Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Hardware - Troubleshooting and Discussion > Mac Desktops > Stupid Mini Question

Stupid Mini Question
Thread Tools
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 17, 2016, 12:36 PM
 
Are RAM upgrades still "unscrew and replace" easy?
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 17, 2016, 12:42 PM
 
No. Soldered down since the 2014 revision.

https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Mac+...Teardown/30410
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 17, 2016, 12:51 PM
 
God dammit!

Thanks for the info, though!

I've got a friend who's getting a Mini and is a light computer user. Safari, email, music and movies.

They also want the thing to last a long time.

They're also also a cheapskate.

Can they get away with 8GB RAM? I would say yes except for maybe the long lasting part. Programs are only going to get more memory hoggy.
     
Mike Wuerthele
Managing Editor
Join Date: Jul 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 17, 2016, 06:38 PM
 
The last few years have gone the other way. Memory compression in 10.10+ has been a boon. 8GB should be fine for a few years.

"Long time?" How long are we talking?
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2016, 05:14 AM
 
Until it hurts.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2016, 09:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by Mike Wuerthele View Post
The last few years have gone the other way. Memory compression in 10.10+ has been a boon. 8GB should be fine for a few years.
It was added in 10.9 Mavericks and was truly a "holy shit" feature for my usage.
     
Mike Wuerthele
Managing Editor
Join Date: Jul 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2016, 05:33 PM
 
Yeah, that's why I specified 10.10+.

The implementation in 10.9 was just a shadow of what it would become in 10.10.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2016, 06:09 AM
 
For now Apple is still stuck supporting a lot of older Macs with 2GB or 4GB of non-upgradeable RAM. Still, I'd never buy a new one now without maxing it if I could.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2016, 06:41 AM
 
Me neither.

It's the psychology of it costing $899 (mid range with an upped HD) vs. $1,099 (midrange with HD and RAM). I feel he's going to balk at crossing the $1K barrier.

He'd be set if I was good enough of a pal to be free labor on a hard drive swap, but I ain't.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2016, 08:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by Mike Wuerthele View Post
Yeah, that's why I specified 10.10+.

The implementation in 10.9 was just a shadow of what it would become in 10.10.
No, you misunderstand: It was a revelation in 10.9. It instantly breathed another two years of life into my MacBook Pro.
     
Mike Wuerthele
Managing Editor
Join Date: Jul 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2016, 11:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
No, you misunderstand: It was a revelation in 10.9. It instantly breathed another two years of life into my MacBook Pro.
No, I understood you. It didn't do that much for me personally until 10.10.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2016, 06:22 AM
 
Interesting. While I skipped 10.10 (only major OS version that I skipped since 7.6), going from 10.9 to 10.11 I certainly did not notice any improvements to memory usage. 10.11 is fine, but I would say still a slightly worse expereience than 10.9 on a 2011 MBA 4GB RAM.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Mike Wuerthele
Managing Editor
Join Date: Jul 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2016, 07:10 AM
 
I think machines with 4GB benefitted the most in the initial rollouts of the feature. I haven't owned any hardware with less than 8GB of RAM.

It makes sense that the feature helps low-RAM hardware in its earlier incarnations more than machines with greater amounts.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2016, 08:59 AM
 
I had 8 GB and upgraded to 16 for a single Logic project (2.5-hour 48-track live mix) that went from almost 30 GB of memory usage to EIGHT GB after installing Mavericks.
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:40 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,