Top spec mac Mini as a workstation?

Hi,
My studio needs to replace two old G5's and i would like to know how a couple of maxed out mac Minis would perform. I'm thinking of these owing to the massive price of two Mac Pros and also because we already have monitors. The spec i am thinking of is 2.66ghz, 500gb and 8gb ram. We can't have iMacs as due to already having screens and our designers don't like the glossy screens. Also what would we need to run two monitors of each Mac mini? We would be using Photoshop, AVA (like Photoshop), printing large images to 24" printers, occasional illustrator work and general Office 2008 work.
Question is i can buy one Mac Pro now and wait till, next year for the second but this would leave our studio a quarter Power PC and three quarters intel. All our other Macs are intel with the exception of the two G5's.
What is my best option and will the Minis be up to the task?

I think you would be more than happy with the minis. I really do.
I have been using a C2D 2.4 ghz macbook pro I bought in late 2007. It replaced my 2.66 Mac Pro back at the time. I run the full Creative Suite CS4 on this. There has really never been a moment that I wished it had more power.
I recently bought a new mini, put 4 gigs of ram in it and have been using it as a music workstation. Same 2.4 processor, but some slightly newer bits inside (but actually, a slower 5400 drive than my macbook pro). It feels very fast.
Now, 2 weeks ago I bought a dual 2.3ghz G5 tower from a local source. Got a deal. I bought it to use for my music workstation, and was going to move the new mini somewhere else.
However, as powerful as a dual G5 was, when I opened the same Logic Audio songs on the Mini and G5, the mini used WAY less cpu meters than the G5. It wasn't even close. It really blew me away. The C2D 2.4ghz may not be the current state of the art, but seriously, with 8 gigs of ram and a proper 7200 RPM internal drive, it will run circles around the G5.
For $1K (700 for mini, $120 for 8 gigs ram at OWC, and if your brave, $100 for a 7200 internal) you will have a very capable machine for what you do.
If you can buy a few years with them, then sell them you'll be ahead of the game. The resell on mini's is extremely high, even older G4 minis get a few hundred bucks.
So, I'm with you 100%. I would love another MacPro. But after ram, tax, etc, $3K for a low end one new is crazy. Refurbs are great, but they aren't that much cheaper.
Grab two mini's, load them up, and run.
Oh, I'm totally with you on the iMacs. Perfect compromise on cost/performance, but no way am I going back to a glossy screen like that. Just not going to happen.

Similar Messages

Understanding Specs: Mac Mini

First, let me apologize if this is the wrong thread; I am new to these forums.
I am currently using a MacBook as my primary computer (2.4 GHz / 2GB DDR2), and I am looking to purchase a new (or new to me) Mac Mini to use instead. Don't get me wrong - I love my MacBook, but I play a lot of games (WoW particularly = hot Mac), edit a lot of video and music, etc., basically I demand that my CPU runs hot probably more than I should and I feel I am flirting with death.
At any rate, I have been shopping around/using everymac and I'm noticing that a lot of the newer models sport processors in the neighborhood of 2.26-2.53, and the RAM is somewhere around the 2GB range. Even the newest Mac Minis on the retail store site are (standard) 2.4 GHz / 2GB (albeit DDR3) RAM. I understand that the mini is a small form factor computer built with a lot of laptop engineering, but I was hoping to buy a desktop that would at least moderately outperform my 2-year old laptop.
Am I misunderstanding specs as they relate to performance? Can I save some cash buying a used (previous gen) 2.26-2.53 GHz 2GB DDR3 Mac Mini? Or would a new Mac Mini with a 2.4 GHz processor, but 2 GB of DDR3 RAM completely blow away my early 2008 MacBook (4,1)? (i.e. is the newer one simply more expensive because of the unibody construction/design, etc.?)
...or should I just forget all that and buy an iMac (3.06 GHz / 4GB)?

I replaced a 2GHz C2D MacBook 2,1 from 2006 with 3GB RAM with a Mac mini 2.66GHz with 8GB RAM and the new certainly "moderately outperforms" the old in general responsiveness and the speed at which I can run multiple virtual machines and apps which were previously irritatingly slow e.g. Office 2008. I don't play games however.
It's also silent, compact and allows me to use my two existing *non glossy* displays. The otherwise perfectly usable MacBook is now free for use around the house and on trips.

