Quad core vs Dual core, and Inel graphics

tjk wrote:

Your opinion is noted. A little too short and simple though. What about it don't you like? Or, asked another way, why don't you like it?

its not OPINION, its fact.

new mini:

MUCH slower geekbench speeds

NO upgrades possible

permanent RAM

tamper resistant security torx

no quad core option

no logic board connector for 2nd HD (genuinely pathetic)

no firewire connector

enough?

2012 models are slower in most respects (except one), reliant on older tech. They have inferior graphics and their supported life will be shorter. So get a good price on one if you're planning on getting one.

"tamper resistant security torx"

Is just more of your misleading points. It's a #6torx, $2 at Amazon, not hard to obtain at all. Only you can turn it into part of a conspiracy.

PlotinusVeritas wrote:

no logic board connector for 2nd HD (genuinely pathetic)

no firewire connector

enough?

I prefer my 2010/2011/2012 with these features.

The difference between GPUs, again, depends on what you intend to use the mini for. If one needs GPUs, the Retina5K or the Cylinder (with higher price tags) are a choice. Op has clearly stated Mini and the workload is primarily non-graphic intensive. I specifically bought AMD6630/GT320 versions not the Intel HDxK versions to avoid the GPU rathole.

HDxK vs Iris is not that much different, it is pure specmanship on Intel's part. The Windows side (under Bootcamp) has the same drivers for HDxK and Iris.

Apple is now marching towards even less consumer upgradeability as compared to in the past. If the intent is for the consumer to predict what they will need in 5+ years, and consumer cannot decide, Apple now has advantage with planned technological obsolescence.

I'll kick the shins here because there are so many internet myths being spouted here that it is not even funny. I started out in mid life in 1984 in this industry and towards the end was a systems and hardware architect for large systems with large budgets and was responsible for large projects with hundreds of staff.

For me reliability is crucial as well as TCO (Total Cost of Ownership: what is pruchase price, what is resell value, how long do I own it and what is the cost per year, month, week?) I do not like the quad core since when it is fully utilised it runs too hot which reduces its life.E.g. memory, drives and the CMOS battery are rated at around the 65 C ~ 70 C maximum temperature so it will not be doing those parts much good if they run at 90 C. Yes it will but for how long?

I compared it with my Mid 2011 Mac Mini and it blew it out of the water.

If the comparison was with a Discrete AMD GPU mini, it is not a fair test.

I do not like the quad core since when it is fully utilised it runs too hot which reduces its life.E.g. memory, drives and the CMOS battery are rated at around the 65 C ~ 70 C maximum temperature so it will not be doing those parts much good if they run at 90 C.

This indicates a bad cooling design which in turn reduces the "life" of the device. There is a long-running saga of AMD GPUs being badly soldered, nVidia GT8600s packaging issues. The larger question is whether the current Engineering mindset is cutting corners to to meet arbitrary project timelines or not.

I do not believe the "cutting corners" since design improvements have been made. There are now small plates screwed over the drive connectors holding them down preventing them from working loose. Especially if they have been unclipped a few times. Similarly the parts that are located under the fan have a metal bracket around them designed to prevent dust getting in that area. Many complain about the soldered RAM but it was inevitable since with the lower voltages these parts operate at any connectors create issues. I remember having to reseat the memory chips when a computer became a few years old in the early days when they cost as much as a small car. To me it all points to more reliability.

Yes, but soldering RAM eliminates the ability for the consumer to upgrade. Someone on this board referred to the "thinness" crusade, which with a unibody design makes the whole chassis a heat source. There is not a battle with batteries in laptops to power-down radios in wifi to increase battery life, so it is trade-off.

At some point, sacrificing reliability in the march to miniaturization will lead to engineering challenges and compromises.

I have seen a majority of the laptops put hard/soft shell cases on MBPs, which then become heat traps.

Loner T wrote:

Yes, but soldering RAM eliminates the ability for the consumer to upgrade.

Sockets are a waste of space and a source of unreliability.

The upper 2 models come with a sensible amount in their base configuration, but it does make sense to order the max.

The entry level model is very entry level. Hard to know what to do with it, adding Ram and a better (bigger) drive rapidly exceeds the cost of the next model up.

Yes, sockets were in fashion, not so long ago to allow easy replacement. Now the entire Logic Board requires replacement. The cost of such replacement is much higher. Hence it is a trade-off.

I have a 15-year old Sony STRDA7ES at 55lbs, still working strong. I can remove boards, replace components, run it as new if I want.

Not all such Engineering is worth it. All this cramming leads to heat failures. Look at the nVidia GT8xxxm and AMD 6xxxx failures on Macs. iPhones have similar issues. I have a PPC Mac mini Circa 2006, still working. I have a DEC Jensen as a DEC OSF server running without any issues on a 8GB original disk from 2004.

Why would I consider the current Engineering any better than what was done 20 years ago?

I know, I own a car that is over half a century old, I can fix just about anything on it armed with a manual and a source of parts. Try that with my daily driver car 😮.

But in every measurable aspect the old car is a worse vehicle, despite it once being 'Grand Transport'

Times change.

Yes, Times change, so I have an SSD in my 2008 MBP, and it runs like a charm. 🙂