Is the 768Gb drive really that stupid?

[Yougotcarved]

So first off, no denying it, its ball shrinkingly expensive and I WISH Apple offered a 256/512Gb option.

But I'm seeing alot of chatter that anyone getting the 768Gb is "being stupid". I'm about to buy an iMac and on the fence over what storage option to get but really it doesn't seem as stupid as everyone is making out...if I'm wrong please show me the way!

A) It is the only way to use Windows with SSD speed properly on the Mac. I've seen experiments with WinClone that work but honestly results seem varied and inonsistent and I don't really like messing around too much now that I'm off Windows. Some people have applications (or would like to futureproof future applications) that are Windows only and going back to HDD would suck for those apps.

B) Whilst expensive, it doesn't seem RIDICULOUS compared to competitors. e.g. the LaCie 512Gb SSD costs £600, implying a cost of £900 for 768Gb. So the Apple one is priced £140 more than this, which is a nice chunk but not a massive premium to pay for having it internal and BootCamp-able

C) Fusion drive looks great for certain users, but I feel like it's nowhere near the same as pure SSD levels. Once you go above the 128Gb SSD its a guessing game as to what will open fast what will open slow and thats very different from knowing everything you open will be blazing SSD speed. Also it doesn't seem to differentiate by datatype. If I watch a movie a few times Fusion will put that on the SSD where it will not benefit from the SSD speed, wasting space.

Not saying that Fusion drive is bad, but I'm saying there is definitely a difference between Fusion and full SSD. I'm also not saying the all SSD isn't massively expensive for what it is. I'm just saying in the absence of any other lower capacity option, I don't really think going all SSD is as "stupid" as many on these boards suggest, there are definitely some viable reasons to go with it?

Please fire away and correct me if I'm wrong and save me a bunch of cash!

[bflowers]

How do you feel about ripping that thing open and upgrading it yourself? It has been shown that you can add any of the currently available blade SSDs to that slot yourself if you are willing to do a little computer surgery. Check out the "Rip Those Macs Open" thread.

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1507713

[torana355]

Originally Posted by bflowers

How do you feel about ripping that thing open and upgrading it yourself? It has been shown that you can add any of the currently available blade SSDs to that slot yourself if you are willing to do a little computer surgery. Check out the "Rip Those Macs Open" thread.

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1507713

Or even replace the standard HDD with a 512GB SSD for 400 bucks Australian. Paying $1300 for the Apple one is crazy if you have the skills to pull an iMac apart. I will wait till people find out the exact tape that Apple use to put it back together so my warranty is not affected I am going to use the $900 i saved on a killer NAS setup for my media.

[hfg]

No .... it's not "stupid", "crazy", etc. to order the large SSD if your data needs can use it. Any single-slot that size will be in the same or greater price range, and you only have 2 slots available (blade, and SATA) if you want to keep it all inside the iMac. If you really think it through, the advantages will be obvious to you and there are several threads where users try to discuss it intelligently.

But ... others will call those who buy it all kinds of names, simply because they can't understand how other's needs can possibly be different from theirs.

So, don't worry about it. If you think it makes sense for you ... get it!


[flame suit on]

[MacFoodPoisoner]

it's dead stupid going to this ssd size, no one has that much data that they need it to run at ssd speeds, or at least one in a 100,000 does. Going with that option is like buying a Vaseline jar and saying come on apple... well you know.

[hfg]

That's a new one ... add "dead stupid" to the list...

I rest my case!

[vannibombonato]

Originally Posted by MacFoodPoisoner

it's dead stupid going to this ssd size, no one has that much data that they need it to run at ssd speeds, or at least one in a 100,000 does. Going with that option is like buying a Vaseline jar and saying come on apple... well you know.

Any single pro that works with audio, video or photo certainly has way, way, way more gbs of data than you assume, and its workflow will be way, way, way faster if the data sits on an ssd.
Your assumption is dead stupid.

Whether its wise to spend that amount of money for the internal ssd is another matter, but its certainly subjective.

[themomopan]

Originally Posted by MacFoodPoisoner

it's dead stupid going to this ssd size, no one has that much data that they need it to run at ssd speeds, or at least one in a 100,000 does. Going with that option is like buying a Vaseline jar and saying come on apple... well you know.

