Seven things you need to know about the 2014 Mac mini

Apple's venerable Mac mini is its least expensive Mac model, and a good entry-level system that's an attractive option for PC users making the switch to the Macintosh. It's long overdue for a refresh, but at Apple's October Mac and iPad event, it finally happened. The Mac mini has finally joined the rest of the Mac product like with Intel's "Haswell" fourth-generation Core processors. Here's what you really need to know about the new Mac mini.

1. Rewinding the price back to 2005

Apple introduced a new $499 model, $100 less than the previous entry-level Mac mini. When the Mac mini first debuted all the way back in 2005, it was a $499 machine, but as features and capabilities increased, the price crept up to $599. So we're back where we started from, at least on price.

To get the Mac mini in the $499 price zone, Apple has duplicated its iMac strategy: The new less-expensive model also features a slower CPU, a 1.4 GHz dual core i5. Some people are going to shake their head, but hear me out: That's actually good enough for most general users. It's the same clock speed as a MacBook Air, for example, though the regular hard disk drive won't make things feel as peppy as they do on the pure-SSD Air.

2. Bye bye FireWire

The Mac mini has two Thunderbolt 2 ports but it's also removed FireWire 800, which was available on the previous-generation model. If you have legacy FireWire gear you'd still like to use, Apple and others make Thunderbolt to FireWire interface adapters that will get the job done.

3. No more off-the-shelf server configuration

Apple previous offered the Mac mini with OS X Server pre-installed, equipped with a 2.3 GHz quad-core i7 processor and two 1 TB internal hard disk drives that could work separately or be striped or mirrored as a RAID array using Disk Utility. That system is gone.

In its place is a $999 2.8 GHz dual-core i5 system equipped with 8 GB RAM and a 1 TB Fusion Drive. Even without a four-core option, that'll be a nice speedy system. But if you want OS X Server, you'll have to download it yourself from the Mac App Store — another $19.99 expense.

With the addition of Thunderbolt 2, external connectivity on the Mac mini is faster than ever, and there are plenty of server-class Thunderbolt 2 RAID systems to choose from if you're looking for redundant storage.

4. No more quad-core offering

The Mac mini has long borrowed heavily from the parts bins of the 13-inch MacBook Pro. With no new "standard" MacBook Pro to borrow from, Apple's using the MacBook Pro with Retina display as a template for the Mac mini instead. So the processor configurations options look the same as what you can get on the 13-inch Retina MacBook Pro.

And just like the 13-inch Retina MacBook Pro, there's no quad-core processor option to choose from. (There wasn't a quad-core processor on the old 13-inch MacBook Pro, either, but Apple did offer a 2.3 GHz quad-core processor as an option on the Mac mini.)

Instead, Apple's incremented clock speeds on dual-core i5 chips. It offers a 3.0 GHz dual-core i5 processor as an option too. (No surprise here, because the 13-inch Retina MacBook Pro offers the same option.) But 3.0 GHz and dual-core is as fast as the Mac mini gets these days. Anything more for a headless Mac and you're jumping to Mac Pro territory (and tripling the price).

5. You can use the Mac mini to drive a 4K display

You can connect two Apple Thunderbolt Displays up to it via the Thunderbolt 2 ports, or the equivalent: The Mac mini enables you to drive two displays at 2560 x 1600 pixels. But the Mac mini also has a HDMI port that complies with the HDMI 1.4 spec.

This HDMI port can be used to drive a 4K display, albeit at slower refresh speeds. So with that HDMI port, you can connect a 4K display and expect to see 3840 x 2160 resolution at 30 Hz, or 4096 x 2160 resolution at 24 Hz. Again, that's the same as the 13-inch Retina MacBook Pro.

6. You may be stuck with RAM

I'm still trying to get a definite answer from Apple on this, but early indications are that the Mac mini no longer has user-upgradeable RAM. There's no longer any mention of being able to upgrade it on Apple's web site. So you'll have to decide when you place your order how much RAM you think you'll need, and hope it's enough.

7. 802.11ac is now standard

In addition to a faster CPU, faster graphics, and a faster peripheral interface, the Mac mini also gets faster Wi-Fi: It joins the other Haswell-based Macs with 802.11ac Wi-Fi networking support, which can work up to three times faster than 802.11n. Of course, if you're still using a pokey older AirPort Extreme Base Station or Time Capsule, you'll have to upgrade before you see any speed benefit, but that's the price of progress.

The bottom line

Many of us have been waiting for a new Mac mini ever since Apple refreshed the MacBook Air with Haswell processor in 2013, so it's about time we finally got a new Mac mini. Is this the Mac mini you've been waiting for, or are some of these changes making you think twice? Sound off in the comments, let me know what you think.

Peter Cohen
  • The $699 model is the one. 8GB of RAM which is really fine for low multi-tasking options. It has Iris Pro graphics and an significantly faster CPU. It's the one i'm looking at.
  • Iris graphics, not Iris Pro.
  • In other words, they raised the price of the real mini by $100. Sent from the iMore App
  • No, the old Mini was $599 so the price didn't go down.
  • Sorry, I forgot the midtier is $699, still with 8GB of RAM and a 1TB hard drive, it would have cost at least as much if not more last year for a similar spec'd model.
  • Thanks for correction Peter. Iris has to be the dumbest branding ever for a GPU. I get it Intel but just stick to something cheesy like "Turbo"
  • Hi Peter, For a server usage, is a low-end model enough? (CPU & RAM)
    I have no idea about what specs to get for a server, if there are minima.
  • The low-end $499 model as a server will be gasping for breath pretty quickly, I expect.
  • Depends on your uses.. I mostly use mine as VPN, DNS and run few progs here and there on my entry 2013 mac mini. Its barely making it.. Hate the HDD.
  • Thanks for your answers.
    This is mostly for storage, the Mac mini offering the best connectivity. I'm still trying to figure out my setup, though!
  • I'm assuming these come with Yosemite, so no Mac OS X Server for it (yet)!
  • OS X Server 4.0 is available!
  • I'm wondering why they didn't make it even smaller. The Intel NUC line of build your own computers is ⅓ of the size and has almost the same spec's/ports.
  • And has an external power brick.
  • Because the NUC features slow base clock speed, uses a more expensive cpu because it's ultra low voltage. And to get the entire computer in a case that small, it features a very annoying fan! It also runs hot while it's making all of that noise if you make it do work.. And if you count the external power brick in the space the NUC takes up, it's not as small as you claim because the power supply is just as big as the computer. Intel should learned something from Apple and produce a mini computer using laptop parts like Apple, instead of ultra portable parts of the current NUC. Great idea, carried just a little too far.
  • Well said...
  • Well said about what he said.
  • I wonder if the processor can be replaced. I saw on previous models it was possible (although a difficult task) but if so then I would consider the Mini as a spare which can be upgraded if need be.
  • We probably won't know until iFixit or someone else does a teardown, but I'm thinking that upgrading the CPU on one of these probably is a no-go.
  • Thanks Peter. So maybe (probably) no on user-upgrade-RAM. What about user-upgrading to your own SSD?
  • Good question. Apple switched from SATA to PCIe as the storage interface on the Mac mini. That change hasn't made upgrading technically impossible on the MacBook Pros — SSDs are still socketed — but I'm yet to find a vendor that offers an SSD upgrade that's compatible with Haswell-era Macs. So for now, you can't, but that may change in the future. Without taking one apart I'm not sure how the new Mac mini is set up, but my working assumption is that there's a PCIe socket for SSD and SATA for the regular hard drive, sort of like how it's set up in the iMac. Assuming that's the case, you should be able to pull the Mac mini's hard drive and replace with a SATA SSD with no problem. Won't be as fast as going PCIe, but it'll be faster than a hard drive, to be sure.
  • Thanks!
  • All good but would like an option to upgrade to a 2TB Fusion Drive. Sent from the iMore App
  • Great except no 4k support that's what the mini should have the most it perfectly suits as a home entertainment center. Sent from the iMore App
  • The new Mac mini does support UHD & 4K via HDMI, but only at 30Hz & 24Hz, respectively. It is still HDMI 1.4. Even the brand-new High-end NVIDIA 900 series desktop GPU's don't have HDMI 2.0. There just isn't the bandwidth in 1.4 to push that many pixels at that rate at high-color. I have a 780ti in my desktop, when connected to my LG UHD (supports HDMI 2.0, 4:2:2 color), the only way to get 60Hz is to cut the color down to crap, and it still has issues, like laggy, tearing video (even with V-Sync enabled in the games). It's just the pipeline of HDMI 1.4, not the card. I am currently running three 2560x1440 monitors from the 780ti with no problems. That's technically more pixels, 11 million, than UHD/4K, 8.2 million. I have no tearing issues with these monitors when playing games, etc, simply bc there is physically more bandwidth in each cable. Also, if you're looking to watch UHD videos, 24fps or 30fps is about the max you're going to get from the content, anyhow. The Hobbit was 48fps, but there's currently no consumer offering at that res/rate, that I can find. If you want to play a game at UHD resolution, you certainly don't want to get a Mac mini. I bought the 780ti for $700... feel free to compare the specs of that vs the Mac mini's Intel Iris.
