Apple gives Mac mini a spec bump, adds dual-HDD Mac mini server
By Joshua Topolsky 
posted Oct 20th 2009 12:01PM
posted Oct 20th 2009 12:01PM
Apple is today introducing an all new machine in the Mac mini server, a system that's formed in the exact same enclosure as the standard mini but without an optical drive of any kind. Instead, there's room for an additional hard drive, and the $999 model ships with two 500GB HDDs. It also includes Snow Leopard Server (unlimited clients), a 2.53GHz Core 2 Duo processor, 4GB of RAM, a GeForce 9400M GPU and the same port assortment (meaning no mini-DisplayPort) as found on the other guys. It's hard to say just how well something like this will do, but we're guessing Apple doesn't much mind if it remains a niche product. Catch Apple's official blurb after the break.
Apple today also announced that the Mac mini, the world's most energy efficient desktop,** is now faster, offers more storage and comes standard with double the memory. Starting at $599, the entry level Mac mini features a faster 2.26 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor and 2GB of DDR3 1066 MHz memory, a 160GB hard drive, five USB 2.0 ports, FireWire 800, NVIDIA GeForce 9400M integrated graphics and a SuperDrive®. The $799 Mac mini features a 2.53 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor, 4GB of memory and a larger 320GB hard drive. Apple now offers a $999 Mac mini that is specially configured with Mac OS® X Snow Leopard® Server. Mac mini with Snow Leopard Server features two 500GB hard drives for a total of 1TB of server storage in the tiny 6.5-inch square by 2-inch tall Mac mini enclosure.
Cool, I can get the MAC Mini Server load Parallels and load Windows Home Server and have the best of both worlds!
Yeah i will stick with my WHS thats half the cost and double the usefulness, i already have the best of both worlds with backups and shares for both PCs and Macs ;)
Er, how much does an unlimited client version of Windows Server cost? I'll give you a hint, the 10-client version alone costs more than this entire computer INCLUDING unlimited client OS X Server. What was that you were saying about half the cost? Also for those of you unaware, OS X server includes full Windows services. And unix services etc. etc.
$999 for a FULL server OS and the machine to run it on is actually a really good deal when compared to what a Windows server costs including software.
He's talking about Windows HOME server not windows server.
Not too much reason to get into it here, but Windows HOME Server is a 10-client, FULL Windows Server 2003 SP2 (at least "full" in terms of capabilities if not in terms of active directory support) install with an idiot-proof, home-user focused console on top of it--$91 at NewEgg. HP's version even offers Mac client connectivity and Time Machine support. And for $1000, you can easily pack 5 TB or more into it's four hot swappable, 3.5" SATA II drive bays and still have pretty massive expandability using it's ESATA port.
That said, it'll have a slower processor, some fan noise, a necessarily larger (but still small) chassis, and no Steve-Mojo. If you're a Mac shop perhaps this'll better serve you. It's definitely targeting a different user base. But for what you do get, I'd say $1000 is pretty high. Par for the iCourse, of course. :)
@Jack
ROFL
thanks Jack for making me laugh. Even if I was serious your post would've been funny. Windows HOME Server is $99 and only needs an Atom processor and 512 MB RAM to run. You can pick up a full blown system with multi-drive bay for $389.99 at Newegg
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16859321013&nm_mc=OTC-Froogle&cm_mmc=OTC-Froogle-_-Server+-+Systems-_-Acer+America-_-59321013
And just who the hell are you expecting to "serve" with that tiny machine?
@Jack
Your elevator doesn't quite go all the way up does it?
Never made a single comparison. Having never used OSX Server it would be difficult to be objective. Seeing as you don't even know what Windows Home Server is I suspect your comparison is probably somewhat flawed as well.
I have been running Windows 2000 Server as my home server for over 5 years and use MAYBE 1% of the features it has so I don't NEED the full power of OSX Server or Windows Server and neither do the MILLIONS of others who this product is targeted towards.
