Full SSD on iMac is criminal

[air23cary]

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?

[khanable]

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.

[Mackilroy]

The Fusion Drive-equipped iMacs do have an SSD. It's a 128GB model.

[WilliamG]

Originally Posted by air23cary

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.

[snugja]

Originally Posted by air23cary

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.

[Lancer]

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.

[Ctrl2k]

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.

[ConCat]

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.

Originally Posted by Ctrl2k

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.

[sounddesigner]

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

[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.

[ConCat]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[WilliamG]

Originally Posted by ConCat

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.

[Norcal.]

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.

[NVRENUF!]

Originally Posted by ConCat

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.

I wouldnt go for the fusion. I personally Dont want a physical HDD in side my machine.

Fusion is NOt better than SSD alone. whats the main benifit ? more space ?

great get a nas or an external !.

And it wasn't a question what what's better Than the other it was why isn't there a smaller option than 768

I decided to put a ssd only in my machine and it runs like a dream.
I want to decide what goes on my ssd not the fusion software

[Lancer]

Fusion is a fantastic solution to the cost v size problem SSD currently has. For most users it costs less, gives you much more storage and it's all internal.

I'll be hanging a bunch of external USB drives off my new iMac, 12 Gb in total and short of maxing out a Mac Pro with 4x 4Gb nothing comes close to matching that for internal storage.

And lets remember SSD can fail just as easy as HDD so backing up is always a wise choice.

IMO Fusion will be around on the iMac for some time, and maybe the next Mac Pro. At least until SSD comes down to match HDD in price v size.

[qamaro]

Originally Posted by WilliamG

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

[cosmicjoke]

Originally Posted by air23cary

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)

[DisMyMac]

Originally Posted by air23cary

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)

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.

[snugja]

Originally Posted by DisMyMac

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

[bembol]

Originally Posted by DisMyMac

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.

+1

/thread. Business.


I still can't believe when people ask me why Apple add Blu-ray Disc drives.

[vannibombonato]

Originally Posted by air23cary

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?

Because next year the standard fusion will be with 256gb, and the SSD upgrade will cost less for likely a TB. So you might want to indulge.

And in the next three years everything will be moving 100% SSD, HDDs will remain only for server farms or 8tb+ storage like (my guess).

So...upgrade time again

[RoelJuun]

Originally Posted by snugja

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.

[excommie]

Originally Posted by NVRENUF!

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.

[hfg]

Originally Posted by RoelJuun

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 ...

[flynz4]

Originally Posted by excommie

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.

This is absolutely false. SSD's shine on small files... not large files. Just think about it for a second... they do not have to reposition a head... or wait for the data to rotate to the correct position. They are also faster on reads rather than writes.

For large files on a HDD... you position the heads once... and then stream the data from the HDD. Hence... the long time to move the heads is amortized against a lot of data... hence they have reasonably high "large read" or "large write" performance.

SSDs give the smallest performance advantage during "large writes". They give spectacular performance on "small read".

Luckily... (as you imply)... the vast majority of access on client systems are "small reads". Estimates are over 90%... with the vast majority of the rest being "small writes".

SSDs are a HUGE advancement for client systems.

/Jim