Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > Desktops > iMac

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Dec 29, 2012, 08:37 PM   #1
air23cary
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Full SSD on iMac is criminal

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?
air23cary is offline   8 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 29, 2012, 08:41 PM   #2
khanable
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
People expect a high amount of storage space on a desktop

Not so much on a laptop

hence fusion drives, little bit of SSD, lotta bit of HDD.

I agree through, a 256gb ssd option would have been very nice.
khanable is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 29, 2012, 08:41 PM   #3
Mackilroy
macrumors 68040
 
Mackilroy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Send a message via AIM to Mackilroy
The Fusion Drive-equipped iMacs do have an SSD. It's a 128GB model.
__________________
Can a mortal ask questions which God finds unanswerable? Quite easily, I should think. All nonsense questions are unanswerable.
Mackilroy is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 29, 2012, 08:42 PM   #4
WilliamG
macrumors 601
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Seattle
Quote:
Originally Posted by air23cary View Post
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?
Do what I did, and get a Samsung 830 or 840 Pro, and a Seagate Backup Plus Thunderbolt 2.5", and boot off that. I'm running the 830 256GB here.
__________________
iMac, MacBook Air, Mac mini, iPad, iPhone, 55-11
www.bighugenerd.com
WilliamG is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 1, 2013, 12:18 PM   #5
xgman
macrumors 68040
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamG View Post
Do what I did, and get a Samsung 830 or 840 Pro, and a Seagate Backup Plus Thunderbolt 2.5", and boot off that. I'm running the 830 256GB here.

I also got a samsung 840 pro, but . . it doesn't bench quite as fast as the internal ssd. (controller adds a bit of latency) Just saying. If only the 840 was inside. . . .
__________________
{2012 27imac-3.4i7-680mx-32gb ram-768SSD+External TB Samsung840pro ssd + TB velociraptors-UAD Apollo/Marantz/Amphion/Bowers&Wilkins Sound-Impulse 61}
{ipads}{iphones}
xgman is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 1, 2013, 01:24 PM   #6
WilliamG
macrumors 601
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Seattle
Quote:
Originally Posted by xgman View Post
I also got a samsung 840 pro, but . . it doesn't bench quite as fast as the internal ssd. (controller adds a bit of latency) Just saying. If only the 840 was inside. . . .
Agreed. But the benchmarks aren't affecting my usage.
__________________
iMac, MacBook Air, Mac mini, iPad, iPhone, 55-11
www.bighugenerd.com
WilliamG is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 29, 2012, 09:15 PM   #7
snugja
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by air23cary View Post
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.
snugja is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 29, 2012, 09:27 PM   #8
Lancer
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Australia
I agree there should be more SSD choice, 256 & 512. Also what about a 2Tb HDD option instead of just 1Tb or 3Tb?

I guess Apple has to draw the line somewhere and found more people were likely to get a Fusion over SSD.
Lancer is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 30, 2012, 08:09 AM   #9
RoelJuun
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Netherlands
Quote:
Originally Posted by snugja View Post
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.
Two wrongs don't make a right. The upgrade in the MBPr is criminal too.
RoelJuun is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 30, 2012, 09:58 AM   #10
hfg
macrumors 68020
 
hfg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cedar Rapids, IA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RoelJuun View Post
Two wrongs don't make a right. The upgrade in the MBPr is criminal too.
Where else do you see a single module SSD greater than 500GB for less?


I guess you could get the OCZ 1TB SSD for $2500 ...
hfg is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 30, 2012, 10:29 AM   #11
snugja
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by hfg View Post
Where else do you see a single module SSD greater than 500GB for less?


I guess you could get the OCZ 1TB SSD for $2500 ...
But but but that's criminal too. It's all a conspiracy!
snugja is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 30, 2012, 11:33 AM   #12
Mac32
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
There is simply no discussion in this matter. Apple could so easily have also given us a much cheaper 512 gb SSD-only option, but for some greedy reason they didn't. It's an outragious decision, and no amount of explaination can rationalize it. A fusion drive DOES NOT equal an all-SSD solution.
I went with the 768gb SSD option myself, but like most people I'm not particularly rich, so those extra 1300$ (1750$ in Norway) is a expense. I don't even need 768GB, 512GB would have been plenty for my use.

Last edited by Mac32; Dec 31, 2012 at 03:34 AM.
Mac32 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 30, 2012, 11:56 AM   #13
aneftp
macrumors 68040
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Unless you buy a desktop tower. There aren't many All in Ones that offer much in terms of SSD. The Dell 27 inch high end all in one only has a 32GB SSD that really just for basic systems and boot up

SSD for laptop with 128/256GB aren't cheap either. Just look at the Asus or Samsung SSD laptops model.

