Full SSD on iMac is criminal

Discussion in 'iMac' started by air23cary, Dec 29, 2012.

  1. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2004
    #1
    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?
     
  2. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    #2
    People expect a high amount of storage space on a desktop

    Not so much on a laptop

    hence fusion drives, little bit of SSD, lotta bit of HDD.

    I agree through, a 256gb ssd option would have been very nice.
     
  3. macrumors 68040

    Mackilroy

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2006
    #3
    The Fusion Drive-equipped iMacs do have an SSD. It's a 128GB model.
     
  4. macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2008
    Location:
    Seattle
    #4
    Do what I did, and get a Samsung 830 or 840 Pro, and a Seagate Backup Plus Thunderbolt 2.5", and boot off that. :) I'm running the 830 256GB here.
     
  5. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2006
    #5
    I dunno, but IT IS NICE :D

    btw, it's a similar price to upgrade on a macbook pro, so I don't think it's criminal.
     
  6. macrumors 68000

    Lancer

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2002
    Location:
    Australia
    #6
    I agree there should be more SSD choice, 256 & 512. Also what about a 2Tb HDD option instead of just 1Tb or 3Tb?

    I guess Apple has to draw the line somewhere and found more people were likely to get a Fusion over SSD.
     
  7. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2007
    #7
    I had a separate 256GB SSD and a 1TB drive in the 2011 iMac, and moved to the 2012 iMac with a 3TB fusion drive, thinking I'd lose performance. Well, a) fusion works very, very well, and b) the SSD and HDD in the 2012 unit far outperform the SSD and HDD in the 2011 model (i.e., each is much faster on its own).

    The net result is everything "feels" just as fast as before, but I have 3TB space. It's quite amazing how it all works.
     
  8. macrumors 6502a

    ConCat

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2012
    Location:
    In an ethereal plane of existence.
    #8
    The Fusion Drive is the future of storage on desktop Macs anyway. I don't see why anyone would go with pure SSD on a desktop. It's way too expensive, and the Fusion Drive does do an excellent job of giving you the most out of the 128GB SSD. I expect Apple will make it the default option at some point. The only way they could make the Fusion Drive better is by offering more customization. Perhaps a 256GB SSD fusion instead of the 128. As things stand though, it's clearly superior to either the 768GB SSD or the HDD offerings.

    You don't lose any performance because everything goes to the SSD first. You'd actually have to write a file larger than 4GB with a full SSD or read a massive amount of data not residing on the SSD to notice a speed decrease. It really is quite awesome technology. Some geek at Apple had a lot of fun putting it together.
     
  9. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2012
    #9
    It's because of the fact that most people will think that anything below 768Gb is too small or else the fusion would not even be out there because they offer it so people wont have to choose between storage capacity and SSD quality
     
  10. macrumors regular

    NVRENUF!

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Location:
    PERTH, Australia
    #10
    It's purely because apple wants more money!!!

    If they offered a 256 option how many people would have paid for the 768 ?

    any one who uses an ssd dont store there stuff on it anyway
    it's only for OS and APPS, All storage is external, regardless of the size
    of the internal ssd.

    so i see it purely as apple just wanting people to buy the bigger one.
     
  11. macrumors 6502a

    ConCat

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2012
    Location:
    In an ethereal plane of existence.
    #11
    You clearly have no idea how the Fusion Drive works. Try again. It's actually much better than a simple SSD or HDD, a fact which might give you the motivation to educate yourself.

    EDIT: Oh yes, and did I mention, the Fusion Drive is cheaper, and better. Oh, but wait, big corporations are GREEDY, I forgot, my bad.
     
  12. macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2008
    Location:
    Seattle
    #12
    Absolutely you lose performance, as you say. If I access a load of photos, it's quite simply slower on a fusion-based platform. Fusion isn't for everyone.

    Fusion is not the future. SSD is. It's been too long coming. Fusion is also far too expensive from Apple.
     
  13. macrumors member

    Norcal.

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2012
    #13
    Hell, with the prices they charge they should throw in the SSD for free as the base model. $1300 for 768GB.. Is that some sort of sick joke? It's almost as bad as the $600 for 32GB of RAM.
     
  14. macrumors regular

    NVRENUF!

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Location:
    PERTH, Australia
    #14
    I wouldnt go for the fusion. I personally Dont want a physical HDD in side my machine.