  • I am frankly a bit disappointed, and should have purchased the $599 model when it was available.
  • Keep watching the refurb store.
  • You bet I am!
  • You have to pay a $300 premium for the top model to be able to add a 512MB SSD in top of the cost of the option. Not a good move Apple smacks of price gouging in the low end of product range.
  • Um, have you seen the prices for M.2 SSD? A quality brand, (Samsung XP941) is $500 for 512Gb on newegg, down from $700.
    Also, since when has Apple NOT gouged memory prices?
    I'm more pissed that it's an extra $200 to go from 8Gb to 16Gb. But it's 1600Mhz, LPDDR3, you can't even buy that, as far as I can tell. At least no results from google or newegg.
  • The $549 (CAD) price almost made me pull the trigger.....then I saw the specs.
    1.4Ghz cpu with a 5400 rpm hard, I don't think so.
  • "No more quad-core offering"
    I have the late 2012 2.3 ghz quad-core i7 with fusion drive 16 of ram. Would I be downgrading if I was to buy this new model with all the same
  • Does your Ivy-Bridge i7 have hyper-threading? I know this one's i7 does, which is effectively quad-core. I guess we'll really have to see benchmarks to see if it's any better.
    I really think apple was going for low-power with these, they're not work-horses they're the little mac you use once in a while. which is nice and all, but it would have been nice to see a more "mid-grade" model, like a "headless-iMac". But since the Mac mini tops out at $2,200 with all the options, the "headless-iMac" would likely reach the Mac Pro range (5K iMac tops out over $4k, Mac Pro starts at $3k) -Sent from my 2010 2.4Ghz Core 2 Duo Mac mini ... :-(
  • I don't even know what hyper threading is :-/. Actually this is my main Mac I run apeture Photoshop and Lightroom all the time with no problems at all! Just not understanding why they wouldn't offer quad-core. Or if it even matters
  • From what I found, your Ivy-Bridge i7 3610QM does in fact support Hyper-Threading, giving you 4-cores / 8-threads. Also 6Mb L3 cache. Supports up to 32Gb RAM. (this is based on what I found on Intel's website)
    The new chip is Haswell 4578U. Only 2-cores, 4-threads. 4Mb L3 cache, support up to only 16Gb RAM.
    Also, compare the graphics. The new one has IRIS5100 , but it's base clock is 200MHz vs the 2012's HD4000 has a base clock of 650MHz... how is this better???
    The 2014 also only offers up to PCI-E 2, while the Ivy supports rev3.... am I looking at the wrong chip????? -That's the best option in the 2014 model???
    -Bottom line, on paper, your iMac is faster than this year's. Your might use a few Watts more, but whoopitydo.
  • Thanks I appreciate your help! I wasn't sure if I should upgrade and give my 2012 to my daughter. She's currently using my old 2009 Mac mini. Which still does fine for her school work and Facebook and stuff. Not so good for photoshop or aperture tho she doesn't need that.
  • Maybe buy the new $499 version for her...?
    Maybe there's some secret sauce going on here that makes these better than last year. On paper, they only use less power, but are therefore less powerful. Maybe there is new architecture on the motherboard, PCI-E SSD, etc, that really boosts everything, or at least eliminates the bottleneck of previous generations. Like if you had 5 body builders all taking turns trying to lift 1000-lbs instead of all working together.
    Be sure to report back if you do get one!
  • Hyper-Threading is a little trick they use to allow 2 processes to occur on one core at a time. I'm not really sure exactly how it works, but it is better than non-HyperThreading! haha. I don't think it gives an exactly double-powerful processor, but it helps... I like to image it's like and engine that could combust from both sides of the cylinder head (wiki double-acting cylinder). You won't get twice the horsepower, but it would be more powerful.
  • Thanks again I think I'll just stick with what I have for now.
  • I have the same 2012 Mini quad core i7. Compare the new and old CPUs - the new i7 mini has less power and cost more $. It is that simple.
  • Yes....for sure!...unless you're a serous gamer who needs the iris graphics