Connect Foxtel box top to Mac Mini

I want to buy a Mac Mini and a 30" apple display screen but only if i can connect my foxtel box top thingo to it, simply because i want make the Mac mini and Display my new TV. is this possible? if not, would i be better off getting apple tv??

answer is no i read on some other forums that i would have to get a normal TV and connect the mini via HDMI and all the other gear to the back of the TV

Is the current top line Mac Mini with an SSD and 16GB RAM up to PS CS6 and LR5?

I currently have a 2007 MacPro 2007 2.66GH Xeon dual core ( 4 cores ) with 9GB RAM.
I had been thinking of the new MacPro but it will probably be hellishly expensive. I was thinking of getting a top of the line Mac Mini with 16GB RAM and an SSD and using USB 3.0 and Thunderbolt to run most of my programs and data storage externally. I use LR5 and PS CS6.
I was just wondering if the latest Mac Mini was up to the taks with 2-4 GB files and multiple layers? How well do this little guys hold up? I know that the power supply is now internal. Do they run cool enough.... even with an SSD?
Any Mini users out there care to chime in?

Well, the big drawback on the Minis is Intel integrated Graphics.
iMacs & Minis run far too hot in my Opinion, Apple likely tested them in a 68° F. air conditioned room.
I myself would be looking into an older iMac, or Widows PC!
iMac "Core i5" 2.5 21.5-Inch (Mid-2011)... Geekbench: 7241/7970
iMac "Core i5" 2.7 27-Inch (Mid-2011)... Geekbench: 7844/8565
iMac "Core i5" 2.7 21.5-Inch (Mid-2011)... Geekbench: 7890/8647
iMac "Core i7" 2.8 21.5-Inch (Mid-2011)... Geekbench: 10248/10690
Mac Pro "Quad Core" 2.66 (2009/Nehalem)... Geekbench: 8269/9237
iMac "Core i5" 2.9 27-Inch (Late 2012)... Geekbench: 9225/10271
Mac Pro "Eight Core" 2.8 (2008)... Geekbench: 9162/10564
Mac Pro "Quad Core" 3.2 (2010/Nehalem).. Geekbench: 9850/10440
MacBook Pro "Core i7" 2.5 27" Late 2011... Geekbench: 10706/11699
Mac mini "Core i7" 2.6 (Late 2012)... Geekbench: 11367/12807
iMac "Core i7" 3.4 27-Inch (Mid-2011)... Geekbench: 11648/12651
Mac Pro "Eight Core" 2.26 (2009/Nehalem)... Geekbench: 11864/13363
Mac Pro "Eight Core" 2.66 (2009/Nehalem)... Geekbench: 14317/16093
Mac Pro "Eight Core" 2.93 (2009/Nehalem)... Geekbench: 15572/17619
Mac Pro "Twelve Core" 2.66 (2010/Westmere)... Geekbench: 20294/22605
iMac "Core i5" 2.7 21.5-Inch (Late 2012)... Geekbench: 8068/9145
Mac mini "Core i7" 2.3 (Late 2012)... Geekbench: 10626/11825
iMac "Core i7" 3.1 21.5-Inch (Late 2012)... Geekbench: 12490/14143
iMac "Core i7" 3.4 27-Inch (Mid-2011)... Geekbench: 11648/12651... Geekbench: 12857/13772

Good Spec Mac Mini got painfully slow

Hi All
Following reading posts on this forum, I have upgraded my 2011 Mac Mini from 4gb to 8gb Memory, but it is still painfully slow, with the spinning beach ball always in play.
I now have a Core i7, 2.7ghz Mac Mini, with 8GB DDR3 memory, 500 mb disc (with 300gb free), running OSX 10.9.1. I run Microsoft office and Iphoto and thats pretty much it, but even using Iphoto can take seconds for ecah photo to move, and typing emails often means waiting for the text to catch up with my typing.
In my frustration I copied everything off, re formatted the hard disc, and re installed everything, but its still the same speed. The Activity monitor shows very little CPU activity, although the memory shows as 7.87GB used out of 8GB, not sure if that is normal.
Any ideas would be really welcome, as its getting very frustrating to use, when I first purchased the MAC mini it was blindingly fast on everything.
Thanks
Martyn

