wadewad t1_j4q8wul wrote
>supports up to 32GB of memory.
wow! dude!
/s
krectus t1_j4srezt wrote
I would think those who need more than 32GB of ram aren’t buying Mac minis.
Pubelication t1_j4t9men wrote
This. These complaints come from people who would never need/use more than 8 or 16GB. Big Sur runs great on a 2014 8GB Mini. MacOS is extremely efficient in its use of RAM. The M processors make up for any loss, and if that's not enough, you shouldn't be buying a Mini.
RBTropical t1_j4ua3qn wrote
Remember that RAM is combined on these machines. Ofc this was the case for prior Mac Minis but important to remember for anyone used to iMacs with AMD GPUs
wadewad t1_j4u5jg3 wrote
The 64GB ThinkPad X1 Yoga says hello
Raymoundgh t1_j4qv7w9 wrote
Will charge 500$ for the memory upgrade!
lolsup1 t1_j4rcifv wrote
I’ve got 32gb in my old Mac mini I’ve converted into a server. Was like $20 and super easy to install
pseudocultist t1_j4sqgl4 wrote
IDK about the M2 Mini, but the M1 was not upgradeable. This is Apple's new thing, and I hate it.
alc4pwned t1_j4t3hs1 wrote
Well yeah it's an SoC. Not really possible to make that upgradeable.
lolsup1 t1_j4srsvf wrote
I imagine they both won’t be. My Mac mini is well over 10 years old
pseudocultist t1_j4ssk4b wrote
The 2022 Mac Mini spec page shows "configurable" to 32gb which is the same language as the last one. So nope, much like the Mac Studio, there will be no RAM upgrades moving forward. Also guessing they are using those custom SSDs that can't be swapped with other hard drives, like the Studio.
The Mini has always been a great product, because you can keep beefing it up, but it looks like they want them to have a short life. This is the tradeoff for the $100 price drop, I assume.
MyVoiceIsElevating t1_j4uz4jh wrote
Yes it’s all soldered. No one likes it. The only benefit is faster speeds than removable chipsets.
SpicyPepperMaster t1_j4ws0o6 wrote
> The only benefit is faster speeds than removable chipsets.
That is an unbelievably huge benefit though
MyVoiceIsElevating t1_j4xb3s8 wrote
PC users don’t care about the performance difference. Specs matter, except for when they don’t.
Raymoundgh t1_j4rdp04 wrote
Exactly! This is why I haven’t bought any new macs. This pricing is atrocious! Also the SSDs actually have a lifetime.
Nehal1802 t1_j4t2v5v wrote
So not supporting Apple but the whole “give us upgradable memory slots” is a little hard with the M series chips. The RAM/SSD/CPU/GPU is all on one chip. The design would make it impossible to allow upgrades.
Now a secondary RAM slot or SSD slot surely is possible. I’d be curious what that would do to the performance. I’m assuming part of your speed and battery life is due to everything being on one chip.
[deleted] t1_j4t3sk1 wrote
[deleted]
Nehal1802 t1_j4t9c47 wrote
That’s true but I think that was more for the slimness of machines. The Mac Mini had the upgrade slots until the M series CPUs.
Take a look at RAM upgrades on an HP. I was recently looking at an HP Zbook Fury for work. Their RAM upgrade prices were ridiculous, even more than Apple. The kicker is that the HP had RAM upgrade slots. I think more manufacturers are charging crazy amounts for memory because they can get away with it. The people of Reddit might go ahead and open a laptop and upgrade the RAM but none of my relatives will do it even though it’s possible. They’d pay the manufacturer to do it. Lots of Windows laptops are also losing upgradable RAM slots.
Now the SSD issues including where you can’t retrieve data because of the link between the T2 chip and the SSD, that’s a dick move. Louis Rossman has a video on that. From what I gathered, Apples decision means you can’t in any way retrieve the data from a MacBook that has the T2 chip if the board dies.
MidgarsJanitor t1_j4x7mod wrote
It's not for the "slimness of the machine" it's because of a unified memory architecture that's only achievable by combining components with the SoC. So many misinformed users here blasting Apple over something they don't understand at all.
danielv123 t1_j4r6dh2 wrote
Memory upgrade? Lol. Not sure if I would call it an upgrade if it can only be done from the factory.
22Sharpe t1_j4t9whw wrote
It’s the tradeoff of an SOC. Faster performance but no upgrade path post purchase. I get the argument both ways.
GrimmRadiance t1_j4r4pf7 wrote
Yup. So obnoxious
One-Gap-3915 t1_j4uaxr7 wrote
As someone who uses a Lenovo thinkpad and an (intel) MacBook Pro on a daily basis, both with 16GB ram, it’s night and day difference.
I can open as many apps as I want on the MacBook and it hardly slows, presumably macOS is very efficient at allocating memory. Meanwhile on the thinkpad it slows down after just a few applications are open.
I wondered why tech forums always obsess over memory because I’ve never found it that big a deal, but when I started using the thinkpad I realised where it came from. And this is comparing with an Intel Mac, apple silicon ones are even better apparently.
helixflush t1_j4u4zyo wrote
macOS is much more efficient than Windows lol
wadewad t1_j4u5fst wrote
real work involves more than idling the OS
helixflush t1_j4u6v0s wrote
I don't know what you mean by "real work" but it's a very capable machine with 32gb
[deleted] t1_j4vsdwk wrote
[removed]
rakehellion t1_j574hs2 wrote
Do you know of a small form factor PC with more than than? People will complain about anything.
wadewad t1_j577m54 wrote
even ultrabook form factor laptops are shipping with 64GB (see Thinkpad X1 Carbon, X1 Yoga), old ass thinkpad's like the T480 could do 2x32GB
the copium from apple fanboys is hilarious
rakehellion t1_j577t34 wrote
Macbooks ship with 96GB, but this isn't a laptop.
0000GKP t1_j4uuw0h wrote
> supports up to 32GB of memory. >
> wow! dude!
For a lot of people who would have bought the Studio for no other reason than because the Mini was limited to 16GB, this will save them $500 or more. I’m glad to see it.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments