Oh Boy! The Mac mini is becoming a Real Mess
Hey there! Let me tell you about the hot potato that is the new Mac mini. I gotta be honest, it’s not looking good. It’s turning out to be quite a disaster, and I’m here to spill the beans.
So, here’s the deal. The Mac mini used to be a real champion, a dependable little computer that could fit in the palm of your hand. But the latest version? Well, it’s a whole different story.
First things first, this new Mac mini is giving us some major headaches. It’s just not living up to its promises. I mean, come on, Apple! What were you thinking?
The performance of this thing is a real letdown. It’s slower than a turtle on a leisurely stroll. I thought technology was supposed to be getting faster, not slower. But here we are, stuck with a snail’s pace.
And don’t even get me started on the design. It’s like someone took a step back in time and decided to bring back the chunky, clunky look. It’s not exactly pleasing to the eye, if you catch my drift.
But wait, there’s more! The Mac mini is also giving us some serious compatibility issues. It’s like it’s allergic to everything. It can’t seem to work well with other devices, making it a real pain to integrate into your tech setup.
I gotta hand it to Apple, though. They’re really good at finding new ways to drain your wallet. This new and improved disaster comes with a hefty price tag, and it’s not even worth the money. Talk about a rip-off!
But hey, I’m just here to give you the scoop. In my opinion, the new Mac mini is a train wreck waiting to happen. Maybe it’s time to consider other options, my friend. There are plenty of fish in the sea, or should I say, computers on the market.
I’ve been anxiously awaiting an update for the Mac mini, and when Apple unveiled the 2014 Mac mini at the iPad event in October, it was like a breath of fresh air. Finally, right? The new version looked pretty similar to the old one, so it was hard to understand why it took Apple so long to release it. But at least now the Mac mini could get all the “new” features that other Macs have had for over a year – like PCIe-based flash storage, Haswell processors, and 802.11ac Wi-Fi. And to top it off, Apple also lowered the entry level price by $100, bringing it back to the original, significant $499.
Unfortunately, the excitement didn’t last long. It turns out that Apple had soldered the RAM in the new Mac minis, which means that customers can no longer upgrade their memory after they purchase the computer. So, if you want the maximum 16GB of RAM, you’ll have to pay an extra $300, and you won’t have the option to find a cheaper third-party alternative or upgrade later on if memory prices drop.
The 2012 Mac mini had an easy way to upgrade its RAM. Lee Hutchinson from Ars Technica wrote an article about it.
The memory upgrade situation is made worse by Apple’s choice of CPUs. Yes, they’re using Haswell, but they’re not as fast as the 2-year-old Ivy Bridge processors. The 2012 Mac mini had options for both dual-core and quad-core CPUs, but the new 2014 models only have dual-core CPUs. Even with the efficiency improvements in Haswell, it can’t make up for the loss of those extra cores.
Going Backwards
So, what does this mean? At best, it means only small improvements for some models – certainly less than what most people would expect from a system as old as the 2012 Mac mini. At worst, it means a significant drop in performance, with some 2012 configurations completely outperforming their 2014 counterparts in multi-core tasks.
Apple chose to use underpowered Haswell chips in the new 2014 models, and there doesn’t seem to be any good reason for it.
According to Primate Labs, the creators of the Geekbench tool, the 2014 Mac mini has about an 11% boost in single-core performance compared to the 2012 model in some cases. However, the top-end models for each year show a staggering 40% decrease in performance for the 2014 model. No wonder Apple hides the Mac mini on the second page of its online store.
Here’s a quick comparison of the performance difference between the 2012 and 2014 models, based on the best verified 64-bit Geekbench score. Let’s start with single-core improvements using these specifications:
- Entry Level: 2.5GHz i5-3210M (2012) vs. 1.4GHz i5-4260U (2014)
- Mid Range: 2.3GHz i7-3615QM (2012) vs. 2.6GHz i5-4278U (2014)
- High End: 2.6GHz i7-3720QM (2012) vs. 3.0GHz i7-4578U (2014)
Single-core performance does improve, but not by much. Only the high-end configuration sees a modest 11% improvement. Now let’s look at multi-core performance, where things get ugly:
Ouch. If you were waiting for a new Mac mini to replace your mid-range editing or production workstation, or if you just wanted a new mini that can encode home movies in iMovie faster, then you’re out of luck. Apple opted for underpowered Haswell chips in the new 2014 models, and there doesn’t seem to be any good reason for it.
