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!
Where else do you see a single module SSD greater than 500GB for less?
I guess you could get the OCZ 1TB SSD for $2500 ...
Thats not true either. Most of the data on the HDD is not in sequential order. To even read large files the HDDs head has to move multiple times to get from the beginning to the end of a single file.For large files on a HDD... you position the heads once... and then stream the data from the HDD.
Apple has always been careful not to allow "perfect" configurations, or else you'll want a new computer every four years instead of every two.
There is simply no discussion in this matter. Apple could so easily have also given us a much cheaper 512 gb SSD-only option, but for some greedy reason they didn't. It's an outragious decision, and no amount of explaination can rationalize it. A fusion drive DOES NOT equal an all-SSD solution.
I went with the 768gb SSD option myself, but I'm not particularly rich or whatever, so those extra 1300$ (1750$ in Norway) really put a strain on my overall household budget. I don't even need 768GB, 512GB would have been plenty for my use.
For those only needing 256GB SSD and 128GB isn't enough, just buy an SSD and a Seagate Backup Plus Thunderbolt enclosure. Problem solved!
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
And exactly that is why everyone buys All in one solution, to put some ugly seagate adapter next to it apple logic
Fusion is NOT SSD...Don't confuse Apple's profit(low cost of only 128gb SSD) with your profit(faster disk=SSD)EDIT: Oh yes, and did I mention, the Fusion Drive is cheaper, and better.
If I have a power cord coming out of my computer, or even a wireless USB mouse hooked up (oh the USB receiver is so ugly ), it's no longer all-in-one. When Apple can give me wireless power to my iMac, then we'll talk.
By your logic Apple should abolish Thunderbolt/USB/Headphone jacks etc, because plugging stuff into the iMac is UNACCEPTABLE!
]
Huge difference having a power cord and having a cord with a device hanging off of it.
So by your logic since you have to have one cord you might as well give up trying to reduce any clutter. Whats is one more, or two more or ten more devices or cords hanging off of it...
I'm sorry, but my Thunderbolt hard drive 100% hidden behind my computer on a BackPack is FAR less annoying to me than an ugly white cable coming out and down behind my glass desk, thank you very much.
the point being made here that there's no clutter if you do it right.
Not everyone has their computer back facing a wall.
Thats not true either. Most of the data on the HDD is not in sequential order. To even read large files the HDDs head has to move multiple times to get from the beginning to the end of a single file.
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 seriously don't see any logic to this argument. Why have any ports on the back of your computer then? Do you never use them?
All I'm saying is that in terms of expense there are ways around the lack of 256GB/512GB SSD options. I happen to be in the camp that says the only option being 768GB for $1300 is just plain outrageous.
The person i replied to wasn't talking about the Fusion Drive. He was comparing HDDs (without an SSD Cache) to SSDs.That's what the cache is for.
That's what the cache is for. Unless you have an unrealistically fragmented drive for some reason the cache is plenty to keep the stream going uninterrupted. SSDs are mostly good for reads of lots of small files where access time becomes a limiting factor. System files are the perfect example of this. Honestly, the fusion drive is a brilliant solution to the cost/MB problem SSDs have. Without benchmarks I challenge it might be near impossible to tell the difference in any real world application.
If you are flipping through 40 megapixel images very quickly I could see it making a difference (albeit small), but for 99.9% of users the benefit of SSD-only is limited primarily to ego.
For those only needing 256GB SSD and 128GB isn't enough, just buy an SSD and a Seagate Backup Plus Thunderbolt enclosure. Problem solved!
Try playing with a Fusion drive-equipped iMac before moaning.
Not many people in the market for an iMac could make do with just 256GB of storage.