Hacker News Reader

Comment by gambiting | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

Maybe a lot of people are using these as media machines? That requires a lot of space, and not much speed.

Another popular use case is as a server.

Anyone have experience trying to colo one of these? The $/GB and Ghz aren't bad when you depreciate the upfront cost of the mini over a few years.

I've seen hosting in the $35-50 range and nearly bitten the bullet several times because they'll let you run CentOS/VMware/etc and would thus make for great project boxes. The fact that the newer models lack a quad-core option is making me flirt with the idea again to get that horsepower while I still can. For example, I haven't seen actual specs on the 2014 model's i7, but I would suspect it's similar to the i7-4578U Haswell in recent 13" Macbook Pro's[1] which have a CPU Mark score of 5204 [2]. This seems like a step back compared to the 2012 i7-3615QM's score of 7344 [3].

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacBook_Pro#Technical_specifica...

[2] http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i7-4578U+...

[3] http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i7-3615QM...

Then why not the current p/GB sweet spot, a 3TB disk?

There are no 2.5" 3TB drives, and even if one existed, it would be 12.5mm (or more), which may be too thick for Mac mini (standard 2.5" drive thickness is 9.5mm).

But there are 2TB 9.5mm drives, which would still be far better than a 500GB.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822178...

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.

then why 5400k? At work (90% mac shop) we are just looking at what to do for a central server. Apple isn't supporting that market very well - they need a shuttle sff size mac midi that uses full fat non mobile parts.

The gen 8 HP micro severs are just so much better

Honestly, it could be due to heat issues. It's a small device and faster drives can get hot.

Apple has tried to support that market before, and it's just not a big market, and it isn't a one-size fits all market. Many people have been clamoring for an Apple solution for SMB server, and it just isn't profitable. This is especially true when you take into account cloud shared storage providers like Dropbox or Box.net.

It's also a market that is more focused on margins. It's easier to charge a higher margin for a device you use everyday, but what about one that you install in a closet or put in a corner and forget?

An HP microserver running FreeNAS is a tough combination to beat for an SMB central server.

It can't be due to heat issues, because Apple sells this exact same machine in "server" spec, with 2 HDDs stacked on top of each other, so if that enclosure can deal with 2xHDDs then it certainly can deal with 1x7200rpm hdd.

It looks like it's a similar design externally, but it might have changed internally. For example, there are two thunderbolt ports now. They also don't sell the "server" configuration anymore, which had also had 5400rpm drives.

So, it still could be from heat. It's probably a cost issue, but there is a lot at play in such a small system.

Yes but i guess Apple is slightly concern with the space. ( But they should still have use the 128GB SSD and push for iCloud Drive instead )

I hope when 256GB SSD comes down to the price point as 128 they will make the switch.

I bought a low-end Mac mini last year, upgraded it with 16 GB memory from Crucial, installed a Samsung SSD with Fusion Drive and bingo: reasonably fast desktop system for less than $900. I guess you can do it for $800 now.

The stock 5400rpm drive is unusable, but it's an easy fix if you're willing to open the box. With Fusion Drive, even a small SSD will make a huge difference.

Yeah I did the same thing in mine. Put a 256GB SSD in and it felt like a much much faster machine. The 5400rpm drive is just hogging it down.

I wish they just put in a small SSD by default and set it up as a Fusion drive. Even something like 64 GB would improve the OS performance a lot.

Instead they charge $200 to upgrade to a Fusion Drive with a 128 GB SSD.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com