If you don't already have a current backup, back up all data before doing anything else. This procedure is a diagnostic test. It changes nothing, for better or worse, and therefore will not, in itself, solve your problem. The backup is necessary on general principle, not because of anything suggested in this comment. There are ways to back up a computer that isn't fully functional. Ask if you need guidance.
Third-party system modifications are a common cause of usability problems. By a “system modification,” I mean software that affects the operation of other software — potentially for the worse. The procedure will help identify which such modifications you've installed, as well as some other aspects of the configuration that may be related to the problem.
Don’t be alarmed by the seeming complexity of these instructions — they’re easy to carry out. Here's a brief summary: In each of two steps, you copy a line of text from this web page into a window in another application. You wait about a minute. Then you paste some other text, which will have been copied automatically, back into a reply on this page. The sequence is copy; paste; paste again. That's all there is to it. Details follow.
You may have started the computer in "safe" mode. Preferably, these steps should be taken while booted in “normal” mode. If the system is now running in safe mode and is bootable in normal mode, reboot as usual. If it only boots in safe mode, use that.
Below are instructions to enter UNIX shell commands. They do nothing but produce human-readable output. However, you need to think carefully before running any program at the behest of a stranger on a public message board. If you question the safety of the procedure suggested here — which you should — search this site for other discussions in which it’s been followed without any report of ill effects. If you can't satisfy yourself that these instructions are safe, don't follow them.
The commands will line-wrap or scroll in your browser, but each one is really just a single long line, all of which must be selected. You can accomplish this easily by triple-clicking anywhere in the line. The whole line will highlight, and you can then copy it.
If you have more than one user account, Step 2 must be taken as an administrator. Ordinarily that would be the user created automatically when you booted the system for the first time. Step 1 should be taken as the user who has the problem, if different. Most personal Macs have only one user, and in that case this paragraph doesn’t apply.
Launch the Terminal application in any of the following ways:
☞ Enter the first few letters of its name into a Spotlight search. Select it in the results (it should be at the top.)
☞ In the Finder, select Go ▹ Utilities from the menu bar, or press the key combination shift-command-U. The application is in the folder that opens.
☞ Open LaunchPad. Click Utilities, then Terminal in the icon grid.
When you launch Terminal, a text window will open with a line already in it, ending either in a dollar sign (“$”) or a percent sign (“%”). If you get the percent sign, enter “sh” and press return. You should then get a new line ending in a dollar sign.
Step 1
Triple-click anywhere in the line of text below on this page to select it:
PB=/usr/libexec/PlistBuddy; PR () { [[ "$o" ]] && o=$(sed 's/^/   /' <<< "$o") && printf '\n%s:\n\n%s\n' "$1" "$o"; }; PC () { o=$(grep [^[:blank:]] "$2"); PR "$1"; }; PF () { o=$($PB -c Print "$2" | awk -F'= ' \/$3'/{print $2}'); PR "$1"; }; PN () { [[ $o -eq 0 ]] || printf "\n%s: %s\n" "$1" $o; }; { system_profiler SPSoftwareDataType | sed '8!d;s/^ *//'; o=$(system_profiler SPDiagnosticsDataType | sed '5,6!d'); fgrep -q P <<< "$o" && o=; PR "POST"; o=$(($(vm_stat | awk '/Pageo/{sub("\\.",""); print $2}')/256)); o=$((o>=1024?o:0)); PN "Pageouts (MiB)"; s=( $(sar -u 1 10 | sed '$!d') ); [[ ${s[4]} -lt 90 ]] && o=$( printf 'User %s%%\t\tSystem %s%%' ${s[1]} ${s[3]} ) || o=; PR "Total CPU usage"; [[ "$o" ]] && o=$(ps acrx -o comm,ruid,%cpu | sed '2!d'); PR "Max %CPU by process (name, UID, %)"; o=$(kextstat -kl | grep -v com\\.apple | cut -c53- | cut -d\< -f1); PR "Loaded extrinsic kernel extensions"; o=$(launchctl list | sed 1d | awk '!/0x|com\.apple|org\.(x|openbsd)|\.