Apple executives, including the late Steve Jobs, used to always tell their audience that the new Mac-whatever was “the fastest Mac-whatever yet.” And every time I heard that, I would think to myself, “No kidding. I mean, if you release a new iMac or Mac Pro that’s slower than the previous one, you’ve made a serious mistake!”
Of course, there are some cases where a decrease in performance from one model to the next isn’t necessarily a bad thing. The trade-off between performance and battery life is a perfect example. In fact, Apple has made great improvements in terms of battery life for their MacBook line, sometimes at the expense of performance over the years.
However, the Mac mini is a desktop, and power consumption isn’t as important as it is for portable devices. Even with a decrease in idle power usage, the 2012 Mac mini was already one of the most energy-efficient desktop computers on the market. Is such a significant loss in performance worth saving just a few watts at idle?
Who Would Buy This Thing?
Okay, I’ve been pretty tough on the 2014 Mac mini so far, and while I think it’s a terrible deal for most users, there are still a few reasons why a new 2014 model might make sense over a used 2012-era mini.
Graphics: If you plan to use your Mac mini for gaming or computational work that relies on the GPU, the 2014 mini will offer better performance. The exact numbers vary depending on the task, but you can expect the Intel HD 5000 or Iris 5100 GPUs in the 2014 Mac mini to outperform the Intel HD 4000 GPU in the 2012 model by anywhere between 15% and 80%.
Stay Connected: How you stay connected is crucial, and the 2014 Mac mini has got you covered. It offers new and improved connectivity options that the 2012 model doesn’t have. With its 802.11ac Wi-Fi and two Thunderbolt 2 ports, you’ll have faster and more reliable wireless internet and the ability to connect multiple devices seamlessly. Now, I know what you’re thinking – what about FireWire 800? Sadly, Apple has bid farewell to FireWire, and it’s no longer part of their product lineup. But don’t worry, you can still make it work. Just use one of those Thunderbolt ports with a FireWire adapter or a FireWire-enabled dock, and you’re good to go. It’s all about finding solutions, my friend.
Storage Speed: When it comes to storage speed, there’s a noticeable difference between the 2012 Mac mini and the 2014 model. The 2014 Mac mini with its PCIe-based flash storage offers significant performance gains compared to its predecessor. The solid state storage on the 2014 mini is about 60 percent faster for reading data, and 50 percent faster for writing data, thanks to it not being limited by the SATA interface bandwidth.
Energy Efficiency: Energy efficiency might not be a big deal for most users, but it’s worth noting that the 2014 Mac mini consumes half the power at idle compared to the 2012 model. Although the 2012 model was already doing quite well at 10 watts of power usage at idle, the 2014 model’s usage of only about 5 watts seems significant in comparison.
To give you an idea of the energy efficiency benefits, let’s imagine a scenario where your future Mac mini will be idle for 16 hours a day. This isn’t unrealistic since the system has idle periods even when you’re using it. With the average energy cost in the United States at about 12 cents per kilowatt hour, the 2014 Mac mini’s 5 watts of savings at idle translates to about $3.49 in energy savings per year. Even if we consider the highest energy cost of 36 cents per kilowatt hour, you’re still only looking at a total of $10.48 in energy costs for the entire year. So, unless you’re a passionate environmentalist, these energy efficiency improvements are likely to go unnoticed by most people.
A Holding Pattern?
Some users might find value in the advantages offered by the 2014 Mac mini, despite the fact that they are relatively minor. However, there remain questions regarding the new model’s underpowered components and the delay in its release. Apple took nearly two years – 723 days to be precise – to update the Mac mini, yet there are no significant changes to the product that justify such a long wait. So, why did it take so long to release a product that is arguably mediocre?