For the record I was using OSX back when it was called NeXTSTEP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NeXTSTEP on a NeXT Cube. I LIKE OSX and would happily own a MAC. I simply make more money servicing Windows boxes ;)
BTW you didn't use to troll here as ieye did you?
@Jack, no you were the only one trying to directly compare them. The original poster said he'd install WHS in Parallels and the second one said that WHS was better for his needs.
I've no doubt that you and three or four other folks will find this appealing. :) Seriously, though, it falls in a very small niche between a home server (for which it is far too expensive) and a standard office server (for which it is generally underspec'd). It could serve a very small office, perhaps, but OSX Server is rarely the first choice for this purpose unless it is a purely Mac shop. Or it could serve as a simple web server or low-end app server or something. Or even put together with tons of others in a farm. But in those roles there are generally better and lower cost alternatives (i.e., a bazillion Linux options). The point is that unless you are really a major Mac techie, this doesn't really have a place.
Didnt mean to start a flame war, but all i was saying is the Mac Mini Server is a weird market. a grand for a server that only can fullfil a small niche would have been better suited for the home market.
As i said to a friend in all honesty that if they rolled the time machine and apple tv into this thing and lower the price they would have a real gadget on their hands but as it currently stands, even the apple webpage suggests only a few ideas for its use.
Its too expensive to run for any home need and too underpowered with small drives to serve anything more than a small office.
Really, I was the only one making a comparison? You might want to look up where Andy said: "Yeah i will stick with my WHS thats half the cost and double the usefulness"
Half the cost? Sure if you go with Home server, which is not even slightly comparable to OS X Server.
Chad: Nobody CARES if you wouldn't use the features. We're talking about FACTS here. The Mini Server for $999 comes with OS X Server, which is a full professional level server. It doesn't MATTER if you won't use all the features, IT COMES WITH THEM ANYWAY. Are you getting this at all? Should I type slower? Comparing Windows Home server to OS X Server is like comparing Pong to Crysis. You get a HELL of a lot more for your money with OS X Server.
Again, OS X Server is what the Mini comes with, and that's why the comparison is being made. It's not an arbitrary comparison, it's just HOW IT IS. You may want to consider just dealing with it.
Paul: For $999 you are getting a hell of a lot more for your money than you would with any Windows-based solution - again, REGARDLESS of whether you're going to use all the features or not.The point is that some people will use some features, and other people will use others. The point is that it's not CRIPPLED. The point is that at least when comparing OS X and WIndows, this Mini with OS X Server is by far the best bang for the buck. Simply because to get a comparable system in Windows you would have to spring for the unlimited client version of Windows Server.
"Comparable" being the key words here. You understand how this works, right? You can't say Windows Home server is a better deal because it has less features. That's not a better deal. That's paying less and GETTING LESS. See the difference?
Too bad it still does not include a blu-ray player so that we could backup our home movies at $3/25GB and watch real HD content
Jack: You're missing the entire point. This is a Mac Mini... its primary purpose is to perform as a home based file/media/storage server. As a result it doesn't need the extra features that you're claiming justify its higher cost.
And why does it take me ten submission attempts to get a comment through on this blog?
I don't really see the point - I run Server 2008 on a couple boxes at home (MSDN subscription), and - assuming that OSX Server has a lot of the same capabilities - there's not much I would want to run on a box with those specs - just two drive bays, two cores, one NIC. I guess you could host a small website on it, but you might as well just install Linux and httpd
He's a Jack-ass, don't bother replying.
Hobo - A: You said don't bother replying.... in a reply. LOL? B: Namecalling is definitely not going to prove me wrong. C: That's the best you can do? Disappointing.
John and NorCal - Just because you don't see the point doesn't mean there isn't one. OS X Server includes a lot of things people might want to run from a small footprint box. Personally I see a use for the file server, quicktime server, ftp server, web server, mail server, client services, iCal server, Print server, XGrid for distributed processing. Just off the top of my head. There's a lot more you can do like full client management, netbooting, DNS, NAT, DHCP etc. although I probably wouldn't use them. But some people would, and that's the point.