[0-9]+$/{print $3}'); PR "Loaded extrinsic user agents"; o=$(launchctl getenv DYLD_INSERT_LIBRARIES); PR "Inserted libraries"; PC "cron configuration" /e*/cron*; o=$(crontab -l | grep [^[:blank:]]); PR "User cron tasks"; PC "Global launchd configuration" /e*/lau*; PC "Per-user launchd configuration" ~/.lau*; PF "Global login items" /L*/P*/loginw* Path; PF "Per-user login items" L*/P*/*loginit* Name; PF "Safari extensions" L*/Saf*/*/E*.plist Bundle | sed 's/\..*$//;s/-[1-9]$//'; o=$(find ~ $TMPDIR.. $ -flags +sappnd,schg,uappnd,uchg -o ! -user $UID -o ! -perm -600 $ | wc -l); PN "Restricted user files"; cd; o=$(find -L /S*/L*/E* {,/}L*/{A*d,Compon,Ex,In,Keyb,Mail/Bu,P*P,Qu,Scripti,Servi,Spo}* -type d -name Contents -prune | while read d; do ID=$($PB -c 'Print :CFBundleIdentifier' "$d/Info.plist") || ID=; ID=${ID:-No bundle ID}; egrep -qv "^com\.apple\.[^x]|Accusys|ArcMSR|ATTO|HDPro|HighPoint|driver\.stex|hp-fax|JMicron|microsoft\.MDI|print|SoftRAID" <<< $ID && printf '%s\n\t(%s)\n' "${d%/Contents}" "$ID"; done); PR "Extrinsic loadable bundles"; o=$(find /u*/{,*/}lib -type f -exec sh -c 'file -b "$1" | grep -qw shared && ! codesign -v "$1"' {} {} \; -print); PR "Unsigned shared libraries"; o=$(system_profiler SPFontsDataType | egrep "Valid: N|Duplicate: Y" | wc -l); PN "Font problems"; for d in {,/}L*/{La,Priv,Sta}*; do o=$(ls -A "$d"); PR "$d"; done; } 2> /dev/null | pbcopy; echo $'\nStep 1 done'
Copy the selected text to the Clipboard by pressing the key combination command-C. Then click anywhere in the Terminal window and paste (command-V). I've tested these instructions only with the Safari web browser. If you use another browser, you may have to press the return key after pasting.
The command may take up to a few minutes to run, depending on how many files you have and the speed of the computer. Wait for the line "Step 1 done" to appear below what you entered. The output of the command will beautomatically copied to the Clipboard. All you have to do is paste into a reply to this message by pressing command-Vagain. Please don't copy anything from the Terminal window. No typing is involved in this step.
Step 2
Remember that you must be logged in as an administrator for this step. Do as in Step 1 with this line:
PR () { [[ "$o" ]] && o=$(sed 's/^/   /' <<< "$o") && printf '\n%s:\n\n%s\n' "$1" "$o"; }; { o=$(sudo launchctl list | sed 1d | awk '!/0x|com\.(apple|openssh|vix\.cron)|org\.(amav|apac|calendarse|cups|dove|isc|ntp|post[fg]|x)/{print $3}'); PR "Loaded extrinsic daemons"; o=$(sudo defaults read com.apple.loginwindow LoginHook); PR "Login hook"; o=$(sudo crontab -l | grep [^[:blank:]]); PR "Root cron tasks"; o=$(syslog -k Sender kernel -k Message CReq 'GPU |hfs: Ru|I/O e|find tok|n Cause: -|NVDA\(|pagin|timed? ?o' | tail -n25 | awk '/:/{$4=""; print}'); PR "Log check"; } 2>&- | pbcopy; echo $'\nStep 2 done'
This time you'll be prompted for your login password, which you do have to type. Nothing will be displayed when you type it. Type it carefully and then press return. You may get a one-time warning to be careful. Heed that warning, but don't post it. If you see a message that your username "is not in the sudoers file," then you're not logged in as an administrator.
You can then quit Terminal. Please note:
☞ Steps 1 and 2 are all copy-and-paste — type only your login password when prompted.
☞ When you type your password, you won't see what you're typing.
☞ If you don’t have a password, set one before taking Step 2. If that’s not possible, skip the step.
☞ Step 2 might not produce any output, in which case the Clipboard will be empty. Step 1 will always produce something.
☞ The commands don't change anything, and merely running them will do neither good nor harm.
☞ Remember to post the output of both steps (unless you had to skip Step 2.) It's already in the Clipboard after you complete each step. You don't have to copy it. Just paste into a reply
☞ If any personal information, such as your name or email address, appears in the output of either command, anonymize it before posting. Usually that won't be necessary.
☞ Don't post what you see in the Terminal window. The output is copied automatically to the Clipboard.
☞ Don't paste the output of Step 1 into the Terminal window. Paste it into a reply.