Maybe in 2 years 256GB SSD fusion will become standard for iMacs. But for now 128GB is a fair choice. 768GB SSDs. I have looked for prices on the Internet. They run at least $900 plus as an add on for MacBook Pros.

768GB SSD is too expensive for lost
aneftp is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 29, 2012, 09:38 PM   #14
Ctrl2k
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
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.
__________________
Lover of Apple
Ctrl2k is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 29, 2012, 09:48 PM   #15
ConCat
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: In an ethereal plane of existence.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ctrl2k View Post
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.
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.
ConCat is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 29, 2012, 10:24 PM   #16
sounddesigner
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
It's because of the fact that most people will think that anything below 768Gb is too small or else the fusion would not even be out there because they offer it so people wont have to choose between storage capacity and SSD quality
sounddesigner is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 29, 2012, 10:33 PM   #17
NVRENUF!
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: PERTH, Australia
Send a message via Skype™ to NVRENUF!
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.
__________________
27" Late 2012 | 120gb SSD | 680mx 2gig | 3.4ghz I7 | 24gig ram |
27" Late 2011, 120 gig SSD, 512mb GPU, I5
2 x Iphone 5, 1 x Iphone 4s, 1 x Ipad 3 , 1 x Ipad 2
NVRENUF! is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 29, 2012, 10:42 PM   #18
ConCat
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: In an ethereal plane of existence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NVRENUF! View Post
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.
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.
ConCat is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 30, 2012, 09:07 AM   #19
excommie
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: May 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by NVRENUF! View Post
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.
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.
excommie is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 29, 2012, 10:47 PM   #20
WilliamG
macrumors 601
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Seattle
Quote:
Originally Posted by ConCat View Post
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.
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.
__________________
iMac, MacBook Air, Mac mini, iPad, iPhone, 55-11
www.bighugenerd.com
WilliamG is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 29, 2012, 10:50 PM   #21
Norcal.
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Hell, with the prices they charge they should throw in the SSD for free as the base model. $1300 for 768GB.. Is that some sort of sick joke? It's almost as bad as the $600 for 32GB of RAM.
Norcal. is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 30, 2012, 12:03 AM   #22
qamaro
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamG View Post
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'm not sure I agree with that first statement. While the SSD is going to be faster no doubt some will just not be able to make the cost benefit analysis work for them. Therefore they will just not be able to go with the internal 768GB SSD. But, to the point that you lose performance if you access a load of photos - I am using both Capture One and Lightroom 4 to access NEX-7, PhaseOne P45+, IQ160 and IQ180 RAW files and I am not noticing any hit at this time on the 3TB Fusion....IMHO. I am accustomed to running this on RAID 0 volumes off my Win7 64-Bit PC in the past.

I will say that just in case I would see a hit over time I added an external TB SSD, that I am using for my CS6 (scratch disk and working files). Still for folks that require that little bit of performance insurance an external SSD isn't a bad option for the money.... YMMV
__________________
2012 - 27" iMac i7, | ARECA-8050 32TB | 2012 - MacMini i7 | 2012 Sony Vaio Z - Win8
2009 - MacBook Pro 17" | 2008 Water Cooled PC
Marqelexsis Photography | Facebook
qamaro is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 30, 2012, 12:11 AM   #23
cosmicjoke
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Portland, OR
Quote:
Originally Posted by air23cary View Post
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?
lol there's a love it or leave it hick apple loyalist mentality 'round these parts partner, we won't be havin' none of these complaints.

(fwiw i agree with you entirely)
cosmicjoke is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 30, 2012, 12:12 AM   #24
DisMyMac
macrumors 65816
 
DisMyMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by air23cary View Post
if I want a non-obsolete hard drive I need to fork over an extra $1300.
It's only an 830 model too. Not obsolete, but substandard imo.

(edit - I'm not clear on what model it is, but it's not the 840 Samsung)

Quote:
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.

Last edited by DisMyMac; Dec 30, 2012 at 12:19 AM.
DisMyMac is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 30, 2012, 12:51 AM   #25
snugja
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by DisMyMac View Post
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.
My last iMac lasted about 4 years before I felt the need to upgrade. YMMV
snugja is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > Desktops > iMac

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
SSD Startup Disk is Full BlueBubba Mac Pro 5 Feb 4, 2013 12:43 PM
Who is opting for the $1300 Full SSD drive on the 2013 iMac? NJRonbo iMac 32 Dec 16, 2012 05:44 AM
Going full SSD (Mid 2008 Macbook) r0k Buying Tips and Advice 16 Sep 20, 2012 09:21 PM
SSD Keeps getting full... glaseryaniv OS X 10.8 Mountain Lion 5 Sep 5, 2012 10:52 AM
SSD keeps getting full... glaseryaniv MacBook Pro 2 Sep 5, 2012 07:35 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:56 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC