Hi - I'm looking to replace an old Windows XP machine as a media and file server (also serving iTunes for our AppleTV 1), and also be a small family computer. The new iMac 21.5 suits my needs perfectly (also considering a Mac mini, but like the integration of the iMac). I will also be supplementing this with a rMBP 13 in the coming months to do Lightroom work, so the target for this machine really is just as a server and light family use.
I have used SSDs exclusively for years, so going back to a pokey spinning disk doesn't thrill me. But $450 is a significant premium to pay for an SSD ($200 jump from base 21.5 to higher model, and another $250 for the Fusion disk). I have a 2x1TB Thunderbolt disk I'll be using as a RAID 1 storage array regardless of what internal drive I use.
Does anyone here have the base model new iMac with the 5400 disk? How is standard usage? (boot time isn't really an issue, since as a server it will be on 24x7) For example, web browsing, word processing, etc. Nothing fancy. [hopefully the display can turn off without the computer going to sleep...]
I know that I can also add a TB SSD as a replacement disk, but would like to avoid that if possible.
Thanks! --Erik
7200rpm might be a bit more fast but "oldschool" 5400 are more reliable among other perks.
7200rpm might be a bit more fast but "oldschool" 5400 are more reliable among other perks.
I've never seen a single spec or study attesting to this. 7200rpm drives btw, are considerably faster not a bit faster, and hubrid 7200rpm drives, given time for the caching to start working, approach ssd speeds.
Sadly i cant go any deep because of language barrier but i will leave these link so you take a look, concept its the same:
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/ou/how-higher-rpm-hard-drives-rip-you-off/322
Btw 7200rpm are not really that fast, you probably wont even notice (they do will load games and software a bit fast) other than that the 5400 are far better for storage of big files/bulky.
Sadly i cant go any deep because of language barrier but i will leave these link so you take a look, concept its the same:
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/ou/how-higher-rpm-hard-drives-rip-you-off/322
Btw 7200rpm are not really that fast, you probably wont even notice (they do will load games and software a bit fast) other than that the 5400 are far better for storage of big files/bulky.
I don't see all the hype for flash storage. Perhaps for the faster boot time I'd understand, but my machine stays on unless I need to restart for updates or if the power goes out. I'm sure that my opinion is a minority among tech enthusiasts, but I prefer to limit my spending wherever possible.
I don't see all the hype for flash storage. Perhaps for the faster boot time I'd understand, but my machine stays on unless I need to restart for updates or if the power goes out. I'm sure that my opinion is a minority among tech enthusiasts, but I prefer to limit my spending wherever possible.
I agree with you for the most part. There is the "elite haxxor" contingent that obsess over 1.5% differences in benchmarks and scream that things are "heartbreakingly slow" when in reality we are often talking about fractions of a second.
My company has it's share, and they will always clamor for the fastest/latest/greatest. My boss shuts them down 99% of the time when he asks them to show how the slowness actually affects there productivity doing real work. If they start out with a benchmark they don't get far, nor do they when they try to present "real work" scenarios such as having 10 applications all open at the same time or 37 browser tabs open.
The two places where I can see real tangible benefits are in things like portables where for example wake from sleep is greatly improved and some apps (like photoshop or some compilers) that are constantly writing or reading from the drive.
But in a desktop I prefer capacity, since mine holds my music.movies and games as well.
Eventually this will be a moot point with SSD being cheap enough that it's not an issue. Last I checked though a 1TB SSD was not wallet friendly
We put SSD's in all of our new machines starting a couple of years ago at the owner's decree. It's not just restart times, but wake from sleep, every place that your computer normally hangs is generally due to disk access. Individual wait times may be small, but they aggregate quickly, and more than anything it is the break in concentration that is caused. How many of your employees take a 15 minute coffee break every time they need to restart their computer?
It sounds like you have much more wrong than just buying a SSD will resolve. If the employees are restarting their computers multiple times a day that's a whole different issue.
