Since Apple is taking its time releasing the new iMacs and I have a client who needs a machine now, I've been looking at the better Mac Mini (but not the server model). However, since this will be used for graphics, I need more info on the Intel HD Graphics 4000 in the unit.
I've Googled and can't find a reference to what is the max resolution the computer can drive through the Thunderbolt/DisplayPort. We need to support a high-end NEC 21" DVI monitor at 1600x1200.
Also, does this GPU use system RAM since it's evidently integrated into the CPU? Will that slow things down even if I max out the system RAM? Also, I've heard Minis tend to run hot. True? Thanks for your help.
In article <fmoore-B990E0.13092617112...@news.eternal-september.org>,
Fred Moore <fmo...@gcfn.org> wrote:
> Since Apple is taking its time releasing the new iMacs and I have a > client who needs a machine now, I've been looking at the better Mac Mini > (but not the server model). However, since this will be used for > graphics, I need more info on the Intel HD Graphics 4000 in the unit.
> I've Googled and can't find a reference to what is the max resolution > the computer can drive through the Thunderbolt/DisplayPort. We need to > support a high-end NEC 21" DVI monitor at 1600x1200.
> Also, does this GPU use system RAM since it's evidently integrated into > the CPU? Will that slow things down even if I max out the system RAM? > Also, I've heard Minis tend to run hot. True? Thanks for your help.
It seems really silly to me that Apple wouldn't state the maximum limit up front on the Mac mini product page!
This isn't a direct answer to your question, but according to Every Mac:
"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)"
-- Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.
Fred Moore <fmo...@gcfn.org> wrote:
> Since Apple is taking its time releasing the new iMacs and I have a > client who needs a machine now, I've been looking at the better Mac Mini > (but not the server model). However, since this will be used for > graphics, I need more info on the Intel HD Graphics 4000 in the unit.
> I've Googled and can't find a reference to what is the max resolution > the computer can drive through the Thunderbolt/DisplayPort. We need to > support a high-end NEC 21" DVI monitor at 1600x1200.
From the reviews on the Apple Store product page, it appears that the maximum
resolution through the Mini DisplayPort to DVI adapter is 1920 x 1200 at 60Hz.
My guess is that a new mini would provide 1600 x 1200 as an option for your NEC.
> Also, does this GPU use system RAM since it's evidently integrated into > the CPU? Will that slow things down even if I max out the system RAM?
Yes, graphics uses some of the system RAM; but at 16GB, or even 8GB, you
probably won't see any slowdowns from VM swapping.
> Also, I've heard Minis tend to run hot. True? Thanks for your help.
True of older models, before the new form factor. Macworld's review of the Mid
2011 models said that they "rarely get warm under general-purpose use". I
haven't seen any reports to indicate that the latest models are any different.
Fred Moore <fmo...@gcfn.org> wrote:
> Since Apple is taking its time releasing the new iMacs and I have a > client who needs a machine now, I've been looking at the better Mac Mini
> (but not the server model). However, since this will be used for > graphics, I need more info on the Intel HD Graphics 4000 in the unit.
> I've Googled and can't find a reference to what is the max resolution
> the computer can drive through the Thunderbolt/DisplayPort. We need to
> support a high-end NEC 21" DVI monitor at 1600x1200.
That will be fine. The Intel HD 4000 is the only GPU in the 13" Retina
MacBook Pro, which has a built-in display at 2560x1600, plus can drive
up to three external displays at a minimum of 1920x1080 on the HDMI
port, and at least 1920x1200 on each of the two Thunderbolt ports. I
expect it can drive at least one external 2560x1600 display via
Thunderbolt.
The Mac Mini should be able to drive one display at 1920x1080 via HDMI,
and another at up to 2560x1600 via Thunderbolt, without testing the
limits of the HD 4000.
Of somewhat more concern is the apparent issue with some displays on the
HDMI port of the Mini occasionally blanking the display or showing snow.
It is not clear yet whether this is an Intel hardware issue (which may
or may not have a software workaround), or a driver problem, but it is
affecting many computers with HD 4000 and HDMI ports, not just Macs.
A workaround in the meantime is to buy a suitable Mini DisplayPort
adapter (to DVI or HDMI) and avoid using the built-in HDMI port.
> Also, does this GPU use system RAM since it's evidently integrated into
> the CPU?
Yes.
> Will that slow things down even if I max out the system RAM?