What spec Mac Mini would you recommend for running XCode 4?

Our organisation is starting to develop apps for IOS and the first step is purchasing a Mac to run XCode 4 on.
We are on a budget and the Mac Mini is within our price range but after some initial research we are concerned that we would need more RAM in order to run XCode 4 comfortably.
Below is the spec of the Mac Mini we are considering using:
2.3GHz dual-core Intel Core i5
2GB memory
500GB hard drive
Intel HD Graphics 3000
OS X Lion
Just wondering what people use to run XCode 4 and how happy they are with the performance.
Many Thanks
Richard

If your development will be iOS apps, the base model
should be more than sufficient provided you bump
up to at least 4 gig RAM, preferably 8. However,
don't purchase the RAM from Apple as it is way over
priced. Go to Newegg or OWC to purchase it.
If the app requires some signifigant graphics development
and need to use image processing software to create them,
I would suggest bumping up to the next model with the
discrete graphics chip.

High Spec Mac Mini v Macbook

I want a Mac with 1GB Ram/DVD RW and about 120GB HD
The Mini comes out a little cheaper but doesn't have the webcam or a screen.
The Macbook also has the faster chip Core 2 and 2.0 v the 1.83 on the mini.
I can't really see why anyone would want the mini
Am I missing something?

At $1299, the reason a MacBook wouldn't be on my shopping list is that the screen is perfect for mobility, but too small for serious use or for ready use in presentations etc. Added to that, I would not generally want to spend money on an Apple slot-loading DVD burner if it was for serious use, since I've never found these to be particularly likable devices or all that reliable on a variety of media. Thus, not only would I need USB keyboard and mouse because I dislike having to use inbuilt laptop devices for these functions unless I have no option, but I'd also have to add an additional 17 or 19 inch LCD display and an external hard drive for backups, along with an external burner for more trustworthy performance.
Of course, I'd want the same extras for the mini, but with the base model plus 1Gb RAM that would bring the total to $674, allowing me another $600 to add the screen, a couple of external drives (one for added storage and the other for backups) and an external high-performance dual layer DVD burner, and still have a fair bit of change for a system that was capable of pretty much exactly the same thing the MacBook would do, with much the same performance, for somewhat less money, and all I'd sacrifice is portability.
The compromise would seem to be the iMac, but the base model, while having a good 17" display, would still need a memory upgrade, has the same integrated graphics as the mini and would of course need an extra hard drive for backups and DVD burner anyway. The next model up also has 17" screen, but at $1199 is $100 less than a MacBook, somewhat faster due to the faster drive, and has an ATI graphics system. It would still need the extra drive for backups, and an external burner to obviate the potential shortcoming of the slot-loading drive of course.
Thus for me, the choice would be between entry-level mini (for best flexibility in allowing me to pick what I want my system to comprise while staying within the budget) or 2nd in the range 17" iMac (for best performance).
On balance, I'd likely go for the mini. Performance is not something that is typically as critical a factor as many believe, and as evidenced by the fact that there are countless G4 Macs (and G3s too come to that) still in active service doing complex work (I have several). We tend to think we need the latest/greatest/fastest/best, but in reality we rarely do for the tasks we have in mind. Of course, on the PC side, performance does count for a great deal since Windows grows and slows with every patch, fix and update and software tends to become bloated over time, but MacOS isn't quite so bad in that respect, so for example, even most (almost all) of today's most power-hungry Mac software will run on yesterday's Macs quite happily... as will MacOS itself.
Oh, and did I mention the countless G5 systems in regular use also..... These incredibly powerful Macs would be expected to do heavy-lifting work since they were so good in their day of course. But even the basic entry-level mini has processing power on a general par with those systems, so the mini can't be so easily dismissed in terms of practical usability and value.
But then I admit I am biased slightly. In my office there are several systems including dual core Intel and AMD systems running Windows 2000, XP and Vista - but my system of choice is typically my 7-year-old G4 powermac (with a CPU upgrade added a couple of years ago), and which still does stirling service for both routine tasks and video and image editing work, plus web development and publishing duties too.

Is a top spec Mac Pro good enough to run Aperture ?

I am trying to process Canon 1Ds MKII RAW files on a PowerMac Quad 2.5 with 6gigs of RAM and the 6600 GPU connected to a 30” ACD. I have Aperture Ver. 1.5.2 running under OSX 10.5.8 and have the latest RAW update.
I have just over 20,000 RAW images in projects no larger than 4,000. All most all have some adjustments.
My problem is that ALL adjustments take along time to render and some like Spot & Patch & the Straighten tool take forever !!
I would be willing to pay the price for a system that ran Aperture like it does on the Apple demos’ ! Does such a system exists or do we need to wait for the NEXT generation of graphics cards. I would also like to run with 2 30” ACD’s but I notice Apple never show video of that set up so my guess is that even they don’t have a system to run it smoothly on 2 monitors.
I love the program but now its killing me with large RAW files.
PowerMac Quad Mac OS X (10.4.8)