I own and work with a Red Scarlet-X. I edit the footage on it as well. Yes..I need the speed and space. if 15 minutes of footage equals up to 40 gigs, imagine what a full length feature would add up to. (Some up to 10-20 TB)

[jjhoekstra]

Originally Posted by MacFoodPoisoner

it's dead stupid going to this ssd size, no one has that much data that they need it to run at ssd speeds, or at least one in a 100,000 does. Going with that option is like buying a Vaseline jar and saying come on apple... well you know.

I have. I would buy a rMBP with a 2 TB SSD if it existed. Swapping files from internal to external and back is time-consuming and quite error-prone, at least when I do it. And I rely on the files for my income. One computer, all files on a ssd, two backup disks, OSX and free to work wherever I want. Perfect setup for me! I am very happy with it, so buying a 768Gb was smart!! In fact probably the smartest computer-related purchase I have ever done!

[Fenn]

Originally Posted by bflowers

How do you feel about ripping that thing open and upgrading it yourself?

I could not be happier with the fact that I went for the 768 SSD. From every source I have seen, not until a successful way is discovered, opening these is essentially a one way street. You need a heat gun to warm the adhesive that is used all around the edges, and then you have to have something similar to re-apply. But unlike the magnets in previous versions, the integrity and strength of the machine is compromised. Many users might consider using industrial strength double sided tape, and I guess this will probably be the standard procedure, but again ymmv.

Obviously apple has to have a way to open these up and repair them if they fail, but who knows what process they use to re-adhere the panel and glass.

If you can afford the SSD, buy it. If it is a little bit of a stretch, buy it. Buying a 512 SSD and dealing with the hassle of opening the machine up yourself, or paying someone to swap the internal drives just doesn't seem that cost effective when compared to the no hassle approach. Then again, some might view this upgrade as a challenge, but it is not for the faint of heart. Now if you had a pre-existing SSD that you wanted to install, that is a whole different ballgame. But in my opinion, I would rather just pay the extra and not deal with it.

[torana355]

Originally Posted by Fenn

If you can afford the SSD, buy it. If it is a little bit of a stretch, buy it. Buying a 512 SSD and dealing with the hassle of opening the machine up yourself, or paying someone to swap the internal drives just doesn't seem that cost effective when compared to the no hassle approach. Then again, some might view this upgrade as a challenge, but it is not for the faint of heart. Now if you had a pre-existing SSD that you wanted to install, that is a whole different ballgame. But in my opinion, I would rather just pay the extra and not deal with it.

Sure for people that don't have the skills and confidence to pull it apart and return it to factory condition getting the 768GB upgrade from Apple is a very good idea. That being said many of us are more then capable of pulling off a screen attached with double sided tape (its not rocket science) to install a 512GB SSD. For me it does not seem cost effective to pay $1300 for an upgrade i can do for $400, that's a $900 saving!!! That is half of the cost of a brand new 27" base imac lol.

[propower]

All I can say is
$1300 is darned steep

There are no 768GB SSDs that I know of...
Top of the line Samsung Pro 840 SSDs are $600 for 512G ... so as others have said, $900 for 768 means ~ $400 installation fee... I paid ~ $200 premium for 256G in my 2012 mini... but $1300 .... ouch

Why is there not a 512GB option is what is more interesting....

[hfg]

Actually, opening the iMac up isn't that bad. There in an excellent thread here where poster R.OG describes his experience with doing so with both the 21.5" and the 27" complete with pictures. Doing it without voiding any warranty is subject to discussion.

Just a few observations:

I am unaware of any other source for a blade type SSD larger than 512GB available today at any price, so $1300 may be a pretty good price today for the largest capacity in 1 of 2 possible drives inside the iMac. Just like cutting-edge large memory, fast processors, big diamonds ... a single large one is always more expensive than the collective cost of several smaller ones.

