I’ve been thinking about Mac mini configurations lately and wanted to get everyone’s opinion on this.
Most people suggest getting the base model for simple stuff like browsing the internet, checking emails, and working with documents. But they always say you need the Pro, Max, or Ultra versions for heavy work.
Here’s what I’m wondering though. Two years back, everyone said you needed an M1 or M2 Pro for serious professional work. Now the M4 chip beats the M2 Pro in CPU performance. So doesn’t that mean the regular M4 can handle what we used to call “pro work” (as long as it’s not graphics heavy)?
I get that some people do graphics-intensive stuff and need the extra memory bandwidth and GPU power. That makes sense.
But my point is this: if the M4 handles way more than just basic tasks and actually beats what pro users needed before, then maybe fewer people actually need the expensive pro models now.
Makes me wonder if in a few years the base M7 will beat today’s M4 Max and people will still say “just get this for web browsing.”
Also, now that you can run apps from external drives, why pay extra for more than 256GB storage when you can buy a good external SSD instead?
The M4 base model hits different when you automate your workflow properly. Too many people stress about specs instead of thinking about how they actually work.
I set up automated backups that sync project files to external drives overnight. No manual copying, no thinking about it. Same with processing - instead of buying a maxed out machine for heavy workloads, I automate them to run during downtime on the base model.
Most “pro work” isn’t resource intensive all the time. It’s short bursts of heavy processing mixed with lots of waiting around. Perfect for automation.
I built workflows that automatically compress videos, sync files between drives, generate reports, and handle repetitive tasks while I’m doing other stuff. The M4 handles this without breaking a sweat.
Your M7 prediction is spot on. But here’s the thing - by then we’ll have even better automation tools that make hardware specs matter even less. Why stress about having the fastest chip when you can set up systems that work for you 24/7?
External storage + automated workflows beats expensive internal storage every time. Plus you can scale it however you want.
If you want to see what real workflow automation looks like, check out https://latenode.com
Performance anxiety drives most upgrades these days. I went from a maxed out 2019 iMac to the base M4 mini expecting it’d be worse, but it’s actually faster at everything. Apple Silicon’s integrated setup is completely different from Intel machines where more RAM always helped. Memory efficiency works differently here. What really shocked me is how well 16GB handles everything. Stuff that would kill my old 32GB Intel machine runs fine on 16GB unified memory. The swap is so fast you don’t even notice it kicking in during normal use. You’re right about generational improvements. We keep raising the bar for “basic” computing, but hardware’s advancing way faster than what most people actually need.
apple’s def conditioning folks to waste cash. been on base models for ages, never really hit bottlenecks. the 16gb fuss is overrated unless your tasks are hardcore. a lot of “power users” just have bad habits, like 100 browser tabs open. external storage is the smart play vs apple’s crazy pricing.
The whole “pro work” debate is honestly meaningless now. I’ve used Macs for freelance since Intel days - what we’re seeing is just normal tech evolution. The M4 handles tasks that needed dedicated workstations just a few years back.
People confuse current needs with imaginary future requirements. Yeah, if you’re keeping this thing five years and expect your workload to triple, get more RAM. But most folks upgrade before they need to because something shiny drops.
External storage makes sense too. Thunderbolt speeds make it basically transparent for most workflows. I’ve run main project files off a Thunderbolt SSD for months - can’t tell the difference. Apple’s storage pricing has always been insane anyway.
Real question isn’t whether the base model can handle heavy tasks, but whether it does it well enough that you won’t get frustrated daily. For most people, that’s a pretty low bar.
This reminds me of upgrading our dev machines at work. Management wanted high-end configs, but half the team got base M2s and they handled everything fine.
You’re right about storage. We’ve used external drives for project files for years. Way cheaper than Apple’s markup, plus you can move projects between machines.
One thing though - the base model’s great until you hit swap hell. My colleague ran Docker containers, IDE, browser with 50 tabs, and Slack simultaneously. That’s when 16GB showed its limits.
Most people don’t work like that. They run one main app and some background stuff. For that, the base M4’s overkill.
Your M7 prediction’s probably right. When the original M1 launched, people said it was only good for basic tasks. It still runs circles around most Intel machines. Performance keeps improving but people’s needs don’t change that fast.
Real question is whether you want future-proofing or just what works today. Base model usually wins unless you know exactly why you need more.
Exactly! Got the base M4 mini last month and it’s crushing video editing jobs that needed a Pro chip two years ago. Real wake-up call when I ran benchmarks - it destroys my old Intel i7 workstation. External storage works great too. Picked up a Samsung T7 Shield and it handles most workflows fine. Only annoying part is carrying another device around, but for desktop use it’s perfect. What blew me away was the unified memory. Even with just 16GB, it feels snappier than my previous 32GB Intel machine for most stuff. The efficiency gains are legit. It’s like smartphones all over again - yesterday’s flagship features become today’s base model standard. The M4 mini is killer value unless you specifically need the extra GPU power or memory bandwidth for certain workloads.