Live data from Hacker News

M4 Mac mini's efficiency

jeffgeerling.com

531–540 of 632 posts

Re: M4 Mac mini's efficiency

#531
post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of people have a relative or something still in education, just buy it through them. It's not like this is government subsidy, just a promotion to increase sales and maybe hope to have long term customer by hooking them at younger age. Probably much less immoral than blocking ads on YouTube.

Failing to block ads is immoral.

Failing to block ads is also bad security practice.

Re: M4 Mac mini's efficiency

#532
post #434
post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't find a Minisforum 790S7 for anywhere near the price of the base model mac mini. I am seeing $459.00 USD and that is "BAREBONE (NO OS/RAM/SSD)" [1]. I am comparing this to the M4 Mac Mini base model, that does indeed come with an OS, RAM, and an SSD[2] at $499 USD. [1] https://store.minisforum.com/products/minisforum-mini-itx-pc... [2] https://www.apple.com/us-edu/shop/buy-mac/mac-mini/apple-m4-...

For the base model, but any upgrade on the Mac will kill that advantage instantly. For those keen enough to solder better parts on it the Mac Mini base model is the worst kind of barebone, filled with components that shouldn't even be produced anymore.

> components that shouldn't even be produced anymore

That's kinda harsh. For what it's worth, the base model isn't that bad and the storage can be (theoretically) upgraded down the road, even though it might cost a fair bit more than a standard m.2 SSD.

Sure, in raw compute it's slower than competition, but objectively it's still plenty fast and more trustworthy in terms of reliability.

Re: M4 Mac mini's efficiency

#533
post #45

“If only they didn't put the power button on the bottom.” While I think Apple was off the rocker on this particular decision, I do respect their org structure that allows this type of decision to occur. Believe me, there are companies where a dozen people or more would weigh in and prevent an unpopular choice. Consensus sometimes hinders a desired result (both good and bad).

It's a way of signaling how the product should be used. Plug it in, hit the power button, put it down, and never turn it off again. For many users that's probably the only time they will ever interact with that button (or want to). I actually think it's a really good choice and shows Apple really understands design. And with the relatively low power consumption it makes sense. It's not like it's drawing a ton of powe…

>It's not like it's drawing a ton of power on idle

The power supply connected to the mains for sure does that.

Re: M4 Mac mini's efficiency

#534

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a way of signaling how the product should be used. Plug it in, hit the power button, put it down, and never turn it off again. For many users that's probably the only time they will ever interact with that button (or want to). I actually think it's a really good choice and shows Apple really understands design. And with the relatively low power consumption it makes sense. It's not like it's drawing a ton of powe…

> It's not like it's drawing a ton of power on idle Probably even drawing less than a "normal" PC PSU would just burn to heat in losses, lol. 3 watts of total idle power consumption, that's nuts how low it is... Your average PC PSU hits up to 95% efficiency, so even at maximum efficiency at full load it would burn like 30 watts.

The quote efficiency on most PSU would be around the half load (more or less). The total system draw does not include the power supply - it will have its own losses esp on low end, still likely in the 80s

Re: M4 Mac mini's efficiency

#535

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a way of signaling how the product should be used. Plug it in, hit the power button, put it down, and never turn it off again. For many users that's probably the only time they will ever interact with that button (or want to). I actually think it's a really good choice and shows Apple really understands design. And with the relatively low power consumption it makes sense. It's not like it's drawing a ton of powe…

Even if it is rarely used there is no benefit of making it hard to access. There is no harm in having an easy-to-access button that is rarely used. I guess someone thinks the astetics are worth it, but even if the power button did notably harm astetics (which I doubt) I would take functionality over astetics any day. If there were two models with different power button placements which one do you think people would b…

Apple makes it difficult to access because they want to make sure you don't use it often, as they believe the experience of waking up the computer from sleep is better than starting it up.

It's a conscious decision based not on design, but on UX, as with the Magic Mouse USB port.

Re: M4 Mac mini's efficiency

#536

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe for a little server or something, but with the hard to upgrade 256GB storage.. I don't get the appeal. Also 16GB of memory is extremely limited these days. Again, perfect for a little server, but not for a daily driver.

The storage is easily upgradable on the new Mac mini as it’s using a standard M2 SSD (a short version) https://youtu.be/cJPXLE9uPr8

Except you have to use proprietary SSDs otherwise soldering is involved. 1/10

Re: M4 Mac mini's efficiency

#537
post #9

I use Linux, but I think the cheapest M4 Mini offers an incredible value and efficiency per €. With education discount, it's around €650, including VAT. It's pretty hard to find such a silent and powerful machine for that little. Any comparable options? A good fanless build with a i3-14100T is more expensive and 40-50% slower on Geekbench. An i5 is a bit closer. Some 2024 Ryzen CPUs can match or exceed its multicore…

[deleted]

Re: M4 Mac mini's efficiency

#539
post #395
post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jobs and Ive had their head scratchers. Like the Magic Mouse with the bottom charging port, or the Cube with all its cables coming in from the bottom.

The GP's same argument also applies to the Magic Mouse, as it happens: > It's a way of signaling how the product should be used. In the Magic Mouse's case, it came out just on the cusp of wireless mice becoming "a thing." Most people, if they were allowed , would have just left the mouse tethered to a computer by its charging cable at all times, since that's what they were used to. But Apple thought you'd be happier…

This is a really interesting view, and I have to admit this actually makes sense. Wireless mice definitely are nicer to use, and you can usually make them charge fast enough that a five minute charge while you take a short break is enough to get you through the day to a proper charge.

I must admit, in light of that logic I can totally buy placing the charge port like that solely to force users to use the mouse correctly.

Re: M4 Mac mini's efficiency

#540
post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe it's not performance-comparable but $284 (BF35 coupon discount from $319 list) for Ryzen 5, 16GB RAM and 1TB SSD [ 1 ] in my mind is a good value trade-off versus the Mac Mini. The only thing that gives me pause is the concern expressed by some that Chinese MiniPCs are susceptible to Bios malware. I've looked into Coreboot, Libreboot and System 76 open firmware to mitigate the risk of infected Minisforum firmwa…

The Minisforum needs an external power brick which probably almosts doubles the size. The Mac Mini does not need any external power adapter which is quite amazing.

An external power adapter means a DC power input, which can be upgraded with a LiIon battery. It’s more expensive to do for AC.

That’s a very nice upgrade in many places, and for many scenarios. A power brick, meanwhile, is easy to hide out of sight.

Post reply on HN