Any insight into why the Fusion Drive is not available as a BTO option in the low-end 2.5 GHz i5 Mac mini?
To force you to pay more.
Any insight into why the Fusion Drive is not available as a BTO option in the low-end 2.5 GHz i5 Mac mini?
i'm not referring to trim slowdowns but rather the limited write-cycles available to all SSDs. fusion drive seems like it would put undue stress on the drive.
Well, with the slower drive you should in theory get to add energy efficiency into the mix of advantages to a Fusion Drive. But I do agree that it's a poor offering; I could have understood bundling slower HDDs with the Fusion Drive options since it mostly eliminates the speed issue for your typical users, but otherwise they're a very poor showing as the only drive choice.I'm not paying £200 extra on top of the already overpriced iMac to get a drive that performs the way a 2012 iMac should do. Sorry rant over.
As macs4nw points out TRIM lets the OS write to parts of the SSD that aren't being used, and due to the way Fusion Drive shunts less frequently used data off the SSD over time it hopefully shouldn't be writing to the same areas all that often at all. Since it doesn't really matter where data ends up on an SSD it's perfectly good practice to write files all over the place (within reason). Plus for your average consumer I doubt very much that there's any real threat of failing blocks on SSDs as the amount of data writing shouldn't be high enough at all; it's more likely the whole drive will pack in, though that isn't much of a consolationi'm not referring to trim slowdowns but rather the limited write-cycles available to all SSDs. fusion drive seems like it would put undue stress on the drive.
Are you surprised? The Mini is junk. Pure and simple.
The iMac isn't better designed than the Mini (the new iMac is a severe candidate for heat issues, it lacks pure SSD except the 768GB option -which looks like a joke-, and it doesn't come with a Retina display either).Are you surprised? The Mini is junk. Pure and simple.
Can't you clone your existing Fusion drive to an external drive, boot from the external drive and repartition the internal Fusion drive from there? Then clone the external back to the internal Fusion drive?
By writing data on 'TRIM" identified unused blocks, the limited lifespan of SSD's is prolonged, by avoiding over usage of certain data blocks, thus prematurely wearing those out, and spreading out usage more evenly amongst ALL blocks. Hope this clears it up.
As macs4nw points out TRIM lets the OS write to parts of the SSD that aren't being used,
and due to the way Fusion Drive shunts less frequently used data off the SSD over time it hopefully shouldn't be writing to the same areas all that often at all.
Since it doesn't really matter where data ends up on an SSD it's perfectly good practice to write files all over the place (within reason).
Plus for your average consumer I doubt very much that there's any real threat of failing blocks on SSDs as the amount of data writing shouldn't be high enough at all;
People running servers however may want to look at other solutions; personally I'd still like to see Fusion Drive expanded to allow you to specify an SSD as a proper read-cache rather than the read/write hybrid it is now, as that would be the better option for people buying Macs as servers.
I'd buy one and so would lots of others.....so I doubt Apple makes them.
Actually the $799+ Mini beats the pants off the 13" MacBook Pro, as all the 13" models are only dual-core while the Mini is quad-core. So actually the Mini is a vastly superior machine for processor intensive tasks than the 13 "pro", even terms of graphics, and the Mini again beats the 13" in memory since it can hold 16GB of RAM.The mini is basically a 13" macbook pro without the screen (or comparable to a souped up air with SSD swapped in), at half the price (with the caveat that you need to supply your own screen, keyboard and mouse/trackpad).
If people are willing to buy a macbook to do work on, I don't see how the mini sucks compared to it. You get what you pay for, and I find it a pretty good deal relative to the rest of the stuff Apple is selling (in that while there are better options out there, they tend to cost more).
I'm genuinely curious what a medium sized iPhoto/iTunes library is. My family keeps telling me I have too many pics and too much music. ~ 95GB of the former, ~130GB of the latter.
When buying my mini I opted not to get the fusion drive.
For $250 I purchased a 256g Samsung drive and a
Seagate 750 momentus 7200 drive.
While the Fusion Drive is certainly a fast option, i think everybody is forgetting that the iMac and the Mac Mini do not come with this option by default. It is a £200 upgrade. And what's more, the drive that it DOES come with (even the high spec iMacs come with this drive by default) is a pathetically slow (as we can see in the video on this article) 5400rpm drive. Apple should have put a 128gb SSD in the iMacs at least by default, but instead they've actually put in a drive that's a lot slower than the model it replaced. I'm not paying £200 extra on top of the already overpriced iMac to get a drive that performs the way a 2012 iMac should do. Sorry rant over.
I don't have time to read through 150 messages. Is Apple or does Apple have an external Fusion drive for older iMacs? Mine is an i7 27"(2008 I think?). The Superdrive doesn't work anymore so a new option would be nice without having to buy a whole new computer. The i7 seems to be very a good computer and an SSD woul dbe a huge upgrade (is that part of what a fusion drive is?).
When buying my mini I opted not to get the fusion drive.
For $250 I purchased a 256g Samsung drive and a
Seagate 750 momentus 7200 drive. Both with a 3 year warranty as opposed to the 1 year from apple.
The 2.3 i7 screams and I couldn't be happier.
If there is any performance gain through the fusion the 3 year warranty on both aftermarket drives is worth more to me than afew milliseconds.
I'm genuinely curious what a medium sized iPhoto/iTunes library is. My family keeps telling me I have too many pics and too much music. ~ 95GB of the former, ~130GB of the latter. What do you think: low, mid, high?
All the articles I can find reference services like TuneUp, whose users will necessarily have larger collections than the average.