Your Quad is set up like mine, except for the VERY important difference of the graphics card. My Quad with the 7800 graphics card slows down only subtly in a few instances. I'm happy with it's performance.
The 6600 is grossly underpowered for Aperture. You can now upgrade your card to the fairly recently released ATI X1900 Mac edition:
http://ati.amd.com/products/RadeonX1900/index.html
I bought my Quad at a time when the Radeon 7800 was available. The difference in processing power between this and the 6600 is vast. The new ATI is on par with the Radeon 7800.
If you've used you machine with Aperture and stuck with it this long, then RUN and buy the X1900 upgrade. This $350 (retail-US dollars) upgrade should put you in a place where you may not notice speed differences between your upgraded quad and a new Mac Pro. The Mac Pro will likely export images faster--that's where the CPU is used mostly. For display and adjustment rendering, it's the GPU. A Mac Pro also has a faster (in theory) hard-drive (SATA-II). Again, that won't affect rendering, just flipping through your library.
Go buy.

Mac pro 12 core or a top spec iMac?

Hi all,
Im after a little advice...
Ok so ive been using a mac since the start of this year, i started out with a top spec mac mini, which i love but i now need more power.
So after looking at apple computers constantly im stuck for whats gonna be best for my needs and the decision comes down to 2 computers, the iMac or Mac Pro.
What i want is a computer i can game with for games such as skyrim, borderlands, battlefield 3, starcraft 2 etc and run them at the highest graphic settings with no problems, on top of this i will be doing graphic design, web design and some video editing using adobe software and ofcourse apple software, besides that i will be using it to watch movies, play music, browse and download/upload etc as an everyday person would.
IMac
So i was first looking at the top spec iMac you can buy, has the quad i7 3.4 processor with 2gig graphics and plenty of ram, and enough hd room for me too, not to mention it looks gorgeous with the apple display, the only dissapointment is that they havnt updated it as i hoped they woukld along side the MacBook Pro, which forces me to wait for the next update if i do decide to purchase one.
Is the current spec good enough to play my games and create my graphics etc? If it is then i should have no problems with the next updated iMacs.
Mac Pro
After reading a few reviews about the iMac and Mac Pro it seems that those xeon processors are beastly compared to the iMac, so ive focused my viewing onto the Mac Pro 12 core, and with the same requirements that i need above, is the 12 core beast a little OP for me? and not to mention i sacrifice having thunderbolt and a sweet display, and if an update is heading to the iMac i could miss out on a retina display along with USB 3 and more.
But on the other hand i can upgrade a Mac Pro alot easier if i need to, and it will be massive power compared to the iMac, plus it would be more futureproof wouldnt it? Is trhe current Mac Pro 12 core spec good enough for my requirements? (im asking that question based more on gaming)
So right now im stuck, what would you suggest? Do i get a powerful monster of a computer or a pretty machine with all the latest tricks( after an update ofcourse )?
Help me out folks, im soo itching to get one or the other.
I appreciate all your help, Thanks!
Carl

Wayne said it right, "future upgradeability" is key. I saw myself witht he same dilema and at the end bought a 12 core. The Quad core might run some tasks faster than the 12 core for the fact that is 3.33GHz and the 12 is 2.4GHz, but it you can keep upgading the RAM up to 64Gig, the Quad up to 32, plus the cache is double, I'm quite happy with my purchase. If you don't want to spend that much, to some the best choice is order the quad with a 6 core chip, a hair over 3K.
Tower Power!

Specs of new Mac Mini worse than the old Mac Mini?

I just looked at the new Mac Mini, released today I think, but it seems that you can no longer select SSDs, and the highest-spec Mac Mini had TWO SSDs available - not available anymore!
Also, I waited for this update with the hope that MORE RAM would be available - I really want a 32GB machine to run as a slave, and I need LOTS of RAM for this machine, but there's no option for that without buying the Trash Can Mac Pro, which has all sorts of features that I DON'T need.
What is the go with Mac Mini specs going BACKWARDS?
Also, any advice would be great. I'm considering having a PC made for my slave computer, but I'd rather not do that, PCs suck. lol.
Thanks!