  • Would you recommend buying the cheapest Mac mini if I want to develop for iOS?
  • It'll certainly work for that. Some developers I know prefer to use quad-core (or bigger multicore systems like the Mac Pro) to help reduce compile times as much as possible, but any Mac will work.
  • I bought the cheapest in 2008 when I started playing with iOS development with Xcode, but opted for the midtier with fusion drive given how long it appears to last.
  • I'm considering just saving more money for a MacPro. I really want discreet graphics. It'd be so great if Apple would offer a mini without Intel's crappy integrated graphics.
  • Sounds like you'd be better off with the Mac Pro, if you're work-load calls for it.
  • Thanks, Peter. I'm not exactly an Apple fan and I'm also a college student. With that said, I'm always looking for inexpensive ways to do thing . The Mac mini might be my best option.
  • I'm sure it will be the right machine for many users, but I'm still disapointed at the graphics performance. Iris or not, it still falls short of a machine that can be used to play a real game once in a while. Plus I tend to shy away from statements like "that's actually good enough for most general users". It reminds me of netbooks and celeron processors, which were never actually good for most general users.
  • That's going to depend on what your definition of a "real game" is. It's not going to be playing shooters at 60fps...but it should play most modern casual games (which I *do* consider real games) at reasonable rates.
  • I've posted this in another website's forum, and I hope it's ok to post it here. It's a request for advice on a purchase. So the RAM appears to NOT be soldered on the new MacMini. But that leaves me with two choices (actually three): P.S. I'm currently limping along with an old PowerPC iMac stuck on Tiger and using a secondary monitor due to the original screen being unviewable. 1) Buy the mid-tier MacMini at $699 with the Dual Core i5 at 2.6 Ghz and the Iris graphics card. I can either buy the 16gb RAM from Apple for $200, or buy it third-party for approx. $160 (then deal with the reselling of the original 2x4 RAM), upgrade to the 1TB Fusion drive (another $200), and buy an Asus 24" monitor (another $170). That's $1269 (or $1229 minus the resell of the original RAM). 2) Buy the mid-tier 21" iMac at $1299 with the Quad Core i5 at 2.7 GHz and the Iris Pro graphics card. Bump the RAM for $200, and the 1TB Fusion drive for another $200. No need to buy a monitor now. So, that's $1699. So that's a difference of $430 (or approx. $500 with the RAM resell in option 1). I have thousands of songs (7600+) in iTunes and thousands of photos. Along with basic everyday computer uses, I'll be using the computer for processing photos from my DSLR (as a serious amateur hobbyist) using an older version of Photoshop and maybe a non-subscription alternative to Lightroom (if there is any), maybe putting together very simple home videos, and using Garage Band and several software plug-ins for music composition/recording. Is the spec bump to a Quad at 2.7 with the Iris Pro for the extra $430-500 worth it for these needs? My third option… wait for that mid-tier iMac to be spec bumped with the Broadwell early next year? (I know now that the MacMini will most likely never be spec bumped to a Quad, and it would be at least a full year or longer before it got spec bumped to Broadwell).
  • Firstly, Lightroom is available non-subscription indefinitely according to Adobe, and the Photography subscription of Lightroom + Photoshop CC for $10/month is pretty cheap if you need Photoshop. For Lightroom, faster single core is what is important, so the 2.7GHz will give you a slight bump over the 2.6GHz, but the dual versus quad core won't matter much, and it doesn't use the GPU for much. For Photoshop, OpenCL is supported for both Iris Pro and Iris, so the faster Iris Pro will help with certain operations. For both, a 24" monitor will be much nicer in space, but the ASUS is a much poorer panel that will not compare to the IQ of the iMac. Given how tight your budget is, I think I would go for a nicer monitor on the Mac Mini, so you can keep using it longer than an iMac is likely to last.
  • I have Photoshop CS (vers. 8.0, I think… maybe older) already. If it works ok on Yosemite, fine. If not, then I might go with Pixelmator. Lightroom as a stand-alone physical copy, I'd prefer. I do NOT want to do subscriptions for software usage. I'm not a pro with steady income from my photography, and don't want to lose access to my work due to a lapsed or stopped subscription. I understand that for PS and LR the single core is what's used. Was wondering if Garage Band with various plug-ins would benefit from the quad core. Re: the monitor, I was looking at the Asus VS248H-P 24-Inch Full-HD LED-lit LCD Monitor (because it appeared to get very high ratings for the $170 price). Thanks for the input! I'l take all the advice and suggestions I can get. :-)