The HD 4000 will be slower than a dedicated GPU, and its use of shared
system RAM will slow the entire computer marginally, but I wouldn't be
too worried about that.
A dedicated GPU is more important for things like games and complex 3D
graphics. Integrated graphics is fine for most purposes.
> Also, I've heard Minis tend to run hot. True? Thanks for your help.
Can't comment on that as I haven't used the 2010 or later Mini body
design (I have a late 2009 model, which is a significantly different
desgin).
I'm intending to get a 2012 mini myself at some point, but I'm waiting
to find out more about the HDMI issue.
Just the info I needed. And as JR said, why couldn't Apple put this on the Mini product page? While the HDMI issue is a concern, we can probably ignore it since we'll need the higher res of the DisplayPort anyway to handle 1600x1200. (I never thought to cross-check the GPU with other Apple products. Thanks, David.) Since the work will be 2D graphics and no gaming, the machine sounds up to the task. Glad they fixed the heat issue. And, contrary to the new iMacs, the Mini still has a real Firewire port.
Now I just have to decide if we should go for the 'server' version to get 2 internal hard drives to provide a Time Machine target and an alternate boot volume. Any thoughts?
> Just the info I needed. And as JR said, why couldn't Apple put this on > the Mini product page? While the HDMI issue is a concern, we can > probably ignore it since we'll need the higher res of the DisplayPort > anyway to handle 1600x1200. (I never thought to cross-check the GPU with > other Apple products. Thanks, David.) Since the work will be 2D graphics > and no gaming, the machine sounds up to the task. Glad they fixed the > heat issue. And, contrary to the new iMacs, the Mini still has a real > Firewire port.
> Now I just have to decide if we should go for the 'server' version to > get 2 internal hard drives to provide a Time Machine target and an > alternate boot volume. Any thoughts?
> Thanks again. I LOVE Usenet!
Personally, I'd get the server version, because CD/DVD drives are mostly unnecessary, and it would give me more expansion options later on. I have the mid-2010 server model (purchased for me by my employer), and it's ben lovely.
-- Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.
In article <fmoore-B990E0.13092617112...@news.eternal-september.org>,
Fred Moore <fmo...@gcfn.org> wrote:
> I've heard Minis tend to run hot. True?
The fans were quite noisy in earlier Core Duo models (of which I have two) because the hardware was so underpowered, but the latest models are much more powerful and run whisper quiet, in my experience.
-- Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.
In article <jollyroger-960363.09115018112...@news.individual.net>,
Jolly Roger <jollyro...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Personally, I'd get the server version, because CD/DVD drives are mostly > unnecessary, and it would give me more expansion options later on. I > have the mid-2010 server model (purchased for me by my employer), and > it's been lovely.
That's what I'm leaning toward because the second HD could be partitioned into an alternate boot volume for diagnostics and sparseimage backups as well as a Time Machine target volume.
Is the server model any harder to set up than a regular Mini? Lots of folks are complaining about the dumbed-down server tools in 10.8. For this purpose, that'd be just fine. I was hoping the server model's setup was just like a regular Mini setup, but you'd just stop before you got to the point of setting up the various services a real server would have. Is this true?
> In article <jollyroger-960363.09115018112...@news.individual.net>,
> Jolly Roger <jollyro...@pobox.com> wrote:
> > Personally, I'd get the server version, because CD/DVD drives are mostly > > unnecessary, and it would give me more expansion options later on. I > > have the mid-2010 server model (purchased for me by my employer), and > > it's been lovely.
> That's what I'm leaning toward because the second HD could be > partitioned into an alternate boot volume for diagnostics and > sparseimage backups as well as a Time Machine target volume.
> Is the server model any harder to set up than a regular Mini? Lots of > folks are complaining about the dumbed-down server tools in 10.8. For > this purpose, that'd be just fine. I was hoping the server model's setup > was just like a regular Mini setup, but you'd just stop before you got > to the point of setting up the various services a real server would > have. Is this true?
> Thanks again for your help.
Back when we bought this model, Apple still had separate Mac OS X server / client operating system installations. Because of that, and because Apple had not released a point release for client at the time we purchased this unit, we had one HELL of a time getting the machine to boot from a Mac OS X client install DVD. Apple support wasn't helpful, but after trying a bunch of different things, we finally managed to get the thing to see a Mac OS X client DVD mounted in another computer over the network, and got client installed on it. I suspect that would be much easier today, now that many more releases have happened!
