128Gb enough for apps?

Discussion in 'iMac' started by Yougotcarved, Jan 3, 2013.

  1. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2012
    #1
    I'm considering getting an iMac with the Fusion Drive and was just wanting to hear your opinions on whether 128Gb will be enough to just have apps, no media on?

    From what I've seen OSX needs about 15Gb, if I want a bunch of apps (say iLife, iTunes, Photoshop, Final Cut etc) would they be able to fit on the SSD of my Fusion Drive?

    Does anybody here fill up more than 128Gb with apps?
     
  2. macrumors 6502a

    daveishere

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2008
    Location:
    UK
    #2
    And what if they dont?

    Fusion drive is programmed to automatically swap files between the drives based on your usage.

    Unless you use all your 128gb equally as much, surely this should be ok?
     
  3. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2008
    #3
    I´m using my macbook pro since 2008 (snow leopard) with a 160GB hard drive.
    The Size of my application folder never really went above 60 Gb.

    I think it depends from user to user. But a 128Gb SSD should be fine for now.
     
  4. macrumors demi-god

    GreXXL

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2011
    Location:
    Vienna, Austria
    #4
    Well the most prominent problem would be that you have no influence what-so-ever on where "FusionDrive" puts your files. I'd asume that some key parts of OSX are kept on the SSD to keep startup times down. As for the files you will have to trust the logic that is built into "FusionDrive".

    I think it will do the trick, and I like that you don't have to fiddle around yourself. It just does it for you.
    If you need super-power you need to go for a large SSD-only setup, which unfortunately is just freaking expensive :)

    greets
     
  5. thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2012
    #5
    Well I'd aim to keep total hard drive use under 128Gb and use externals for everything else to ensure everything is on the SSD.
     
  6. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2007
    #6
    I read on another site that the fusion drive also caches 4GB for read/write use so you would have 124GB however don't forget some of that spaceman be reduced by formatted space. I'm not sure how much.

    But you have less that 124GB in reality.
     
  7. macrumors demi-god

    GreXXL

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2011
    Location:
    Vienna, Austria
    #7
    Hm, well that might work. Personally I think it's a bit of a waste for the TB that you don't use. Why not using it for less-frequently used files that you access only on demand? Finally it's up to you, on how to use your MAC - but upgrading for the not-that-inexpensive Fusion Drive and not using the technology seems to be a waste for me.

    Well I guess in reality you have less space than that. But I don't know if you see the actual size of your flash space - when using it in a Fusion Drive? The aim of Apple is to hide that from the user, so you will only see the 1TB that you got in total, not what's used of your HDD and of your SSD? Well maybe someone who actually already got one can tell you :)
     
  8. macrumors 6502

    iancapable

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2006
    Location:
    London, United Kingdom
    #8
    If it's not you can always buy an external drive like the LaCie thunderbolt SSD, or you could always get yourself a flash drive for them: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Kingston-Te...1_3?s=computers&ie=UTF8&qid=1357248407&sr=1-3
     
  9. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2007
    #9
    Spaceman? It auto corrected my perfect sentence to make no sense...
     
  10. thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2012
    #10
    Its only a waste cos apple doesnt offer a smaller flash only option. As it is my plan is a cheap way to get an internal all SSD boot drive without ripping open my mac
     

Share This Page