Full SSD on iMac is criminal

[snugja]

Originally Posted by hfg

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!

[Mac32]

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.

[cloudyo]

Originally Posted by flynz4

For large files on a HDD... you position the heads once... and then stream the data from the HDD.

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.

[aneftp]

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

[7enderbender]

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.

That's correct. Which is why I so far have never bought Macs. I came close several times and there was always something missing that I wanted or needed at the time. Without the Win 8 disaster and the horrid Windows laptops available these days I still wouldn't go near it for this exact reason.
If Apple wants to continue to grow market share in their computer segment beyond loyalists who are willing to justify ANYTHING that Apple comes up with and beyond the very basic consumer segment who buy iMacs because of the design without much need for anything else then they need to offer more professional choices between the low end consumer machines and the very expensive tricked out machines.

And even with a $2000 budget and medium difficult applications in mind (photo editing and home studio recording) it is very very difficult to find a Mac that is not too much of a compromise. I've pretty much ruled out iMacs at this point still and will purchase a Mini with NEC screen and put in new drives and memory myself. iMacs are too difficult to upgrade and there is nothing out of the box that would work for me without going WAY over budget.

And yes, I'd also want a 256 SSD (system and program files only) and no fusion drive.

[seble]

Originally Posted by Mac32

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.

Dude I'm not gonna lie, I would never do that if it meant it would affect things that really matter. I mean a computer, come on. You get what you can afford. Me, I couldn't afford fusion and the extra RAM on my 21.5er so I just got the fusion, otherwise I knew my livelihood situation would be at stake (I'm a student).

I know I shouldn't be here to nag at people, but personally it just makes me panic when do such things, you're living is most important, computer is no where near that. On another note, enjoy that pure SSD

[WilliamG]

For those only needing 256GB SSD and 128GB isn't enough, just buy an SSD and a Seagate Backup Plus Thunderbolt enclosure. Problem solved!

[majkom]

Originally Posted by WilliamG

For those only needing 256GB SSD and 128GB isn't enough, just buy an SSD and a Seagate Backup Plus Thunderbolt enclosure. Problem solved!

And exactly that is why everyone buys All in one solution, to put some ugly seagate adapter next to it apple logic

----------

Originally Posted by aneftp

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

Sorry??? SSDs for laptop are not cheaper? I can get 256 SSD for price cheaper than what apple charges for 128 SSD in fussion.. come on... during 2013 it will be 512 GB SSD for price apple asks for fussion aka 128 GB - 4 TIMES more for the same price

[WilliamG]

Originally Posted by majkom

And exactly that is why everyone buys All in one solution, to put some ugly seagate adapter next to it apple logic[COLOR="#808080"]

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!

Anyway, I hate legitimate clutter - I'm using BackPacks on my iMac so there's ZERO clutter on my desk.

http://twelvesouth.com/products/backpack/

[alexdd]

Originally Posted by ConCat

EDIT: Oh yes, and did I mention, the Fusion Drive is cheaper, and better.

Fusion is NOT SSD...Don't confuse Apple's profit(low cost of only 128gb SSD) with your profit(faster disk=SSD)

[azentropy]

Originally Posted by WilliamG

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...

[WilliamG]

Originally Posted by azentropy

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.

[azentropy]

Originally Posted by WilliamG

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.

[WilliamG]

Originally Posted by azentropy

Not everyone has their computer back facing a wall.

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.

[Category 5]

Originally Posted by cloudyo

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.

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.

[WilliamG]

The other knock against Fusion is simply reliability. I trust a Samsung 830 SSD a lot more than I trust any spinning disk.

But yes, for many users Fusion is just fine. I'm personally just not one of those users.

[iLondoner]

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?

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.

[azentropy]

Originally Posted by WilliamG

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.

I was poking fun of YOUR argument...

Sure I use them, not having it against a wall makes it easier to access. Since Apple stupidly put the SD slot in the back now too! However I don't have anything permanently attached. When I want to read files from an SD card I use it then I'm done. When I want to transfer files with a USB Flash drive I use it then I'm done. When I want to hook up my MBP via thunderbolt I use it then I'm done. When I want to play a DVD I hook it up and when I'm done I put it away.