It's less than a grand for a REAL server. Not Home server. Anybody who's ever seen the price of the unlimited client version of WIndows Server will be able to see the value in that.
The point isn't that NOBODY would find a use for the box or that some might even use some of the more obscure features of a fairly robust server OS running on an itty-bitty little machine. Obviously people like you exist. The point is that HARDLY ANYBODY would. Nobody said it was crap. They just said that it wasn't even approaching borderline mainstream. That's fine. Niche is just fine. They'll find homes for some of these, just not too many. Hell, even that crazy-expensive macminicolo company seems to find customers...from where I don't know, but they do seem to be in business.
Sure, it's a real server OS, but hardware-wise it is less of a "real" server than many of the WHS boxes that are going for $400-$500 and certainly no more so than any $500 Dell. At best it's a departmental development/build/test box, a CMS/Wiki server, or maybe a cool-but-overpriced grid/farm node. And every one of the features you mentioned using (even XGrid) are available for free on any of the Linux distros (and even available for free on...gasp!!!...Windows Home Server). And in the Linux (or even WHS) world your $999 goes a LOT further than a small, twin laptop-drive, Core 2 duo--even if power-savings is your target.
Bottom line is that you have to be a pretty rabid fan to put a $500 server OS on an overpriced $500 piece of hardware and walk away saying "dude, dat bitch be off da hook!!!"
or...if you wanna keep it mac, and want a simple home server of sorts (something to store media and perform backups, which is all john q. public wants/needs), just do the following:
- get a 1tb time capsule for $300
- buy a 2tb green hdd $200
- create two partitions on the drive: one called 'nas', one called 'time machine backups'
- replace the hdd in the time capsule (and maybe do a fan mod while youre in there)
- sit back and enjoy twice the storage of this dumb 'server mac mini', the sweet router capabilities, and the fact that you can share files in a mixed computing environment (win7 htpc and macs/hackintoshes) just like the big boys
ps: before any of you mathemagicians try to point out that you could just buy the 2tb time capsule for $500, i would like to remind you that you end up with a 1tb 'server grade' (haha...i kid, i kid) hdd to put in your rig.
Any Intel Mac with the ram can run snow leopard server (which should be all Intel Macs). This mini is fairly niche, but it's basically just bundling the cost of software and giving you an extra hard drive. It's not a bad deal for a home website or small business that doesn't have to much traffic. I think it'd be far more competitive if the whole mini line dropped $100….
Not comparing WHS to OS X Server, for a real home website server, you don't even need OS X server. I was running a site off 10.3 for a while this year till the computer broke. I'm not sure what full server capabilities WHS compared to regular windows. OS X (regular) can handle full remote access and permissions control by default. OS X server gives more specific options for some types of Account groups and mainly adds Mail (can be done in OS X regular) and Directory, and iChat servers. CalDav is added but you can do this for free in OS X with tools from apple. I think WHS covers most of that, right?
Bleh. They could of done much better. Should at least put in a core i5.
Core i5 isn't publically available yet. Mobile Core i5 chips are 32nm. You'll see them very early next year.
Not available? What about the Core i5 in stock ready to ship at Newegg?
Might as well buy this if you're going to buy Snow Leopard Server anyways.
Was thinking kist the same, a dual 500 mac mini with a free copy of server thrown in. Cheap
well there goes my dream of a atom based Media Mini for 300$...ish :(
Ew, it's slow enough with that Core 2 Duo man.
Seems like you want a Ion based Eee nettop.
If someone wants to run a server which I'm guessing wouldn't be out in plain sight, why would they want such a small enclosure with small hard drives for that price? I'd get a slightly bigger case with better ventilation, bigger hard drives, and still have money to spare. Oh yeah, OS X...
Depends on the environment. Lots of small and home offices don't have room for a separate server space. Apple has been slowly and quietly positioning OSX Server as a low end alternative to Windows Server which is total overkill for most of these environments. It's almost impossible to find a small, quiet, power efficient Windows Server.
We have about 150 of these things in racks where I work (the older models). Mac Minis actually make really good servers if you don't need all the enterprise yummies like redundant power and remote console and such. The main benefit is power usage. They use a lot less power than your standard 2U rackmount server (or an XServe for that matter), and in most datacenters, power consumption counts because it adds up fast. See also MacMiniColo (google for it).
better ventilation?
These are actually really good for small business. We have about 10 iMacs and a Mac Pro. The Mac Mini is a perfect server solution. We have our VPN setup for off-site work. We can run FileMaker Server on it. We use NetBoot when we need to diagnose issues on our iMacs, etc.... Works great for us.
Google for "mac mini server farm", and you see why this is made.
lol
You're still insane if you buy this thing. Pay the extra for a MacBook.
And put the second hard drive where, exactly? Also a Macbook has a screen which adds cost and is unnecessary for a server. It also runs on battery which is also unnecessary for a server.
That's funny--battery is unnecessary for a server? No, a battery is just an extra cost for a server and is called a UPS.
The rest of the points are valid, though. However, I'd still tend to say that this is quite niche--especially for the price. Should be $500 at most given the specs. Incidentally, why have a relatively high-end graphics processor in a server?!?
It comes with OS X Server, which is $500 by itself. Seriously, this is a really good deal when you consider what you're getting with it. I get the feeling a lot of the nubcakes responding here are completely oblivious to what OS X Server is and what it does.
You're right, of course. If you're looking to buy a server license and have a spare regular OS X license, then this might be a good way to get both a server license and a relatively cheap mini with no optical disc.
On a box with these specs, what exactly DOES OS X Server do that wouldn't/couldn't be done as well or better in some other way? Looking at Apple's page, it really makes you wonder. File sharing? Not many and just as easily accomplished peer-to-peer or using a cheap NAS. Web server? Well, maybe, especially for intranet-stuff, but most would be better served by any of the numerous free, cloud-based services. Mail server? IM Server? Address Book sharing? Calendar sharing? Again, most would be much better served by the cloud. Some want it in house? Okay, but it'll cost enough to set it up and maintain it that any smart business owner will choose a bigger and more "server grade" alternative.
I still see this only serving the small, techie, Mac-only shop, of which there are certainly some. Fine. It'll be a nice niche product. But if they are targeting any market larger than this they are way off target.
Why would I want to waste money on a MacBook for something I'd be using as a server? The screen and keyboard just waste space. Plus there is no 2nd HDD and it doesn't come with OS X Server.
Not sure what planet Apple is on but a machine with 2 X 500GB drives and no expansion isn't a server.... This is just a desktop with 2 medium sized HDD's.
If it serves stuff, it's a server. Get over it. Not everyone needs fully expansible, rack-mounted, enterprise class hardware. Even the power of this Mac Mini is more than enough for many. Besides, it has 5 USB ports (among others) -- how is that not expansible?
Oops! You misspelled '3.1 million last quarter' as 'no one'.
(meaning no mini-DisplayPort) ????
When I look at the specs page it says mini-display port, just like the old model did.
Yup - the mini-DisplayPort is on both versions of the Mini
Yes, and they manage to squeeze 1.6 billion dollars out of nowhere, right?
Mmhhhh looks like Apple TV is dead..
its gone from the line up and the Mac mini is being promoted as also a media center .. !!
sad face .. :((
Apple TV was never part of the Mac lineup - it's part of the iPod + iTunes line.
This is a curious product. I wonder what it would be used for?
Check out macminicolo, they have an entire business built around Mac Mini servers. They are dirt cheap (compared to standard rack-mount servers), reliable, small, and require far less power and cooling than a rack mount server.
They should call this thing the MAC Mini super computer, I mean it has 2 X 500GB HDD's. That's a whole terrabyte lol. I have a USB key that's more of a server then this POS.
Does Leopard server support mirroring or other RAID features in dual drive systems?
