would have been better than that and cost roughly the same.

Better for some uses... one of the major use cases for the mini is for media storage or file sharing, in which case I'd gladly trade speed for space.

Re: Apple Mac Mini

#43
post #21

I'm slightly bummed that I can't get SSD on their starting model, and have to force myself to a fusion drive if I want to do better than hard drive.

taking real offense that to get the option to have more than 256g SSD you have to buy the 999; top level; mini first? You cannot even buy a SSD on the 499 entry model, you first have to step up to the 699.

Really Apple. I was looking forward to new SSD minis for the parents, but 699+200 is a bit a much.

Re: Apple Mac Mini

#45

Did I miss something, or does maxing out the CPU and the RAM on the mid-level model get you the same specs as a maxed-out high-end model for $200 cheaper?

Have you configured the same drive in each? The Fusion Drive that comes standard in the high-end model is a $200 upgrade in the mid-level model.

Re: Apple Mac Mini

#46

Did I miss something, or does maxing out the CPU and the RAM on the mid-level model get you the same specs as a maxed-out high-end model for $200 cheaper?

You're missing the Fusion drive, which is standard on the high-end and $200 extra on the mid-level.

Re: Apple Mac Mini

#47
The $699 model + the SSD upgrade sums up to a whooping $899.

I like the form-faktor and all, but really, with 900 bucks i am sticking to my custom ITX builds

Re: Apple Mac Mini

#48
post #47

The $699 model + the SSD upgrade sums up to a whooping $899. I like the form-faktor and all, but really, with 900 bucks i am sticking to my custom ITX builds

Yes, that's long been the obvious stupidity in Apple's Mac line: the lack of a mini-tower. Mini-towers let you stick in a full power desktop CPU and as much disk space as you want.

Moreover, they dropped the expandable Mac Pro in favor of the new trashcan model which cannot be expanded -- except using thunderbolt which is just not as cheap as a drive bay.

That said, they're probably doing the right thing. The people who want the ITX build are hackers like us, and we just aren't that common.

Re: Apple Mac Mini

#49
post #14

So correct me if I'm wrong, but they appear to have done the same thing with the Mac Mini to achieve the lower price point as they did with the iMac earlier this year, by introducing a 1.4Ghz i5 model? I don't recall the base Mac Mini being as weak before...

Wow, that's quite the downgrade. What's the logic here? To save energy to keep it fanless? Or is this cost-cutting?

Perhaps it is just that modern CPUs are powerful enough that even the low-end ones are now Good Enough for most people. There have always been cheaper CPUs available; Apple just avoided them in favor of a better experience.

Re: Apple Mac Mini

#50
post #14

So correct me if I'm wrong, but they appear to have done the same thing with the Mac Mini to achieve the lower price point as they did with the iMac earlier this year, by introducing a 1.4Ghz i5 model? I don't recall the base Mac Mini being as weak before...

Correct. Yesterday a the entry Mac Mini was $599 and had a 2.5GHz dual-core i5 with 4GB of RAM.

I hate the Intel nomenclature break on mobile vs desktop. On desktops, Celeron is dual core, i3 is dual core with hyperthreading, i5 is quad core, and i7 is quad core with hyperthreading. On the other front, they mix random clock values and core counts across skews so you never know if your i7 is a quad core with hyperthreading (4750Q for example) or a low power dual core (4700U) because there the suffixes on the parts number dictate core counts and such.
Post reply on HN