I agree it is ridiculous that Apple didn't offer ANY just SSD option on either a 21.5 or 27" and only a 768gb flash drive option on the 27". For what I use my iMac for I don't need 1TB of storage, would have been nice to just have a simple 128gb or 256gb SSD option. Especially since 128gb SSD drives are now about the same retail price as the 2.5" 1TB drives that are in the 21.5" iMac. The problem with a Fusion drive, besides the obvious cost, is that it means you still have a mechanical drive that has a much higher failure rate, produces more heat and produces more noise than an Flash or SSD only option.

[namethisfile]

SSD's less than 500gb is really pushing the comfort level of being able to use drive for apps, games, etc.... without running out of room. most people here probably have their own computer that only they use for the majority of the time. but, for people who need pc's that have multiple users of whom some might not be too pc-literate--an SSD & platter drive combo is just too much of a hassle telling everyone that use the computer to use this drive for this and that drive for that.....

[cloudyo]

Originally Posted by Category 5

That's what the cache is for.

The person i replied to wasn't talking about the Fusion Drive. He was comparing HDDs (without an SSD Cache) to SSDs.

[ashleypenny]

Originally Posted by Category 5

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.

I went with the 1TB HD and bought a Lacie rugged SSD 128gb external and hooked it up via thunderbolt. Before i cloned my drive over, i installed things on the HD and tested loading times of the OS, apps like photoshop, and importing/browsing/external photos into lightroom,with full screen renders. The difference was night and day from when I cloned it to the SSD. I'm glad I did it this way as I have the option to easily upgrade the capacity down the line, or take it elsewhere and boot someone elses imac with it. Anyway, just wanted to say the difference SSD makes is far from small. My boot time is about 12 seconds, wake from sleep about 1.5 second, photoshop or any other app i load appears within one bounce. This was far from the case with HDD - although it wasnt slow by any means, it was still rapidly improved on by the SSD option.

[DisMyMac]

Originally Posted by WilliamG

For those only needing 256GB SSD and 128GB isn't enough, just buy an SSD and a Seagate Backup Plus Thunderbolt enclosure. Problem solved!

Is it something like this?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...t_Adapter.html

Add any SSD you want, make that the boot drive, and that's it?

[ndpitch]

It's definitely not criminal based on price.

The price of a 768 GB or 1 TB SSD is very comparable.

Still, I'll take the 3TB fusion drive any day. I'm just waiting for the kinks to be worked out in terms of figuring out how to dual boot OS X and Windows 7 while preserving the fusion drive's functionality in OS X.

[jtrainor56]

I purchased my 27" i7 with the fusion 3tb drive and think it's fantastic. The mac loads quickly in about 12 seconds. I really only use Lightroom that would qualify for an intensive program and compared to my Lenovo laptop that has a 256gb SSD drive, this thing runs circles around it.

I have been in IT for over 25 years and still have a Windows laptop for work. We run blade servers with hybrid drives in VM environments and have no problems with a host system supporting 20 to 30 different guests.

I agree that Apple should have offered the fusion in maybe a 256gb configuration but they didn't...but it is what it is and you just have to accept it and move on.

[7enderbender]

Originally Posted by iLondoner

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.

And that's exactly the argument I don't get. 256GB for system files and some stuff is probably plenty for many users. Fusion on the other hand is only 128GB of fast storage space and the rest is a slow(ish) 5200rpm magnetic drive. Yes, Apple will "manage" for you where stuff goes and for a while on an almost empty drive things will be as fast as with a separate setup. But what happens once stuff fills up both drives? And then there is the problem that with two disks "fused" together you double the risk of data loss. Like others said Fusion drives maybe good for a lot of users but not for everyone, especially those of us who need to rely on external storage solutions anyway.

I personally want a 256GB SSD for the system and some stuff that benefits from the speed, a secondary separate 750GB 7200rpm internal drive for "stuff" and photo downloads, scratch disks, etc - and then ample external storage. And while we're at it: would be nice to have more ports on Macs for those of us who are not obsessed with how stuff looks on or under the desk but need to plug in a bunch of devices.