We all know about 512GB SSD SATA drives ... but if you need more in a single drive for the remaining internal connection, there is a 1TB SSD available from OCZ but it is $2500. They are in stock, and sold out quickly from Amazon, Newegg, and others.
http://www.amazon.com/OCZ-Technology...ywords=1TB+ssd

There is the LaCie LittleBigDisk Thunderbolt 1TB SSD, and it is $1000 and is actually a pair of 512GB drives in RAID-0, it will be external to the iMac on your desk, and adds another wall-wart power supply and power cable running up to your iMac plus the thunderbolt cable. Yes, it is a better deal $/GB, but at the expense of being external with associated clutter. I have a DIY one and it works quite well, but I want my drives all internal if possible, and no noisy, hot, rotating hard disks inside my iMac.

I have used both all-SSD systems, and recently Fusion systems (DIY) and there is a difference. I prefer all-SSD (2TB) which I have been running for the past year in my Mac Pro. The Fusion drive is a nice compromise for now, but it is a compromise. In a couple of years or so, we all will be running all-SSD systems, but I want it today and it is possible and reasonably affordable today ... I won't wait 2 years to get it, something better will be available by then.

Actually, between OS X, Apps, Music, Data, etc. and Windows BootCamp, the 768GB drive will be pretty full, and I will still require an additional external 512GB SSD for my photo library. I will probably open up the iMac and put it internal at some point when I am more confidant it won't require early-failure warranty service (or a source of identical tape is identified).


-howard

[akdj]

Originally Posted by MacFoodPoisoner

@akdj

I don't doubt the speed benefits, I too think ssds are the single most important thing one needs to have on a modern computer (that's why I was so pissed of with apple for offering the base imac with a paltry 5,400rpm drive in 2013 and not sticking at least a 32gb blade there (that costs them next to nothing) for a fusion drive.

What I do doubt is that anyone will notice any big difference if instead of the critical/most used data are on a 128-256gb ssd and the rest on an hd, they pay the inordinately high amount and go full ssd. What I pointed out was that very very few people have data that they will simultaneously access and manipulate spanning the whole capacity of the 768 drive. If some can come and tell me yeah I got 500gb of data I routinely edit, manipulate etc. at the same time I 'll concede. But that's like I said 1/100,000

The rmbp is another story because there apple, in their money grabbing force obsoleting wisdom have disallowed a blade+hd scenario.[COLOR="#808080"]

----------

....

Agreed. I didn't have the option of blade/HDD. However, even when I order the iMac, I'm leaning the same direction. It's between the 768 and the 3TB fusion. In video, especially AVC Intra 100 and DVCHD Pro HD formats that we use--you get about 2 hours of footage on two 64GB p2 cards! Shooting at 30fps +. You can get 3 hours at 24fps in native format...and these are the 4:2:2 options that allow incredible flexibility in post. I'm not rich or successful enough to afford RED or it's counterpart software and hardware...but those guys are using massive amounts of storage. The faster the storage, the quicker the access, the more efficient the editing process is. You're correct. I may represent 1/100k in this work place. But, I can see others enjoying the capacity as well. Again...especially in the case of dual or multiple OS'es or VMs. When you can throw 16-32GB of RAM in these machines. Then allocate 250-300GB of storage to the 'other' OS (even gamers. Many of these new games are 15-25GBs!!)...life is pretty damn good. While I'm assuming Apple will indeed update their Bootcamp drivers to support Fusion in Windows at least...right now, it's not set up for that. I don't need Windows--but I love to play around with different flavors of Linux. Photographers with substantial libraries will also benefit. Having those big 39mpxl RAW images available on a fast, internal drive allows for incredibly efficient and quick processing--and PhotoShop manipulation. Audio geeks...another of our business tasks also benefits from fast, local storage. While I'm not mic'ing up 50 piece orchestras...VST and other plug ins react nicely to big RAM and fast storage. Lots of different tasks and professions that definitely don't need the speed would be very surprised at the 'time saved' by going to all SSD storage...and in many of these sectors, I think the capacities are what's held a lot of folk back. Now with 768GB on board, while unarguably expensive, it's actually and finally affordable if you have a money making opportunity and/or a hobby that benefits from the option of a big ass blade on board

As well, I think Apple is now into the mature stage with their SSD solutions. This is their first foray into the fusion approach, and while compelling...it is two drives ultimately. That's twice as likely a failure rate. I'm intrigued by the FD system but I think I'll wait it out a couple years to see how it performs.

