Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Jan 7, 2013, 07:00 AM   #351
jnkatriya
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Why not for mac min low end?

What is problem if they offer for mac mini low end?
jnkatriya is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2013, 08:15 AM   #352
Irishman
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by tech4all View Post
Someone sounds a bit bitter!

Screwed in that they had to spend even more money for the high end iMac to get the Fusion. A $500 difference!
Not really. The faster proc and upgraded gpu was of more use to me than the performance of the fusion drive.
Irishman is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2013, 11:35 AM   #353
gtg660w
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Icaras View Post
Yea. I really don't like this new trend of Apple updating BTO options after a Mac has been released. They did it with the MacBook Pro 15" retina and they are doing it again with the new iMac.

Seriously this time..... Steve would never have allowed this. Really though, this kind of behavior hardly ever happened under Steve's watch.
Are you kidding??....Steve was on watch when the original iPhone came out in 07 and the price was dropped by $200 only a couple months later. He has done stunts like this numerous times.

http://news.cnet.com/apples-iphone-p...3-6206367.html

A re-occurring issue with most Apple enthusiasts is that they expect the product they buy to be the latest tech for at least a year before Apple decides to up the specs again. In this rapid pace society, having expectations like that is not realistic anymore.
gtg660w is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2013, 12:20 PM   #354
zivilist
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: May 2010
Apple should offer a 1 TB hdd with 7200 rpm instead in low end macs. And of cause a bigger graphic card with at least 1 GB VRAM.

Or only a 256 GB SSD for 200 USD and a 512 GB SSD for 350 USD.
__________________
 21,5 inch iMac 3,2 GHz Core i3 mid 2010

Last edited by zivilist; Jan 7, 2013 at 12:32 PM.
zivilist is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2013, 12:33 PM   #355
jasonefmonk
macrumors member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by FuNGi View Post
Dude! Don't you know that you have a slow drive with a greater chance of failure! 😎
I don't know which drive you are talking about but they were both well reviewed on Newegg, and my computer is by no means slow. Boot times in ~15 seconds compared to 45+.
jasonefmonk is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2013, 12:39 PM   #356
Icaras
macrumors 601
 
Icaras's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: California, United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by gtg660w View Post
Are you kidding??....Steve was on watch when the original iPhone came out in 07 and the price was dropped by $200 only a couple months later. He has done stunts like this numerous times.
True, but I was talking about Macs, specifically.
__________________
iMac (27-inch, Late 2012) iPad Air iPhone 6 Apple TV (3rd Generation) Airport Time Capsule
Icaras is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2013, 02:35 PM   #357
hayesk
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: May 2003
While we are all arguing about hard drive failure statistics, why aren't we just telling people to back up like they should?

Oh, one of the drives failed, and now the fusion drive is toast. So what? Replace the bad drive, restore from backup, and you're back in business.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by gtg660w View Post
Are you kidding??....Steve was on watch when the original iPhone came out[/url]

A re-occurring issue with most Apple enthusiasts is that they expect the product they buy to be the latest tech for at least a year before Apple decides to up the specs again. In this rapid pace society, having expectations like that is not realistic anymore.
Agreed. We need a WWSJD law. That law states that any argument that asserts that SJ never would have done or allowed something should just be ignored.
hayesk is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2013, 04:42 PM   #358
MacDav
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by majkom View Post
If you are discussing chance of error rised by fusing two drives... (I havent read whole discussion, too long), it does not double, it rises but you cant say it doubles. Take it - probability of failure of each of the disk is independent event (this is fact according to theory of probability), lets say Prob. for HDD has 20 perent, Prob. for SSD has 10 percent, than the probability of failure of fused disk is (0.2*0.9 + 0.8*0.1 + 0.2*0.1)*100=28 percent - so yes, fused drive has bigger probability to fail than single HDD or SSD.
The possibility of data corruption caused by the O/S rises also. Since the O/S is writing to two different drives both reads and writes have more chance of error. Same with raid arrays. Backups are important.
MacDav is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2013, 04:48 PM   #359
gnasher729
macrumors G5
 
gnasher729's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by AidenShaw View Post
The early descriptions of Apple's implementation describe it as an OS-directed file-level placement technique. Where is it describes as a block-level optimization?
That was the very first description in public, meant for an audience that is not too knowledgable, and "the OS puts files that you use a lot onto the fast SSD drive, and files that you don't use much onto the hard drive" is something that the average user can easily understand. It's not technically accurate.


Quote:
Originally Posted by majkom View Post
If you are discussing chance of error rised by fusing two drives... (I havent read whole discussion, too long), it does not double, it rises but you cant say it doubles. Take it - probability of failure of each of the disk is independent event (this is fact according to theory of probability), ....
What makes you think hard drive failures would be independent? If 100 people each hold up a MBP with a DIY fusion drive over their head, and one of them drops his MBP, then you will have one broken SSD drive and one broken hard drive - both in the same MBP. Rough treatment, broken fan that leads to overheating, power spikes, there are lots of things that will affect both drives. Which means drive failures are correlated, which means the probability for "any failure" isn't twice as high with two drives.

Last edited by gnasher729; Jan 7, 2013 at 04:56 PM.
gnasher729 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2013, 04:55 PM   #360
majkom
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: May 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacDav View Post
The possibility of data corruption caused by the O/S rises also. Since the O/S is writing to two different drives both reads and writes have more chance of error. Same with raid arrays. Backups are important.
OK, I am not technically educated enough to know if HDD and SSD failures are rally independent events - i wrote that knowing that those two probabilities are independent.. if you are right, the probability of failure for fussion may be higher than I showed in my example.. back ups are not 100 percent solution - imagine disk failing in your imac just after end of apple care - not an easy thing to solve
majkom is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2013, 05:18 PM   #361
AidenShaw
macrumors G5
 
AidenShaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The Peninsula
Quote:
Originally Posted by gnasher729 View Post
That was the very first description in public, meant for an audience that is not too knowledgable, and "the OS puts files that you use a lot onto the fast SSD drive, and files that you don't use much onto the hard drive" is something that the average user can easily understand. It's not technically accurate.
In that case, please post links to "technically accurate" descriptions of the technology.
__________________
Edward Snowden - American Hero.
Daniel Ellsberg: "Edward Snowden: Saving Us from the United Stasi of America"
Marriage equality is unstoppable
AidenShaw is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2013, 02:17 AM   #362
MacDav
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by majkom View Post
OK, I am not technically educated enough to know if HDD and SSD failures are rally independent events - i wrote that knowing that those two probabilities are independent.. if you are right, the probability of failure for fussion may be higher than I showed in my example.. back ups are not 100 percent solution - imagine disk failing in your imac just after end of apple care - not an easy thing to solve
If your disk fails in an iMac just boot up from your latest back up using an external drive enclosure. Doesn't really matter if you have Apple care or not. I would never buy Apple care for any reason, total waste of money for me. Replacing the drive in an iMac is more trouble than it should be, but for me it's still doable. If Apple throws the Mac Pro under the bus then I'll just have to build my own PC's again like I used to every year before I bought the 8 core Mac Pro.
MacDav is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2013, 02:33 AM   #363
gnasher729
macrumors G5
 
gnasher729's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by AidenShaw View Post
In that case, please post links to "technically accurate" descriptions of the technology.
Read the arstechnica articles.
gnasher729 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2013, 07:50 AM   #364
ipmasta
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Fusion drive in 2010-2011 macs

I dont know about the iMacs but I have a late 2011 17" macbook pro laptop that I bought an optidrive adapter and installed a 750gb 7200 rpm hd and an ocz 120gb ssd (Cost me $90) and I set them up as a fusion drive. Also did the same in my mac mini server (Mid 2011). So for around $100 bucks you can get an ssd and upgrade your mac mini or macbook pro older model to a fusion drive yourself. The performance is definitely noticable. Because of this im running a quad core 2gig i7 mac mini with fusion drive and 16gigs of ram and a 17" macbook pro with a quad core 2.4 and 16gigs of ram and a fusion drive - I dont see any reason to upgrade for now. You can find the tutorial online and also your computer has to be able to run mountain lion - as lion doesnt support a fusion drive setup.
ipmasta is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 10, 2013, 03:47 AM   #365
joe-h2o
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by roverma View Post
Wrong.... Cost had nothing to do with it, the only reason was space in the 21" enclosure......
I mean in comparison to the 1TB "extremely common and affordable" 7200 rpm 2.5" drives that the guy I was replying to seems to think should be in the iMac.

There was a definite cost issue between the two different 2.5" drives - the 7200 rpm model is over $100 more expensive.
joe-h2o is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 12, 2013, 08:54 AM   #366
szw-mapple fan
macrumors 6502a
 
szw-mapple fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by cambookpro View Post
No, more storage options were added to the low-end 15" rMBP after launch.
Oh, OK. Thanks.
szw-mapple fan is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
iMac 2012: DIY fusion drive low blackmagic speed Kositch iMac 0 Nov 4, 2013 12:47 AM
Base 21.5" iMac w/ Fusion Drive, 16GB RAM option worth it? 50voltphantom iMac 2 Jan 5, 2013 10:27 AM
Completely Absurd That There Is No Fusion Drive Option For Entry Level iMac Spungoflex Wasteland 49 Dec 3, 2012 03:37 PM
refurb iMac 21.5" low end vs. late 2012 imac 21.5" low end hwrdrrk Buying Tips and Advice 6 Nov 6, 2012 03:09 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:32 PM.

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

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