I do not need 768 gb. But if I want a non-obsolete hard drive I need to fork over an extra $1300. Why can't 256 or 512 be offered?
I do not need 768 gb. But if I want a non-obsolete hard drive I need to fork over an extra $1300. Why can't 256 or 512 be offered?
I had a separate 256GB SSD and a 1TB drive in the 2011 iMac, and moved to the 2012 iMac with a 3TB fusion drive, thinking I'd lose performance. Well, a) fusion works very, very well, and b) the SSD and HDD in the 2012 unit far outperform the SSD and HDD in the 2011 model (i.e., each is much faster on its own).
The net result is everything "feels" just as fast as before, but I have 3TB space. It's quite amazing how it all works.
It's purely because apple wants more money!!!
If they offered a 256 option how many people would have paid for the 768 ?
any one who uses an ssd dont store there stuff on it anyway
it's only for OS and APPS, All storage is external, regardless of the size
of the internal ssd.
so i see it purely as apple just wanting people to buy the bigger one.
The Fusion Drive is the future of storage on desktop Macs anyway. I don't see why anyone would go with pure SSD on a desktop. It's way too expensive, and the Fusion Drive does do an excellent job of giving you the most out of the 128GB SSD. I expect Apple will make it the default option at some point. The only way they could make the Fusion Drive better is by offering more customization. Perhaps a 256GB SSD fusion instead of the 128. As things stand though, it's clearly superior to either the 768GB SSD or the HDD offerings.
You don't lose any performance because everything goes to the SSD first. You'd actually have to write a file larger than 4GB with a full SSD or read a massive amount of data not residing on the SSD to notice a speed decrease. It really is quite awesome technology. Some geek at Apple had a lot of fun putting it together.
You clearly have no idea how the Fusion Drive works. Try again. It's actually much better than a simple SSD or HDD, a fact which might give you the motivation to educate yourself.
EDIT: Oh yes, and did I mention, the Fusion Drive is cheaper, and better. Oh, but wait, big corporations are GREEDY, I forgot, my bad.
Absolutely you lose performance, as you say. If I access a load of photos, it's quite simply slower on a fusion-based platform. Fusion isn't for everyone.
Fusion is not the future. SSD is. It's been too long coming. Fusion is also far too expensive from Apple.
I do not need 768 gb. But if I want a non-obsolete hard drive I need to fork over an extra $1300. Why can't 256 or 512 be offered?
if I want a non-obsolete hard drive I need to fork over an extra $1300.
Why can't 256 or 512 be offered?
Apple has always been careful not to allow "perfect" configurations, or else you'll want a new computer every four years instead of every two.
Apple has always been careful not to allow "perfect" configurations, or else you'll want a new computer every four years instead of every two.
I do not need 768 gb. But if I want a non-obsolete hard drive I need to fork over an extra $1300. Why can't 256 or 512 be offered?
I dunno, but IT IS NICE
btw, it's a similar price to upgrade on a macbook pro, so I don't think it's criminal.
anyone who uses an ssd dont store their stuff on it anyway
it's only for OS and APPS, All storage is external, regardless of the size
of the internal ssd.
Two wrongs don't make a right. The upgrade in the MBPr is criminal too.
SSD drives really shine when accessing large files (ex. huge video projects and large raw photo files). In reality, the benefit of a SSD drive is less pronounced on a desktop systems that don't require often reboots as most of the OS files and APPS are already cached in RAM.