The new Mac mini does support 'flash' storage aka SSD storage. The difference is that the Apple listed options for the new Mac mini for flash aka. SSD storage now use the PCIe interface and not the old SATA interface. PCIe is much faster than SATA.
The new Mac mini does support a 'Fusion' drive, this is Apple's 'hybrid' drive approach which combines a traditional hard disk with a 128GB of Flash storage. Since the new Mac mini does support a Fusion drive and a Fusion drive includes a traditional hard disk we can safely deduce that the new Mac mini does have at least one traditional SATA drive bay.
What is not yet clear is how many PCIe flash storage connectors it has and how many SATA connectors it has. It could be for example that the 1TB flash storage choice is actually made up from 2 x 512GB, however since the new Mac Pro also lists the same PCIe flash storage choices of 256GB, 512GB, and 1TB and the new Mac Pro only has a single PCIe SSD connector it is highly likely the new Mac mini also only has a single PCIe connector.
While it would be nice if it still had the option of two SATA drives and also a single PCIe flash drive, I think it is more likely that there is only one SATA connector. This makes internal RAID1 less practical, not only would it now be very hard to get two matching capacity 'drives' but even if you did they would be at vastly different speeds. One can still use external RAID storage.

Can I connect multiple displays using a mac mini

Can I connect 2 displays using the mac mini? If so, are there any accessories that I need? Are there certain monitors or connections that I should use?

Hello,
Assuming this is a 2012 Mini...
2nd Display Support:
Dual/Mirroring*
2nd Max. Resolution:
2560x1600*
Details:
*This model simultaneously supports 1920x1200 on an HDMI or a DVI display (using the included HDMI-to-DVI adapter) and 2560x1600 on a Thunderbolt or Mini DisplayPort display or even a VGA display (with an optional Mini DisplayPort-to-VGA adapter, which is compatible with the Thunderbolt port).
http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/mac_mini/specs/mac-mini-core-i7-2.6-late-2 012-specs.html
If you need more...
http://eshop.macsales.com/item/NewerTech/VIDU3HDMIDV/
http://eshop.macsales.com/item/NewerTech/VIDU2DVIA/

Mac Mini 2012 and I want to use a new 27" Lighting Display and my old 27" Cinema Display as a second Monitor

Evening all,
I have a Mac Mini that I have been using a 27" Cinema Display on for a couple years - works GREAT, love the Mini and that display. The Cinema Display has Power for a Laptop, USB connector and a Mini Display Port connection on it.
I am a Guitarist / Songwriter and I use Pro Tools a lot. So I thought I would invest in the new Lightning Display for my Mac Mini. I would get the extra ports for Firewire, and USB, as well as now I could "Daisy Chain" my old Cinema Display off the new Lightning Display.
WHAT A PAIN IN THE BUTT THIS HAS TURNED INTO !!!! I have honestly spent more than 6 hours trying to find adapters or ways to make these monitors BOTH work at the same time with the Mac Mini ( you know, a Dual Monitor Setup . . .)
HELP !!!
1 - If I could find a HDMI MALE to Mini Display Port FEMALE adapter, I would run it on the HDMI interface - apparently no such adapter exists.
2 - You apparently can NOT daisy chaine the Cinema Display off the Thunderbolt Port on the new Monitor ( silly that that does not work, but it does not )
I am really stuck here - how do I get these monitors to work as "Dual Monitors" on the Mac Mini ???
Thanks !

The HDMI port won't work for a 27" monitor, it maxes out at 1920*1200...
Supports dual simultaneous displays -- 1920x1200 on an HDMI display or a DVI display using the included HDMI-to-DVI adapter and 2560x1600 on a Thunderbolt or Mini DisplayPort display or even a VGA display (with adapter). Thunderbolt is backwards-compatible with Mini DisplayPort-equipped displays as well as adapters that are compatible with Mini DisplayPort (DVI, VGA, dual-link DVI and HDMI).
http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/mac_mini/specs/mac-mini-core-i7-2.3-late-2 012-specs.html

How to connect Cinema Display A1081 to Mac Mini 2009

This may seem an obvious question but the problem is that I am currently abroad, having bought a Mac Mini to replace my very old PowerMac G4, so I cant check if the cable that currently connects the old machine to my Cinema Display will also fit into the new Mac Mini.
Any help or suggestions are gratefully received.