    Fusion is NOt better than SSD alone. whats the main benifit ? more space ?

    great get a nas or an external !.

    And it wasn't a question what what's better Than the other it was why isn't there a smaller option than 768

    I decided to put a ssd only in my machine and it runs like a dream.
    I want to decide what goes on my ssd not the fusion software
     
  15. macrumors 68000

    Lancer

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2002
    Location:
    Australia
    #15
    Fusion is a fantastic solution to the cost v size problem SSD currently has. For most users it costs less, gives you much more storage and it's all internal.

    I'll be hanging a bunch of external USB drives off my new iMac, 12 Gb in total and short of maxing out a Mac Pro with 4x 4Gb nothing comes close to matching that for internal storage.

    And lets remember SSD can fail just as easy as HDD so backing up is always a wise choice.

    IMO Fusion will be around on the iMac for some time, and maybe the next Mac Pro. At least until SSD comes down to match HDD in price v size.
     
  16. macrumors member

    qamaro

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    #16
    I'm not sure I agree with that first statement. While the SSD is going to be faster no doubt some will just not be able to make the cost benefit analysis work for them. Therefore they will just not be able to go with the internal 768GB SSD. But, to the point that you lose performance if you access a load of photos - I am using both Capture One and Lightroom 4 to access NEX-7, PhaseOne P45+, IQ160 and IQ180 RAW files and I am not noticing any hit at this time on the 3TB Fusion....IMHO. I am accustomed to running this on RAID 0 volumes off my Win7 64-Bit PC in the past.

    I will say that just in case I would see a hit over time I added an external TB SSD, that I am using for my CS6 (scratch disk and working files). Still for folks that require that little bit of performance insurance an external SSD isn't a bad option for the money.... YMMV
     
  17. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2011
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #17
    lol there's a love it or leave it hick apple loyalist mentality 'round these parts partner, we won't be havin' none of these complaints.

    (fwiw i agree with you entirely)
     
  18. DisMyMac, Dec 29, 2012
    Last edited: Dec 29, 2012

    macrumors 65816

    DisMyMac

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2009
    #18
    It's only an 830 model too. Not obsolete, but substandard imo.

    (edit - I'm not clear on what model it is, but it's not the 840 Samsung)

    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.
     
  19. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2006
    #19
    My last iMac lasted about 4 years before I felt the need to upgrade. YMMV
     
  20. macrumors 6502a

    bembol

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2006
    #20
    +1

    /thread. Business.


    I still can't believe when people ask me why Apple add Blu-ray Disc drives.
     
  21. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    #21
    Because next year the standard fusion will be with 256gb, and the SSD upgrade will cost less for likely a TB. So you might want to indulge.

    And in the next three years everything will be moving 100% SSD, HDDs will remain only for server farms or 8tb+ storage like (my guess).

    So...upgrade time again :D
     
  22. macrumors 6502

    RoelJuun

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2010
    Location:
    Netherlands
    #22
    Two wrongs don't make a right. The upgrade in the MBPr is criminal too.
     
  23. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    #23
    SSD drives really shine when accessing large files (ex. huge video projects and large raw photo files). In reality, the benefit of a SSD drive is less pronounced on a desktop systems that don't require often reboots as most of the OS files and APPS are already cached in RAM.
     
  24. hfg
    macrumors 68030

    hfg

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2006
    Location:
    Cedar Rapids, IA. USA
    #24
    Where else do you see a single module SSD greater than 500GB for less? :confused:


    I guess you could get the OCZ 1TB SSD for $2500 ...
     
  25. flynz4, Dec 30, 2012
    Last edited: Dec 30, 2012

    macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #25
    This is absolutely false. SSD's shine on small files... not large files. Just think about it for a second... they do not have to reposition a head... or wait for the data to rotate to the correct position. They are also faster on reads rather than writes.

    For large files on a HDD... you position the heads once... and then stream the data from the HDD. Hence... the long time to move the heads is amortized against a lot of data... hence they have reasonably high "large read" or "large write" performance.

    SSDs give the smallest performance advantage during "large writes". They give spectacular performance on "small read".

    Luckily... (as you imply)... the vast majority of access on client systems are "small reads". Estimates are over 90%... with the vast majority of the rest being "small writes".

    SSDs are a HUGE advancement for client systems.

    /Jim
     

Share This Page