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!
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.
Dude! Don't you know that you have a slow drive with a greater chance of failure! #
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.
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.
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 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?
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), ....
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.
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.
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
In that case, please post links to "technically accurate" descriptions of the technology.
Wrong.... Cost had nothing to do with it, the only reason was space in the 21" enclosure......
No, more storage options were added to the low-end 15" rMBP after launch.