  • Well, Macminicolo just verified that the new Mac Mini's RAM is NOT user-upgradeable. SMH That seals it for me. Bye-bye Haswell MacMini (I waited over a year for you, but no Quad Core and no user-friendly RAM). Hello mid-tier iMac. And bye-bye to the extra $400-500 I have to spend for a monitor, keyboard and mouse I don't need. :-(
  • Hi -- I've also been waiting for the updated Mac Mini, but... I want a simple machine that's always on to serve movie content to an Apple TV. I used to use an iMac, but it seems a waste. Which would you go for? One of the new, lowest end MacMinis or get a 2nd hand/refurbished 2TB server version? This is for two small boys, so I guess a new one could also link directly to the TV and be a game machine too...
  • Think the NEXT Apple TV may have a thunderbolt port? You may want to wait until the Apple TV refresh to make your decision...
  • If you have your heart set on getting a new one, and you are only using it as a movie hub, get the cheap one.
    I do the same thing with a 2010 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo Mac mini. And I dump all of my photos into it. I bumped the RAM up to 8Gb, and stuffed in a 128 SSD. I have the photos on an external, with videos on the NAS, along with a TimeMachine partition on the NAS, backing up the Mac along with the photos. I've been waiting for the new Mac mini, hoping to get some more power for when I'm going through my photos, and occasionally messing around with iMovie. I also was looking forward to the fusion drive, as it would eliminate the need for the external, but for $200 MORE than the 1TB HDD, I could just buy a WD Black2 from newegg for $200.
    Honestly, between the price of memory & storage, and the crappy processors, this is looking like a no-go for me. There is going to be little to no benefit, even thought I have a 4 year old machine (Only paid $250 for it, RAM / SSD were paid for, repurposed). There is certainly zero reason to upgrade if you have a 2012 versions, especially if you have the quad-core i7.
  • The previous Mini model works superbly as a media centre for me. Mine is always on with an external USB drive for the bulk of the storage. Add Plex or XBMC software and it's amazing. (Plex allows you to stream to iPads and iPhones and can stream multiple files at once). It's a brilliant combination. Sent from the iMore App
  • Great writeup on the mini's. I was disappointed the quad core option is no more.
    And I just can't fathom Apple removing the ability to add ram ourselves later with accessible ports. I expect this as part of the premium experience with Apple's products. I'll likely be going with the $699 option shortly.
  • The no-user-replaceable-memory thing had BETTER be justified by performance, or Apple's gonna hear from yours truly. That little gotcha just removed a BIG reason to buy new Mac Minis instead of NUCs.
  • You'd get a better machine by buying the 2012 i7.
  • I think it is simply a way to lock customers out of their minis so as to pluck more money from their wallets..I bought 16 gigs crucial ram for 125.00..I could have gotten it from Apple for 400.00
  • Sad and happy. Sad that the quad-core Mac Mini server is history, because I've been loving my 2012 2.0 GHz quad-core with 256 gb SSD -- a bottle rocket that still does yeoman server duty for our biz. Happy, because this confirms decision to spring for a Mac Pro earlier this year, figuring that even if Apple refreshed the Mac Mini, they'd embed a big thick divider in their product line, separating the entry-model from top-of-the-Macs. Of course, that new Mac Pro also prevents me from indulging in the Retina iMac, but just as well -- it's still way cooler, and more flexible for our needs.
  • So does this mean you'll be updating your mac mini server series of articles?
  • Honestly? I'm glad I got my late 2012 quad core earlier this year.
  • Me too! I got the last 2012 PCI Richards had....I need power for photoshop
  • If Apple really did make the new mini's RAM non-user-upgradeable, then that's really disappointing and it would pretty much kill all my interest in it. Can anyone confirm if it's still upgradeable or not?
  • You can not upgrade memory on the new, 2014 mini...I checked with Apple, then they confirmed my 2012 is upgrade able...I say buy a 2012 and get 16gb ram from crucial for it soon if you want to...because of this change some 2012 minis have gone way up in price...
  • Thanks, I'll have to get one of those 2012 minis then.
  • Video adapters are now sold separately? Sucks. Ah well.