I think we are more or less on the same page. It's a big financial pill to swallow. In some cases though, I think it's ultimately the 'best' choice if one can afford it.

Originally Posted by MacFoodPoisoner

so how exactly does it work under bootcamp, the storage that is?

(p.s. who'd have thought apple would have dropped the ball with their software development in bootcamp, after all their software development is so stellar these days...)

I think Apple will update Bootcamp to support Fusion. Give it some time. Apple released the new iMac system concurrently with MS's Windows 8--they're probably working with Win 7 & 8 to engineer drivers that'll work with both eventually. I'm sure the same with Parallels and other VM software companies that are just now getting their Fusion Drive equipped gear. It takes time to make it work and it is probably difficult as one OS will surely have to be given preference when it comes to what is allowed SSD access vs. what will be only allowed on the 'spinner'

Originally Posted by torana355

Sure for people that don't have the skills and confidence to pull it apart and return it to factory condition getting the 768GB upgrade from Apple is a very good idea. That being said many of us are more then capable of pulling off a screen attached with double sided tape (its not rocket science) to install a 512GB SSD. For me it does not seem cost effective to pay $1300 for an upgrade i can do for $400, that's a $900 saving!!! That is half of the cost of a brand new 27" base imac lol.

Lol... I trust iFixIt when it comes to their tear downs and information they provide when it comes to user upgradability. While I don't doubt your engineering and computer building prowess...MOST folks will never ever open their iMac. I would venture to guess over 99% wouldn't even consider anything other than a memory upgrade. This new iMac is given a 2/10 for user access to post purchase upgrades. It's NOT an easy prospect.

As well, these Apple Blades are performing in parity to the Samsung 840--@ $600/512gb. Not $400. And what is your time worth? Most 768gb drives are anywhere from $1000 to $1500 for 960gb Mercury Accelsior PCI express storage. It's not cheap when you get into the upper end of storage on SSD. It's also far from easy now to access the guts of an iMac. Neither of our two third party Apple repair shops will even put a different HDD in my 2011 iMacs. Because of some silly proprietary fan/temp sensor that is unavailable to third party HDD solutions in last year's iMac. I'm happy that I can still access that one if I need...but these days, it's pretty obvious Apple doesn't want us playing around inside any longer. Their design reminds me of the difference in car engines and the evolution over the past thirty years. I can still change any part I want in my '68 Datsun 2000---but my wife's Audi doesn't even look like it has an engine! It's a big piece of something on top that doesn't look anything like the old days--just an Audi billboard with an 800 number for service
I drive a 2004 Dodge. I can still change it's oil, plugs, cap and rotor...but I can't adjust the timing without a computer. You get the point. There are some of you out there...but you're getting fewer and farther between. It's an art to now be able to access an iMac, repair it, and successfully put it back together without damage. It's definitely not something I'm interested in spending my time on. I'd rather buy what I want up front.

J

[tom vilsack]

As a shareholder i think you should max everything,and add extras...comes to total=$7,899.92

My i be the first to thank you ;-)

[torana355]

Originally Posted by akdj

As well, these Apple Blades are performing in parity to the Samsung 840--@ $600/512gb. Not $400.

The Samsung 830 performs similar, is $400 and its the most reliable drive available. Even the $600 for the 840 pro is much cheaper then the $1300 Apple charge. Im sorry but there is no way to justify Apples SSD price if you have half an ounce of technical ability. You would be surprised just how many people pull their iMacs apart. Also ifixit actually give it a 3/10 for reliability, not 2

For people that NEED over 512GB of internal SSD storage then i guess there is no choice but to pay the Apple tax and get the 768GB option ( i could mention OWC's blade SSD options but i don't trust them) Im guessing the price of the higher capacity SSD's will come down dramatically in the future, i bet ill have a 1TB SSD for much less then $1300 in the next 2 years. Till then a 512GB SSD plus the 128GB Blade from my fusion upgrade for a total of 640 GB will get me by.