Anyhow, with my own Mac mini, which runs various services central to my home network (like dns, mail, backup, web, ftp, file sharing, and so on), I don't even bother installing Apple's Server tools. Mac OS X client has almost everything I need, and I can install the other things easily. And I don't have to buy Apple's Server tools each time I upgrade my OS that way.
-- Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.
Fred Moore <fmo...@gcfn.org> wrote:
> JR, Neill, David, and Lewis, THANK YOU ALL!
> Just the info I needed. And as JR said, why couldn't Apple put this on
> the Mini product page? While the HDMI issue is a concern, we can > probably ignore it since we'll need the higher res of the DisplayPort
> anyway to handle 1600x1200.
You shouldn't need to use DisplayPort for that resolution (but might
want to due to the blanking problem on the HDMI port). Based on other
reports, the HDMI output should be able to do 1920x1200, so 1600x1200
will be fine.
HDMI is basically single-link DVI, and its maximum resolution is a
question of total number of pixels per frame, not the specific number of
lines or columns. Single-link DVI can do just over 2 megapixels (e.g.
1920x1200), but can't achieve 4 megapixels (e.g. 2560x1600). The latter
is possible through dual-link DVI, which has twice as many pins carrying
the video signal.
I'm able to do 1920x1200 through single-link DVI, but haven't tried that
resolution via HDMI as I don't have any displays with an HDMI input that
support resolutions higher than 1920x1080.
> (I never thought to cross-check the GPU with other Apple products. Thanks,
> David.) Since the work will be 2D graphics and no gaming, the machine
> sounds up to the task. Glad they fixed the heat issue. And, contrary to
> the new iMacs, the Mini still has a real Firewire port.
That's another reason I'm thinking of getting this Mini rather than
waiting for the next model: it might get a redesign next time and drop
Firewire in favour of a second Thunderbolt port. That would add to my
cost as I'd need a Firewire adapter to keep using my existing drives.
> Now I just have to decide if we should go for the 'server' version to
> get 2 internal hard drives to provide a Time Machine target and an > alternate boot volume. Any thoughts?
I'd hesitate to put the Time Machine backup on an internal drive in a
Mini, as it complicates the situation where there is a fault with the
Mini which prevents access to either drive, and you want to restore the
backup to a different computer.
With Mountain Lion, you can of course have two Time Machine backups, one
on an internal drive and the other on an external drive. ML will
alternate between them for each backup, if both are available.
My current Mini (late 2009) is the Server model, which I got
specifically because I wanted Mac OS X Server and it was a cheap way of
getting Server 10.6, which would have cost half the price of the Mini
just to buy the server OS for my older Mini. That is no longer a factor
with the much cheaper pricing of Server in 10.7 and further reduction in
10.8. The optical drive wasn't a consideration - I almost never used it
in my older Mini.
I was intending to use one of the internal drives to run the server, the
second one for data storage, and an external Time Machine backup drive.
Shortly after I set up the server, I discovered that the internal drive
I was using for the OS had developed bad sectors, which rendered the
system unusable. I had to erase the server and set it up from scratch,
as I hadn't been expecting a problem that quickly and hadn't done a
backup of the server yet.
I did the second install on an external Firewire drive (which was faster
than the internal drive anyway, for that generation of Mini), and I've
run the Mini with the external system ever since.
The internal drive with the bad sectors has subsequently been used to
store EyeTV recordings and it appears to be OK - it has been close to
full and I haven't seen signs of I/O errors on read. I expect the bad
sectors were replaced by spare ones on write and if it is getting worse
I haven't noticed yet.
I'm intending to have a close look at the drive's detailed SMART status
before the AppleCare expires, so I can get it replaced for free if
necessary. I'll need another Mac Mini if I need to send this one away,
hence my interest in buying the 2012 model soon. My 2009 Mini can run
Mountain Lion, so it could be an emergency spare for my 2012 Mini if the
latter develops a problem.
Fred Moore <fmo...@gcfn.org> wrote:
> In article <jollyroger-960363.09115018112...@news.individual.net>,
> Jolly Roger <jollyro...@pobox.com> wrote:
> > Personally, I'd get the server version, because CD/DVD drives are mostly
> > unnecessary, and it would give me more expansion options later on. I
> > have the mid-2010 server model (purchased for me by my employer), and
> > it's been lovely.
The non-server Mini lost the optical drive in the mid 2011 series, so
that is no longer a consideration.
I'm considering the middle 2012 Mini model, upgraded to a Fusion drive.