Exactly my thought. Is this RAID or WHAT?
Nope. Heh.
Yes, Mac OS X's Disk Utility lets you set up a software RAID 0 or 1 for the two internal disks. Hardware RAID isn't really necessary since RAID 5 requires 3 drives.
Of course it does. You guys are REALLY unfamiliar with OS X Server, aren't you?
I'm sure it does. Standard Mac OS X (not even the server version) supports it. Go look at the partitioning options in Disk Utilitiy. :)
Excellent news then!
regular os x has long supported raid setups using the built-in "disk utility" application. It's a software raid (0/1).
Supposedly works pretty well and it works out of the box. That means ALL macs can do this, not just os x server.
But does it have a raid card on-board? If not, I cannot buy this. Although, with the raid I would.
Doesn't necessarily need to support RAID per se, IMHO, but mirroring is essential for a file server, esp. since Apple's policy is not to allow you to re-download content you've already paid for.
RAID support is built in. If you want to mirror the two drives, then do it.
And as for Time Machine, you can backup certain portions of a MBP to this mac mini server?
Probably easier just to give you a link:
http://www.apple.com/server/macosx/features/file-sharing.html
The short answer is yes.
$599 Mac mini with a 160GB hard drive. No monitor and a HD from 2005. Pathetic.
So still no HDMI?
I need HDMI with both video and audio and I'd have bought 2-3 of these things by now.
You could get one of those displayport to hdmi things.
Interesting; thanks. I'm curious how well the audio integration works and how well this responds to changing of inputs and handling the HDMI handshake, etc.
Might buy one of these plus that cable :)
The displayport standard has more data-throughput than HDMI (supports more pixels/depth) and you can get adaptors for converting that output to HDMI if you're serious about your HDMI like you say.
Does it output sound through Displayport now?
You can get the HDMI adapter, but that won't pass any sound.
http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/05/kanex-mini-displayport-adapter-will-bring-your-mac-mini-to-hdmi/
All you idiots saying "it only has up to 1tb of storage. lawl. that's not a server!" apparently have no idea what the hell a server is in practice.
Fileservers: These low memory and cpu speeds but lots of storage.
Webservers: lots of memory, fast processor, barely any HDD space, but the HDDs should be fast.
Why the HELL do you need a dvi port on a SERVER? You access SERVERS remotely almost all the time.
I'm not going to argue that it's some end-all-be-all of epic servers, but it's: cheap, low TDP'd, and adequately supplied with enough processing power for OFFICES that don't need xeons with 16gb of ram, raid5'd SCSI.
Two words dud...De Caff ;)
sorry for my ignorance, but I'm a noob at servers. What's would be the practical home use for a mac mini server? Can I set it up as an HTPC with front row and all to all my connected computers (both mac and pc?)
There's not much practical home use for the Sl server (but lets keep in mind that many Engadget readers have home setups that far surpass the complexity of many small businesses). I'd stick with plain ole SL for a Mini HTPC setup unless you plan on hosting your own email, for example.
yes. this things works great as a media center / file sharing device.
use itunes 9 home sharing to stream your library across your computers.
You can turn something like an HD-PVR into something more like a HD-HomeRun.
By itself, no mini has enough disk or CPU to be terribly interesting as an HTPC server.
Minis were nice cheap no-fuss HTPC extenders prior to the advent of ION nettops.
I used to use minis as MythTV "extenders". I still use a mini as an HD-PVR recorder.
All storage resides on the backend (nfs/smb). The minis/ions could boot off the network if it weren't more trouble than it's worth.
How would this do as an application server?
I have been running our backup production server on a mac mini for over 2 years now and I love it. All the benefits of a *NIX Server with OSX on top, with makes it usable for a million more things, perfect support for our mixed office topology. This makes a lot of sense, especially since the hardware is basically for free if you consider the Server license.