[vannibombonato]

Originally Posted by Yougotcarved

So first off, no denying it, its ball shrinkingly expensive and I WISH Apple offered a 256/512Gb option.

But I'm seeing alot of chatter that anyone getting the 768Gb is "being stupid". I'm about to buy an iMac and on the fence over what storage option to get but really it doesn't seem as stupid as everyone is making out...if I'm wrong please show me the way!

A) It is the only way to use Windows with SSD speed properly on the Mac. I've seen experiments with WinClone that work but honestly results seem varied and inonsistent and I don't really like messing around too much now that I'm off Windows. Some people have applications (or would like to futureproof future applications) that are Windows only and going back to HDD would suck for those apps.

B) Whilst expensive, it doesn't seem RIDICULOUS compared to competitors. e.g. the LaCie 512Gb SSD costs £600, implying a cost of £900 for 768Gb. So the Apple one is priced £140 more than this, which is a nice chunk but not a massive premium to pay for having it internal and BootCamp-able

C) Fusion drive looks great for certain users, but I feel like it's nowhere near the same as pure SSD levels. Once you go above the 128Gb SSD its a guessing game as to what will open fast what will open slow and thats very different from knowing everything you open will be blazing SSD speed. Also it doesn't seem to differentiate by datatype. If I watch a movie a few times Fusion will put that on the SSD where it will not benefit from the SSD speed, wasting space.

Not saying that Fusion drive is bad, but I'm saying there is definitely a difference between Fusion and full SSD. I'm also not saying the all SSD isn't massively expensive for what it is. I'm just saying in the absence of any other lower capacity option, I don't really think going all SSD is as "stupid" as many on these boards suggest, there are definitely some viable reasons to go with it?

Please fire away and correct me if I'm wrong and save me a bunch of cash!

You can get a Lacie external SSD of 1TB for way less the price of the Apple option. And it's faster. And you would have another TB of traditional HDD storage inside the iMac for whatever you wanted to do. Enough said on the value for the money.

But if you want Windows at SSD speeds, you need to pay the Apple tax. That's the only reason for why you would want to buy it, except of course if you can't stand having an external drive connected to your iMac.

[Dr FranknFurter]

I think it's worth getting if the money is not a problem. I would of loved to spec it but just can't justify an additional £1050 on an already expensive machine. If you can then all I can say is enjoy!!!

[xgman]

Originally Posted by vannibombonato

You can get a Lacie external SSD of 1TB for way less the price of the Apple option. And it's faster. A

Tested against the Fusion and it is not faster.

----------

Originally Posted by MacFoodPoisoner

it's dead stupid going to this ssd size, no one has that much data that they need it to run at ssd speeds,

I do.

[vladfein]

Originally Posted by xgman

Tested against the Fusion and it is not faster.

Are you sure you tested "against the Fusion" and not just against the SSD part of it?

[Furifo]

£1040 is a heck of a lot of cash (that's just under $1700 for the US users) for storage especially seeing as we already pay bloated prices over here in the UK.

If money is no option and you really feel that you will benefit from the extra SSD space then go for it but I would personally much rather go for the 1TB fusion drive.

Up to you, your needs and your budget.

Just curious - with all your upgrades applied, how much is your machine going to cost?

[snugja]

Originally Posted by Yougotcarved

So first off, no denying it, its ball shrinkingly expensive and I WISH Apple offered a 256/512Gb option.

But I'm seeing alot of chatter that anyone getting the 768Gb is "being stupid". I'm about to buy an iMac and on the fence over what storage option to get but really it doesn't seem as stupid as everyone is making out...if I'm wrong please show me the way!

A) It is the only way to use Windows with SSD speed properly on the Mac. I've seen experiments with WinClone that work but honestly results seem varied and inonsistent and I don't really like messing around too much now that I'm off Windows. Some people have applications (or would like to futureproof future applications) that are Windows only and going back to HDD would suck for those apps.