I'd probably end up partitioning the 1 TB drive and using the second
partition for EyeTV recordings (to force a limit to the amount of disk
space they could use).
> That's what I'm leaning toward because the second HD could be > partitioned into an alternate boot volume for diagnostics and > sparseimage backups as well as a Time Machine target volume.
> Is the server model any harder to set up than a regular Mini?
It was for my 2009 Mini running 10.6 Server, as you had to set up some
server components correctly during initial setup. Nothing particuarly
tricky.
> Lots of folks are complaining about the dumbed-down server tools in 10.8.
> For this purpose, that'd be just fine. I was hoping the server model's
> setup was just like a regular Mini setup, but you'd just stop before you
> got to the point of setting up the various services a real server would
> have. Is this true?
I haven't experimented with 10.7 Server and 10.8 Server yet and haven't
seen what happens when you set up a preinstalled server with those
versions. Since the Server application is separate to the main OS, and
it basically converts a standard OS X installation into a server (with
10.7, less so with 10.8), setting up the server features may be an
optional step when setting up a 2011 or 2012 Mac Mini Server.
In article <jollyroger-960363.09115018112...@news.individual.net>,
Jolly Roger <jollyro...@pobox.com> wrote:
> > Now I just have to decide if we should go for the 'server' version to > > get 2 internal hard drives to provide a Time Machine target and an > > alternate boot volume. Any thoughts?
> Personally, I'd get the server version, because CD/DVD drives are mostly > unnecessary, and it would give me more expansion options later on. I > have the mid-2010 server model (purchased for me by my employer), and > it's ben lovely.
In article <jollyroger-AC167A.09133218112...@news.individual.net>,
Jolly Roger <jollyro...@pobox.com> wrote:
> > I've heard Minis tend to run hot. True?
> The fans were quite noisy in earlier Core Duo models (of which I have > two) because the hardware was so underpowered, but the latest models are > much more powerful and run whisper quiet, in my experience.
i have both a powerpc and a core duo mac mini and neither one is noisy.
if i manually set the fan at a high speed it can it be heard, but only
nearby. it's not audible in a neighboring room which is more than i can
say for the 'wind tunnel' g4s.
In article <181120121253244349%nos...@nospam.invalid>,
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <jollyroger-AC167A.09133218112...@news.individual.net>,
> Jolly Roger <jollyro...@pobox.com> wrote:
> > > I've heard Minis tend to run hot. True?
> > The fans were quite noisy in earlier Core Duo models (of which I have > > two) because the hardware was so underpowered, but the latest models are > > much more powerful and run whisper quiet, in my experience.
> i have both a powerpc and a core duo mac mini and neither one is noisy.
> if i manually set the fan at a high speed it can it be heard, but only
> nearby. it's not audible in a neighboring room which is more than i can
> say for the 'wind tunnel' g4s.
God, all you like to do is argue about the most asinine things. You're like that fat, pimp-faced, annoying ten year old who does nothing but nag just to get a rise out of others. Pathetic.
I'm sure Fred, being a logical person, unlike Mr. Know-It-All nospam here, realizes that computer fan noise perception is largely subjective. Noise that might bother one person won't bother another person. And I'm sure Fred won't ignore, as nospam has, my assertion that newer Mac minis are much more quiet than older models - that's absolutely true.
-- Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.
> In message <fmoore-1780F7.11142618112...@news.eternal-september.org> > Fred Moore <fmo...@gcfn.org> wrote:
>> JR, Neill, David, and Lewis, THANK YOU ALL!
>> Just the info I needed. And as JR said, why couldn't Apple put this on >> the Mini product page? While the HDMI issue is a concern, we can >> probably ignore it since we'll need the higher res of the DisplayPort >> anyway to handle 1600x1200. (I never thought to cross-check the GPU with >> other Apple products. Thanks, David.) Since the work will be 2D graphics >> and no gaming, the machine sounds up to the task. Glad they fixed the >> heat issue. And, contrary to the new iMacs, the Mini still has a real >> Firewire port.
>> Now I just have to decide if we should go for the 'server' version to >> get 2 internal hard drives to provide a Time Machine target and an >> alternate boot volume. Any thoughts?
> I thought the 2010 server was worth the price difference. I do not think
> the 2012 on is. I would be more likely to get the $800 unit and pay for
> the Fusion drive. In fact, I very nearly did, but decided for my
> intended use of this mini, it's not needed.