I have to say while an internal RAID has its merits, I would have kept the slot drive, from experience it's great to have that share mount for our subnotebooks, netbooks & MBAs in case they need to read a disc, which still happens. Next time I vote for an extra FW 800 to eliminate a NAS.
@Steve - I've seen you make this exact comment on multiple Engadget posts today. WTF?
did anyone notice the server can use the macbook airs superdrive?
is it possible i could use that on my macbook pro?
It's never worked and don't expect it to anytime soon.
That's besides the fact that you can buy a regular tray loading USB drive for $50 that works on all computers.
New minis are a plus, but just what in the hell is it going to take to get a new AppleTV design out of Cupertino? If they don't want to run with it, then kill the thing off. Just don't let it sit and rot on the vine like that.
Why do the windows nerds always feel the need to degrade new apple products?? Inferiority complex, anyone?
WOW, still no HDMI. I was sure they would fill this major gap... I guess Apple doesn't want you hooking this up to your HDTV...
DisplayPort and miniDisplayport surpass HDMI spec. DP and mDP even give you audio via adapters which are like $20, or you can use Mini-DVI which also works with HDMI. mini-DVI–HDMI adapters aren't too common, but DVI-HDMI cables are. For this small machine, you have 2 video ports which let you plug in adapters from the 80's to the present!
Sounds like an excellent product for the people who do Mac Mini Colocation: http://www.macminicolo.net/
Omg. He's Steve Ballmer. Trolling da apple comments.
yea so most of the comments here are total flamewar material. As a few have already said here, this new mini is a great buy. Its small, effcient, a decent amount of storage and some cpu power to back it up. Sure, you wouldn't put it in place to do serious scientific research or analysis, but you could certainly use it in a medium sized office. Even as an application server it'd probably do well, assuming you dont have 200 people all trying to the app at once...
Having a display port is rather important, you know, say for those times you can't access it remotely and dont have an ilo to go thru. HDMI however, isn't important.. if it is to you, buy an adapter. No audio doesn't go thru the DVI.. odd question, but it does have optical out.. so, you can get your digital on..
Lastly, comparing Windows Server to OS X server is really rather pointless. Who cares what/if/why you can or can't do something, if your smart enough to make the decision you need a "server" then your probably already on the right track to having it at least do something. the point is, it'll probably do what you need it to and more when your ready.
For those of you interested, my mac mini is connected to my tv thru the dvi-hdmi adapter sold on apple's website. I use the mini to run boxee, play my music with cool visualizations when having friends over and participate in distributed compiling using distcc and other distributed computing things. It's also my splunk server, quietly indexing all the logs my other devices send. for this, its a champ.
All in all, its a quiet, small footprint, no fuss machine that certainly has its uses. if it didnt, do any of you really think apple wouldn't have figured that out before now and decide not to refresh it?
A slight bump in the processor range. Personally, and this is not complaining, Apple would sell a lot of minis if the low end model started at $499. That extra $100 can be a deterrent.
I really do want to get another mini. I may have to get one of these.
where's the HDMI?????
Wait, the mac mini has more USB ports than the iMac? Wut?
Get the dual drive and just put in 2 1TB 2.5" drives and we're in business :)
Forget HDMI. Why no eSATA?
Wish they had created server software that was crippled so they could have made it cheaper. Or at least made the software with limited licenses. Don't really need unlimited licenses
Depending on what you want you might not need server software. But compared to the $799 mini, you're not even really paying for the server software. It's upgraded to a 500GB drive (which is $100) and adds a second which replaces the DVD drive so it's somewhere around (even - $100, depending on your views.)
Depending on what you want you might not need server software. But compared to the $799 mini, you're not even really paying for the server software. It's upgraded to a 500GB drive (which is $100) and adds a second which replaces the DVD drive so it's somewhere around (even - $100, depending on your views.)
I work in education and we use a mac mini server at the moment for our small suite of iMac's and our 35 macbook pro's. It serves its purpose such fine and we run iChat server and have some drop boxes set up.
But can I use mac mini server also as my main desktop? as I already have 5 laptops on my household!