B) Whilst expensive, it doesn't seem RIDICULOUS compared to competitors. e.g. the LaCie 512Gb SSD costs £600, implying a cost of £900 for 768Gb. So the Apple one is priced £140 more than this, which is a nice chunk but not a massive premium to pay for having it internal and BootCamp-able

C) Fusion drive looks great for certain users, but I feel like it's nowhere near the same as pure SSD levels. Once you go above the 128Gb SSD its a guessing game as to what will open fast what will open slow and thats very different from knowing everything you open will be blazing SSD speed. Also it doesn't seem to differentiate by datatype. If I watch a movie a few times Fusion will put that on the SSD where it will not benefit from the SSD speed, wasting space.

Not saying that Fusion drive is bad, but I'm saying there is definitely a difference between Fusion and full SSD. I'm also not saying the all SSD isn't massively expensive for what it is. I'm just saying in the absence of any other lower capacity option, I don't really think going all SSD is as "stupid" as many on these boards suggest, there are definitely some viable reasons to go with it?

Please fire away and correct me if I'm wrong and save me a bunch of cash!

I ordered it with the flash SSD. I actually had specced it out with a 3TB Fusion at first, then changed it when I learned that the 3TB fusion drive wasn't supported with bootcamp. I have a 15TB nas for long term storage of photos etc.

I don't trust myself enough to successfully execute an SSD upgrade on a 2k+ machine without voiding my warranty. I've learned this from prior sad experience. So, I say, if you can afford the SSD, do it, and don't care/look back at what anyone thinks. If the SSD of your iMac has problems, apple will cover it, no problem. I'd be careful replacing stuff, on your own, on the inside.

I know people say/think it won't void your warranty, but come on, who's to say Apple won't cite a failed hardware test or non standard component on system damage if anything happens? I'm just not willing to risk it. Kudos to those brave/confident enough to do it. I'd say 1300 over retail is a lot less than 2k to replace a machine.

[MacFoodPoisoner]

so how exactly does it work under bootcamp, the storage that is?

(p.s. who'd have thought apple would have dropped the ball with their software development in bootcamp, after all their software development is so stellar these days...)

[gnasher729]

Originally Posted by MacFoodPoisoner

so how exactly does it work under bootcamp, the storage that is?

(p.s. who'd have thought apple would have dropped the ball with their software development in bootcamp, after all their software development is so stellar these days...)

Here's what Apple software development is all about: Does it sell more Macs?

There was a point in Apple's history when Bootcamp was very important. To get people to switch from Windows to Macs, Apple had to be able to say "look, even if this Mac thing doesn't work out for you, you can always use Bootcamp and turn that Mac into a nice PC". And "even if there is a Windows app that you can't use, you can install Bootcamp and use it". This is getting less and less important nowadays. I don't think Bootcamp sells many Macs anymore. And I myself think that Parallels or similar software is much more practical, and Parallels will use a Fusion Drive automatically without any problems.

Originally Posted by akdj

I think Apple will update Bootcamp to support Fusion. Give it some time. Apple released the new iMac system concurrently with MS's Windows 8--they're probably working with Win 7 & 8 to engineer drivers that'll work with both eventually. I'm sure the same with Parallels and other VM software companies that are just now getting their Fusion Drive equipped gear. It takes time to make it work and it is probably difficult as one OS will surely have to be given preference when it comes to what is allowed SSD access vs. what will be only allowed on the 'spinner'

It wouldn't be Bootcamp that has to support Fusion, it would have to be Windows. And once Windows supports Fusion drives, Dell, HP, and everyone else could sell Fusion drives and Apple wouldn't like that at all. What Apple _may_ be working on is removing the limitation that Bootcamp cannot be used on any drive over 2.2 TB - including the Fusion 3TB drive, but that limitation has nothing at all to do with Fusion.

Parallels and over VM software doesn't know about Fusion and doesn't need to know about Fusion. Parallels creates files on your hard drive and _pretends_ to Windows that these files are actually real hard drives. But because these files are just ordinary files, Fusion can and does optimise them just as it would optimise any other files.

[cosmicjoke]

i have 512gb in my mac pro and use nearly every drop of it for operating systems, applications, and games... good thing it only cost me $450 i have an additional 8tb of storage for media and backups....

A large SSD is entirely worth it to me, $1300 worth it would kind of suck, considering 512gb crucial m4s are under $400 now, but if you want an imac with one ya gotta do what ya gotta do i guess.