> The only difference between the $800 and the Server is the second 1TB HD
> which you pay $200 for. Oh, and the $20 OS X Server (though I already
> own a 10.8 server license, so that's $0 for me)
> I don't think a 1TB 5400 2.5" internal drive is worth $200.
How easy is it to add a second (or a larger) drive to a Mac mini?
In article <k8bug402...@news3.newsguy.com>,
J.J. O'Shea <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 18:00:52 -0500, Lewis wrote
> (in article <slrnkaiq59.dns.g.kr...@mbp55.local>):
...
> > The only difference between the $800 and the Server is the second 1TB HD
> > which you pay $200 for. Oh, and the $20 OS X Server (though I already
> > own a 10.8 server license, so that's $0 for me)
> > I don't think a 1TB 5400 2.5" internal drive is worth $200.
> How easy is it to add a second (or a larger) drive to a Mac mini?
Not particularly difficult, if you have a fair case of OCD :-)
(or fair experience assembling electronics). There are videos of the process for the 2011 Mac Mini, e.g. at OWC (macsales)
Lewis <g.kr...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> In message <fmoore-B990E0.13092617112...@news.eternal-september.org> > Fred Moore <fmo...@gcfn.org> wrote:
> > Since Apple is taking its time releasing the new iMacs and I have a > > client who needs a machine now, I've been looking at the better Mac Mini > > (but not the server model). However, since this will be used for > > graphics, I need more info on the Intel HD Graphics 4000 in the unit.
> Other than playing games, it seems fine. > ...
> The machine is in no way slow with 16GB of RAM. I found it slow with the
> stock 4GB. I don't know how much RAM the GPU has available to it in the
> stock config of 4GB, but on mine it is using 768MB out of the 16GB.
Yes, I have a friend who is the Mac consultant for the corporate headquarters of Limited Brands, a high-end women's apparel chain as well as the owner of Victoria's Secret and Bath & Body Works, which is located here. She says that many, perhaps most, of the graphic designers there use Mac Minis. Seems like a good endorsement to me.
In article <jollyroger-AC167A.09133218112...@news.individual.net>,
Jolly Roger <jollyro...@pobox.com> wrote:
> In article <fmoore-B990E0.13092617112...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Fred Moore <fmo...@gcfn.org> wrote:
> > I've heard Minis tend to run hot. True?
> The fans were quite noisy in earlier Core Duo models (of which I have > two) because the hardware was so underpowered, but the latest models are > much more powerful and run whisper quiet, in my experience.
> > Just the info I needed. And as JR said, why couldn't Apple put this on
> > the Mini product page? While the HDMI issue is a concern, we can > > probably ignore it since we'll need the higher res of the DisplayPort
> > anyway to handle 1600x1200.
> You shouldn't need to use DisplayPort for that resolution (but might
> want to due to the blanking problem on the HDMI port). Based on other
> reports, the HDMI output should be able to do 1920x1200, so 1600x1200
> will be fine.
> HDMI is basically single-link DVI, and its maximum resolution is a
> question of total number of pixels per frame, not the specific number of
> lines or columns. Single-link DVI can do just over 2 megapixels (e.g.
> 1920x1200), but can't achieve 4 megapixels (e.g. 2560x1600). The latter
> is possible through dual-link DVI, which has twice as many pins carrying
> the video signal.
> I'm able to do 1920x1200 through single-link DVI,
Thanks, real world experience is always best.
> but haven't tried that
> resolution via HDMI as I don't have any displays with an HDMI input that
> support resolutions higher than 1920x1080.
I thought someone in an earlier post to this thread said the HDMI was limited to something x 1080. Anyway, I'll likely be setting it up with a Thundebolt/DisplayPort-to-DVI cable to the NEC monitor, so it's moot and I also avoid any HDMI dropout problems.
> > Now I just have to decide if we should go for the 'server' version to
> > get 2 internal hard drives to provide a Time Machine target and an > > alternate boot volume. Any thoughts?
> I'd hesitate to put the Time Machine backup on an internal drive in a
> Mini, as it complicates the situation where there is a fault with the
> Mini which prevents access to either drive, and you want to restore the
> backup to a different computer.
Yes! Thanks for this reality check. In investigating the upgrade, I had lost sight of the forest for the trees. In the current Power Mac G5 tower, both hard drives are dead easy to remove. That facility has greatly helped in diagnosing the hardware issues while maintaining data integrity. If the Mini server HDs were that easy to pull, I'd go with it; but they certainly aren't. I'll just chain Firewire drives off of a regular Mini.