The most plausible explanation is that the Mac mini is simply not a priority for Apple. Those of us who are fans of the mini, myself included, appreciate its versatility, but Apple seems to be more focused on gadgets, consumer electronics, wearables, and even fashion. It’s unlikely that the company will abandon the Mac anytime soon, but it’s also unlikely that they will invest substantial resources in a small part of their business. Instead, their attention is directed towards more exciting, higher-profile, and higher-margin products like the new iMac with Retina 5K Display.
But here’s another theory: I think Apple is working on something really big for the Mac mini, but they just couldn’t finish it in time for this year’s release. So, instead of leaving customers frustrated and embarrassing themselves by keeping a two-year-old computer on the market, Apple quickly put together a component upgrade that was as cheap as possible.
Before the 2014 update, there were a lot of rumors about what this “something big” could be. Some people think the next Mac mini could be a test platform for Apple’s possible shift to ARM-based processors. Others think it could be part of Apple’s plan for home automation, where it would combine with the Apple TV and AirPort Express to become a hub for entertainment and home control.
A Bit of a Letdown
If I had to guess, I would stick with the first theory. I wouldn’t be surprised if Apple starts phasing out the Mac mini in the next few years. The company’s mobile lineup is getting more and more complex, and it would make sense for them to simplify the less profitable and popular parts of their business.
But that strategy leaves Mac mini fans out in the cold. The 2014 Mac mini is still the cheapest way to get a Mac, and it can handle basic day-to-day tasks just fine, even though its multi-core performance isn’t as good as it used to be.
The Mac mini used to have the potential to be really powerful in the past few generations. Maybe not the base model, but if you wanted a more powerful Mac at a relatively affordable price, you could upgrade it. But now, with the underpowered processors in the 2014 Mac mini, if you want to upgrade, you either have to try finding a used 2012 model or spend a lot more money on an iMac or Mac Pro. It’s a really disappointing situation for dedicated Mac mini fans, but maybe it’s time to move on.
Will a Verizon iPhone 5S Work With Boost Mobile?
My Thoughts on “The New Mac mini is Quickly Turning into a Disaster”
Jonathan Klemm says:
What Apple should have done is get rid of the DDR3 memory and replace it with DDR4 memory that can support 32GB of memory. They should have used SO-DIMMs for memory to improve graphics, while still using the same hard drive disks or including a regular 2.5-inch hard drive along with an M.2 SSD drive. It was just stupid to solder the memory in. There would have been plenty of people willing to trade in their old 2012 and older Mac minis, but Apple didn’t care. I’m starting to consider switching to Linux or maybe even investigating the Windows-X platforms.
Enter Ranting says:
Apple – the disappointment company.
Dan Wolfie says:
I’m glad I decided to go with a used 2012 2.3 GHz quad-core i7 Mac mini that only cost me $500. It’s a very fast and powerful computer for a mini!
Mark Potochnik says:
I upgraded my 2012 mini, which was starting to slow down, by installing more memory and an SSD. Now it’s running great and I’m very happy with it. It just works. I don’t want a PC at all. No complaints here. My son is using a 2008 mini and it works perfectly fine too. Both of them have SSDs and full memory. Maybe it’s better not to know any better. But I’m happy. I bought the mini for $500 and didn’t add anything except for a display, mouse, and keyboard.
Stan Goodvibes says:
If you regret buying a Mac mini, don’t worry – at least you didn’t buy an Intel NUC, which is even worse no matter how bad the Mac mini is.
Really? I have two NUCs and a mid-range (2014) Mac Mini, and the NUCs are way better than the Mac mini. In fact, I use an i7 NUC as my main desktop computer, and the Mac mini is now just for streaming football once a week. The Mac mini is painfully slow compared to the NUCs. It takes forever for the Mac mini to do anything useful, and it always gives me that spinning beach ball. I won’t be buying another Mac mini. I bought this one to replace a 2007 mini that served me well for years until it couldn’t support the new OSX updates anymore.
Frustrated Dev says:
Sorry, but everything Apple makes is overpriced. If you compare the prices of a Mac to a similarly equipped PC, the PC wins every time and costs about half as much as the Mac. Stop blindly following Apple.