  • could this play the new civilization beyond earth when it comes to the app store??
  • Been waiting for this upgrades for quite a while. Never owned a Mac and this looks like it could be a good option, specially with Yosemite and iOS new cleaver interactions.
  • Go ahead. Good choice. If you can fork out for 16GB RAM do it.
  • Hey everybody, I intend to use Mini as my media centre with ocasional gaming (swtor ie) and will use TV as display. So, lower spec would be ok for this or the middle one? Sent from the iMore App
  • I'm really tempted in getting one for the price £399 here in the UK, so need to find a way to raise some cash as I really wouldn't mind getting a proper chance to have a play with OS X. Roland
  • We have become jaded by Apple allowing us to update ram. Back when I got my first pc w/windows 98 you couldnt upgrade it either. Some other computers required proprietary ram. So this not orginial, but is unfortunate. As discussed on Imore show 426, and I agree with. Apple is using this strategy to up sale highend models, just like they are now doing with Ipad/Iphone 16GB to 64GB. This thinking isn't new either, auto industry set the standard for this. You want the sunroof, but you have to buy the premium package w/navigation & leather which is 5K more. I wish Apple would stop doing this, it will work with some products, but it may push some customers away from others like Macbooks. Posted via the iMore App for Android
  • Upon further reflection, the only problem I have with the $699 model is that Apple didn't eat the cost of four more gigs of space, maybe the main cause of the $100 bump (though that's only about $15 more than 8gb costs elsewhere). Sent from the iMore App
  • Okay! Although I'm not all that happy with not having a quad core cpu option, I can "somewhat" live with that, however I cannot for the life of me understand WHY Apple would essentially weld ram onto the motherboard other than to be able to charge us more $$$ for more ram. I own a the 2011 model of the Mac Mini and I really love it! Best desktop computer I've had in years. It is truly a sad day if indeed the new Mac Mini does not allow user-upgradable RAM. My 2011 model has two new components: --16gb Crucial memory I purchased at a local store at an awesome price
    --256gb Samsung SSD that I purchased online, also at an awesome price It runs lightning fast now (boots in 12 seconds) and I run multiple virtual machines at the same time on it. Man! This really upsets me as I was looking forward to the next Mac Mini upgrade here at home. I guess I'll continue on with my 2011 model.
  • Early 2009 Mac Mini 8GB here, still perfect. And, yes, best computer I ever had. Same here.... I'll be waiting for the next release. I have a suspicion that this mac won't be supported for the next OS X release.
  • Sigh...
    Unfortunately, I may have to agree with you on this one. Such a shame. What an incredible machine this is. I suspect it'll be iMacs, Mac Pro, Air and Macbook Pro from that point on.
  • Well, I just bought the mid-tier model! This is my first foray into the MAC world, and I'm super excited! I've needed something to replace my 6 year old Windows 7 PC with an AMD Athlon II 620 processor. It has 8GIG of RAM and 4 cores, and has been more than adequate for what I need. I never see the CPU being taxed on this machine, so I can't imagine it would be any different on a Mac Mini. I do have a couple of Windows apps that I will want to run on occasion. I've heard you can dual-boot these MACs and run Windows on them? Is that difficult to set up? Could use some advice...
  • Best way to run Windows on a Mac is VM. I've been using VMware for years and have Windows and Ubuntu running like they belong on a Mac.
  • Would you share your experience of the mid tier plz ? I'm looking forward to buying one .
  • Disappointed somewhat, but I really didn't expect much this time. Non-upgradable RAM is a bad move, for consumers, for sales (if they want to sell it), and for the enviroment. I think they waiting until the next Intel chips and a redesign, so I hope this is not a direction Apple is taking in the future. The Mac Mini is the only headless Mac that is reasonably priced and a decent spec'ed product should be made. Ditching a fully working monitor to use an iMac is wasteful. The useful life of a monitor far outlasts a computer. I have a early 2009 Mac Mini which runs Yosemite very well, I'll be waiting until the next release.
  • I WAS looking at a Mac mini 'server' with the quad-core upgrade as the heart of a home server system. I really liked the included 2T HD space. Time now to rethink.
    Haswell is nice and I could upgrade that $699 unit pretty well, but they're now seriously getting me to consider one of those iMac w/ Retina 5K display instead...