> With Mountain Lion, you can of course have two Time Machine backups, one
> on an internal drive and the other on an external drive. ML will
> alternate between them for each backup, if both are available.
I was unaware of this. Where is the setup? In the TM prefs pane?
And, thanks to you and JR for the comments on Mini server setup. I've stored it in my database for future reference.
Fred Moore <fmo...@gcfn.org> wrote:
> In article <1ktstir.iff6t31udsgbwN%demp...@actrix.gen.nz>,
> demp...@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) wrote:
> > With Mountain Lion, you can of course have two Time Machine backups, one
> > on an internal drive and the other on an external drive. ML will
> > alternate between them for each backup, if both are available.
> I was unaware of this. Where is the setup? In the TM prefs pane?
Yes. Once you have set up the first Time Machine backup, you can go into
System Preferences > Time Machine, click the Select Disk button, and
choose another disk. The existing one is retained.
If you want to remove a backup disk, you select the existing backup disk
from the list then click the "Remove Disk" button.
> In article <k8bug402...@news3.newsguy.com>,
> J.J. O'Shea <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 18:00:52 -0500, Lewis wrote
>> (in article <slrnkaiq59.dns.g.kr...@mbp55.local>):
> ...
>>> The only difference between the $800 and the Server is the second 1TB HD
>>> which you pay $200 for. Oh, and the $20 OS X Server (though I already
>>> own a 10.8 server license, so that's $0 for me)
>>> I don't think a 1TB 5400 2.5" internal drive is worth $200.
>> How easy is it to add a second (or a larger) drive to a Mac mini?
> Not particularly difficult, if you have a fair case of OCD :-)
> (or fair experience assembling electronics). There are videos > of the process for the 2011 Mac Mini, e.g. at OWC (macsales)
> the 2012 version should be substantially similar. Having done a few
> simpler such installations on other systems, I am going to pass on
> this one :-)
I looked at the iFixit Mac mini teardown and the add a second drive page. I think that I'll pass. They're not charging $200 for the drive, they're charging $200 so you can avoid having to do a major project just to add/change a drive.
> In message <k8bug402...@news3.newsguy.com> > J.J O'Shea <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 18:00:52 -0500, Lewis wrote
>> (in article <slrnkaiq59.dns.g.kr...@mbp55.local>):
>>> In message <fmoore-1780F7.11142618112...@news.eternal-september.org> >>> Fred Moore <fmo...@gcfn.org> wrote:
>>>> JR, Neill, David, and Lewis, THANK YOU ALL!
>>>> Just the info I needed. And as JR said, why couldn't Apple put this on >>>> the Mini product page? While the HDMI issue is a concern, we can >>>> probably ignore it since we'll need the higher res of the DisplayPort >>>> anyway to handle 1600x1200. (I never thought to cross-check the GPU with >>>> other Apple products. Thanks, David.) Since the work will be 2D graphics >>>> and no gaming, the machine sounds up to the task. Glad they fixed the >>>> heat issue. And, contrary to the new iMacs, the Mini still has a real >>>> Firewire port.
>>>> Now I just have to decide if we should go for the 'server' version to >>>> get 2 internal hard drives to provide a Time Machine target and an >>>> alternate boot volume. Any thoughts?
>>> I thought the 2010 server was worth the price difference. I do not think
>>> the 2012 on is. I would be more likely to get the $800 unit and pay for
>>> the Fusion drive. In fact, I very nearly did, but decided for my
>>> intended use of this mini, it's not needed.
>>> The only difference between the $800 and the Server is the second 1TB HD
>>> which you pay $200 for. Oh, and the $20 OS X Server (though I already
>>> own a 10.8 server license, so that's $0 for me)
>>> I don't think a 1TB 5400 2.5" internal drive is worth $200.
>> How easy is it to add a second (or a larger) drive to a Mac mini?
> Very easy. You have 4 USB3 ports and a FW800 port and a Thunderbolt
> port.
> Or did you mean INTERNAL drive?
> That's rather a large project, and requires taking the mini completely
> apart.
I had a look at iFixit's pages on the subject. I'll add an internal drive to a mini if someone pays me to do it. Otherwise, I'll pass. Way too much effort for too little reward, it's easier to just pay Apple the extra $200 if you just _have_ to have two internal drives.