Just other users here, no replies from Apple itself.
Besides the included adapter working, there's a MDP to DVI adapter you can buy...
http://store.apple.com/us/product/MB570Z/B/mini-displayport-to-dvi-adapter
http://km.support.apple.com/library/APPLE/APPLECARE_ALLGEOS/HT3382/HT3382_4-mdp_ dvi_adapter--001-mul.png
Video Card:
HD Graphics 4000
VRAM Type:
Integrated
Details:
This model has an Intel HD Graphics 4000 graphics processor that shares memory with the system. Also see: What type of video system is provided by the Aluminum Mac mini models? Which are integrated and which are dedicated? Can the video be upgraded?
Standard VRAM:
512 MB*
Maximum VRAM:
512 MB*
Details:
*Apple quietly reports that with 4 GB of RAM installed, this model uses 512 MB of RAM for graphics. With additional RAM installed, more RAM may be reserved for graphics use.
Display Support:
Dual Displays
Resolution Support:
1920x1200*
Details:
*This model simultaneously supports 1920x1200 on an HDMI display or a DVI display using the included HDMI-to-DVI adapter and 2560x1600 on a Thunderbolt or Mini DisplayPort display or even a VGA display (with an optional Mini DisplayPort-to-VGA adapter, which is compatible with the Thunderbolt port).
2nd Display Support:
Dual/Mirroring*
2nd Max. Resolution:
2560x1600*
Details:
*This model simultaneously supports 1920x1200 on an HDMI or a DVI display (using the included HDMI-to-DVI adapter) and 2560x1600 on a Thunderbolt or Mini DisplayPort display or even a VGA display (with an optional Mini DisplayPort-to-VGA adapter, which is compatible with the Thunderbolt port).
http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/mac_mini/specs/mac-mini-core-i5-2.5-late-2 012-specs.html

New Mac Mini thunderbolt to DVI adapter issues

Hi there,
I'm working on a new studio installation. We have a new Mac Mini that we're trying to connect up to a 30-inch Cinema HD display with DVI input. We have a Kanex C30 Mini DisplayPort to Dual-Link DVI adapter that plugs into the Thunderbolt port and one of the USB ports (for power) on the back of the Mini, but despite our best efforts we aren't getting anything on the display. Going Mac - adapter - display results in about 7/8ths of the screen going white and displaying two green and misshapen Apple logos for about 5 seconds before it goes blank.
Ultimately we want to run it over quite a long DVI cable and currently have an Extron signal booster in place, which works perfectly from the Mac Mini's HDMI output through an HDMI to DVI adapter. However we're already using the HDMI output to feed another monitor.
So two questions really:
1. Can the Mac Mini feed two separate displays of different sizes? The 30-inch over Thunderbolt to DVI and another Apple 24 inch display over HDMI to DVI.
2. Does anybody have any experience with the Kanex or can you recommend an adapter that will work for us?
Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. This whole process has been a very long headache!
Many thanks,
Josh

Hi Josh,
It should work, but not Mirrored of course, just Extended Display...
Video Card:
HD Graphics 4000
VRAM Type:
Integrated
Details:
This model has an Intel HD Graphics 4000 graphics processor that shares memory with the system. Also see: What type of video system is provided by the Aluminum Mac mini models? Which are integrated and which are dedicated? Can the video be upgraded?
Standard VRAM:
512 MB*
Maximum VRAM:
768 MB*
Display Support:
Dual Displays
Resolution Support:
1920x1200*
2nd Display Support:
Dual/Mirroring*
2nd Max. Resolution:
2560x1600*
Details:
*This model simultaneously supports 1920x1200 on an HDMI or a DVI display (using the included HDMI-to-DVI adapter) and 2560x1600 on a Thunderbolt or Mini DisplayPort display or even a VGA display (with an optional Mini DisplayPort-to-VGA adapter, which is compatible with the Thunderbolt port).
http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/mac_mini/specs/mac-mini-core-i7-2.6-late-2 012-specs.html

Older Mac Mini and iLife11

Hi there
I have a older Mac Mini (MA608B/A) Intel Core Duo 1.83 GHz upgraded with 2 GB RAM with OS 10.6.5 installed. I want to upgrade my copy of iLife as I'm still running the original iLife06 that shipped with it. I'm wondering whether my Mac Mini is really man enough to run iLife 11? Yes my mac meets the 'minimum specs' for running iLife11 but that doesn't necessarily mean it is capable of running it quickly and efficiently. Last thing I want to do is buy iLife11 and find my mac becomes so slow and clunky that the applications are rendered virtually unusable.
Are there any other users out there with a similar spec Mac Mini who have iLife11 installed who can report how it runs on their Mac Mini's, or would i be better off getting hold of a previous version such as iLife08 or 09?
Cheers
Jonty

I'm also having speed problems with two 1.83 mhz duo's. In the last six months, even before I installed snow leopard and ilife 11, it has been extremely slow. I'm wondering whether there is something in the updates making the computers exceptionally slow.

Top spec mac Mini as a workstation?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for