The same thing with 15 minute boot times. The systems in our offices all boot up in less than a minute
I m sorry, and I mean no offense, but this reads like such a huge pile of horse manure to me. Desktop or notebook, the os and applications need to reside on flash in 2013, the speed difference is incomparable and it translates to very obvious perfomance increases and productivity gains. It costs next to nothing for a top notch (not the garbage that apple ships the imacs with) 64-128gb ssds, it can go in one bay and you have the rest of them (or the other in the case of dual bay scenarios) for storage, with 3tb and soon 4tb hard drives you are a good as golden. There's no point for a 1tb ssd, there's not even a point if you can manage a 128gb one there for os, apps, and most used data. That's why predictably apple dont offer the rmbp with another bay for an hd, because then no one would buy their overpriced flash, pay an arm and a leg and still only be left with 750gb storage.I agree with you for the most part. There is the "elite haxxor" contingent that obsess over 1.5% differences in benchmarks and scream that things are "heartbreakingly slow" when in reality we are often talking about fractions of a second.
My company has it's share, and they will always clamor for the fastest/latest/greatest. My boss shuts them down 99% of the time when he asks them to show how the slowness actually affects there productivity doing real work. If they start out with a benchmark they don't get far, nor do they when they try to present "real work" scenarios such as having 10 applications all open at the same time or 37 browser tabs open.
The two places where I can see real tangible benefits are in things like portables where for example wake from sleep is greatly improved and some apps (like photoshop or some compilers) that are constantly writing or reading from the drive.
But in a desktop I prefer capacity, since mine holds my music.movies and games as well.
Eventually this will be a moot point with SSD being cheap enough that it's not an issue. Last I checked though a 1TB SSD was not wallet friendly
I m sorry, and I mean no offense, but this reads like such a huge pile of horse manure to me. Desktop or notebook, the os and applications need to reside on flash in 2013, the speed difference is incomparable and it translates to very obvious perfomance increases and productivity gains. It costs next to nothing for a top notch (not the garbage that apple ships the imacs with) 64-128gb ssds, it can go in one bay and you have the rest of them (or the other in the case of dual bay scenarios) for storage, with 3tb and soon 4tb hard drives you are a good as golden. There's no point for a 1tb ssd, there's not even a point if you can manage a 128gb one there for os, apps, and most used data. That's why predictably apple dont offer the rmbp with another bay for an hd, because then no one would buy their overpriced flash, pay an arm and a leg and still only be left with 750gb storage.
I have a retina MBP 15" so I am use to SSD. I have the base iMac and for what I do it is fine. I really am happy with it. I think it has much to do with what you are going to use it for. I tend to do some light photo work and rip and burn some dvd's surf and email. Works fine for that. Boot time is about 45 seconds for me.
lol 45 second boot must seem forever comparing with that rMBP 15 sec boot i cant live with anything but my rMBP now. the rMBP just so damn quick
lol 45 second boot must seem forever comparing with that rMBP 15 sec boot i cant live with anything but my rMBP now. the rMBP just so damn quick
Hmm - looks like I can do 8GB (4x2GB), at least according to Crucial... http://www.crucial.com/store/listpa...ni 2.5GHz Dual-Core Intel Core i5 - Late 2012 (sorry that this is now going off-topic for iMac)
I m sorry, and I mean no offense, but this reads like such a huge pile of horse manure to me..."
I am not sorry for these comments, and it may or may not offend you, but most of your posts read "like such a huge pile of horse manure to me"
In your short tenure within this community you are on a bashing orgy - can't understand why you waste your time here with all the vitriolic rhetoric - steady stream of complaints.
Do you even own a 2012 iMac with a 5400 rpm hdd? I do, along with other iMacs, 17" MBP, Mac Pro, iPads, iPhone 5s, Apple TV. I have a lot of Apple equipment and many years with it. No, I'm not a fan boy blinded to Apple products - but it is an excellent ecosystem from my experience. What Apple gear do you own?
I no longer care for Microsoft or Mercedes - I don't spend time on those forums.
Most people dont turn off desktops or even laptops (i only do it if im away for travel and dont need remote access) so they dont care how long it takes for it to boot unless it takes 30 minutes