  • How fast is the SSD storage and how much did that change? I think Apple needs to develop a MacMini Pro, where it's a larger case, the guts of the high end iMacs so it can be a midrange headless system that fits in between the MacMini and the MacPro for the Prosumers that want headless.
  • Which would you recommend: A Mac Mini or 11" MacBook Air to drive an Acer T232HL bmidz 23-Inch Touch Screen LCD display? This will be my main computer, replacing an old PC. Main uses will be basic photo and video editing. Sent from the iMore App
  • They really don't seem to have a story with the Mac Mini. If you're taking all that away shouldn't you have an explanation to the customer? Typically, there would be a narrative at the event, right? Is the memory soldered in like the Pro? Is it faster now so you're sacrificing the ability to upgrade it with speed?
  • Why would anyone pay so much money for a non upgradable laptop without a display that has lesser performance than the model it replaces. This proves Apple thinks it's fans are stupid people who'll buy anything with the Apple name on it and they're probably right. There are better mini computers these days with better specs and you can upgrade them down the road unlike the crap mini.
  • I am PC user for several years. Time to retire my current desktop. I already own a IPS 23" LG screen and Logitech MK710 KB & Mouse as part of the set-up that are not so old. My primary use of the PC is for photo editing (that I earn nothing from it) and some home videos from SONY DV Cam. No heavy software other than PSE, RAW Converter from Fuji and LR. Then MS Office for my own account keeping. Thinking of switching to Mac. Was hoping to get a quad-core i7 Mac Mini but with the news of new Mini put off the purchase thinking would get a better spec. Now that chance is gone , would the 2.8GHz i5 suffice for my purpose? Not interested in getting another laptop or all-in-one that would make my current screen etc. redundant.
  • I was particularly interested in the comment about a 4K monitor as I only need the computing power of a mini but wanted a great monitor. You note that one needs to use the HDMI part but at slower refresh speeds, which seems to defeat the purpose. Is there no way to connect some kind of display port dongle or otherwise get the 60 Hz refresh rate?
  • I have been waiting for a replacement for my aging 2009 mac mini server. It seems like I waited for nothing. Thanks Apple!. The $999 version seems to be a less capable machine. Dual drive has gone and solded RAM so you need to pay for Apple overprized RAM. This machine is at least $100 over priced.
    But who cares Apple has no longer an affordable mini server. Without a dual drive it is no longer server capable. So creating an Apple server with drive redundancy has just become insanely more expensive. And the no nonsense it just works no longer exists. Good work Apple. This time you really blew it.
  • I've tried to tell many review sites, including this one in the past, that the late 2012 Mac mini quad-core i7 was too close to the Mac Pro for Apple to use it as a basis for upgrading. See the Geekbench scores here:
    And here:
    Apple therefore did what I expected: dumbed it down, slowed it down, made all options 2-core only, and made it non-upgradeable. The resale value of quad-core Mac minis probably just doubled.
  • I am using Mac mini since 2008 and I was happy with that little desktop that I could bring with me back and forward to two different stations with the Ocean in between. I did upgrade to the new 2014 $ 699. model because the previous 2007 model is not updated anymore. Actually I am using the HDMI connection with my previous Samsung monitor (SyncMaster) XL2370HD) . The results are just awful, it looks like I have an invisible filter that makes the pictures flat and cheap, despite I tried many different monitor settings. Now if I have to buy a Thunderbolt monitor for both stations, this buy is for me the most wrong choice that I never made with the computer stuff. By the way by comparing the new tech with the previous one with seven year gap of technological achievements, I consider this 2014 Mac mini as a downgraded system.
  • Apple Stock may be doing really well, but their computer products are lacking (especially compared to price). Their laptops have poor design - something simple as having a little more space between USB ports so you can plug in flash drives without unplugging anything. The new Mac Mini 2014 is terrible. They got rid of the Quad-Core version and removed the option to have it BTO. They used to be a great company when they valued quality but their real effort is only put forth in their iPhone (but iOS 8 is terrible and buggy - ruined my iPad experience). Okay I'm done ranting.