I just replaced the HD in my early 2009 MacBook Pro with a Crucial SSD. It flies and the perceptible speed increase makes my 2009 MacBook Pro feel almost as fast as my 2012 Retina. Just saying.
----------
You mean 1 TB, don't you?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Adds New 256 GB and 512 GB Flash Storage Options to iMac
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I just replaced the HD in my early 2009 MacBook Pro with a Crucial SSD. It flies and the perceptible speed increase makes my 2009 MacBook Pro feel almost as fast as my 2012 Retina. Just saying.
----------
You mean 1 TB, don't you?
Not if its out of warranty and the fact that you can only buy 3 Years for the crazy price of $350 and cant buy anymore, is a problem. This is one reason businesses stay away from Apple.
Expensive, movement back to proprietary hardware, and warranty coverage length is not there.
Where are all the posts that say something along the lines of "Remember Apple is in the business to make money and profits. If people are paying for it, why lower prices? Their only goal is to make profits and increase stock price for the shareholders."
Not that I condone this level of profit/greed.
Not that I condone this level of profit/greed.
I felt a slight twitch in my pants today when I opened up my new(secondhand) 15" MBP and stuck in a 240GB OWC Mercury SSD that cost me $240.
Random FYI, on prices for new hard disks, direct to public, shipping included over here in priced-hiked AUS:
$84 for 750GB/5400rpm 2.5" SATA 2
$89 for 500GB/7200rpm 2.5" SATA 2
$99 for 750GB/7200rpm 2.5" SATA 2
$105 for 1TB/5400rpm 2.5" SATA 2
$78 for 500GB/7200rpm 3.5" SATA III
$79 for 1TB/7200rpm 3.5" SATA III
$109 for 2TB/7200rpm 3.5" SATA III
$159 for 3TB/7200rpm 3.5" SATA III
etcetc it's bedtime now
Random FYI, on prices for new hard disks, direct to public, shipping included over here in priced-hiked AUS:
$84 for 750GB/5400rpm 2.5" SATA 2
$89 for 500GB/7200rpm 2.5" SATA 2
$99 for 750GB/7200rpm 2.5" SATA 2
$105 for 1TB/5400rpm 2.5" SATA 2
$78 for 500GB/7200rpm 3.5" SATA III
$79 for 1TB/7200rpm 3.5" SATA III
$109 for 2TB/7200rpm 3.5" SATA III
$159 for 3TB/7200rpm 3.5" SATA III
etcetc it's bedtime now
...if I bought it along with a $2000 new computer (which they were building-to-order-anyway, so it was just a case of slotting the SSD in instead of the regular HD - or they were a huge outfit that could easily afford to have pre-built stocks of the most popular permutations) then I'd rather expect them to fit it for free.
Of course, I might be out of luck: Apple is hardly alone in the "keep the standard price low and ream them for upgrades" (er, well, one out of two ain't bad) club. However, Apple do have the nasty habit of gluing their iMacs together, making the "buy the base model and fit third-party upgrades" response much more difficult.
That's what puts me off iMacs - for one thing, it is highly likely that, during the life cycle of a 2013 iMac, the price-per-GB of SSD will halve, so I'd really like the option of dropping in a 1TB SSD in 18 months time. If they updated the 27" so that not just the RAM was user-upgradable, but there was a user-accessible mSATA slot then we'd be talking - I can live with everything else sealed.
NB: To be fair - there don't seem to be many 512GB mSATA cards around just now, as opposed to 2.5" SSDs, so if Apple are using mSATA or something similar in the iMac's SSD slot then that might justify the premium on the 512GB one - but since the iMac has space for a HD why not use a 2.5" SSD anyway? If not, why not a 1.5TB fusion setup?
I wouldn't last a week with 512 GB on my desktop
How about using an external drive or a NAS? It's not as convenient, but it should be cheaper (especially in the long run) than maxing out the storage in an iMac.
Last edited:
Please find me a 256GB Samsung 830 (likely the parts being used based on the blades/768GB option) for $135.
Well, Apple will get their punishment
For this attitude with storage.
I personally believe the price of the iMac 27 should return to its previous pricing of 1699. Taking into the account the optical drive they removed they are charging $80 for as the Superdrive. Which means, the new iMac should actually be cheaper:
Lets work it out:
- $80 super drive
- Slimmer design, less material
- Smaller packaging
- Reduced pricing on SSDs industry wide, especially the measly 128 GB
The base model iMac 27 with an SSD should actually be $1,499
But Apple is choosing to squeeze as much as they can out of the consumer and regretting these decisions later.
Examples:
Adding a fusion drive as an option to the 21 inch base model a few months later launch (thinking maybe they could get persons to super size to a more expensive model), didn't work.
Now they are adding an all SSD option.
These decisions are causing Apple to lose money elsewhere that will be important to their future growth.
If I have to sacrifice a spinning disk for a measly SSD which should be standard, then what that means is, the money I would spend on iTunes purchases will go elsewhere instead, such as Streaming from Spotify (free), Netflix, Dropbox, Google Play.
You can't have it all Apple. You want us all in your ecosystem, but you have to make it more attractive. The 300 to 600 premium I would spend on storage and additional features, could be yours in services (iTunes app store, music, iCloud, iTunes Match), but if I have to sacrifice so much just to get on the platform, then your services will sacrificed with others that are more affordable or free.
For this attitude with storage.
I personally believe the price of the iMac 27 should return to its previous pricing of 1699. Taking into the account the optical drive they removed they are charging $80 for as the Superdrive. Which means, the new iMac should actually be cheaper:
Lets work it out:
- $80 super drive
- Slimmer design, less material
- Smaller packaging
- Reduced pricing on SSDs industry wide, especially the measly 128 GB
The base model iMac 27 with an SSD should actually be $1,499
But Apple is choosing to squeeze as much as they can out of the consumer and regretting these decisions later.
Examples:
Adding a fusion drive as an option to the 21 inch base model a few months later launch (thinking maybe they could get persons to super size to a more expensive model), didn't work.
Now they are adding an all SSD option.
These decisions are causing Apple to lose money elsewhere that will be important to their future growth.
If I have to sacrifice a spinning disk for a measly SSD which should be standard, then what that means is, the money I would spend on iTunes purchases will go elsewhere instead, such as Streaming from Spotify (free), Netflix, Dropbox, Google Play.
You can't have it all Apple. You want us all in your ecosystem, but you have to make it more attractive. The 300 to 600 premium I would spend on storage and additional features, could be yours in services (iTunes app store, music, iCloud, iTunes Match), but if I have to sacrifice so much just to get on the platform, then your services will sacrificed with others that are more affordable or free.
First of all, Apple does not use one model/manufacturer. There are at least 2. Second of all, the 830 Runs about $150 retail, so if you think Apple pays more than $135, you have got to be kidding. Thirdly, I have no intention of looking up prices for you.
You can currently buy a Crucial M500 in 960GB model for $599 so whatever your point was, I am not buying it.
That is not relevant. 1TB 2.5" 7200 rpm drives do not exist as of today. The 21.5-inch models use laptop 2.5" drives, not 3.5" drives that come in 1TB 7200 rpm variations.
To the people complaining about Apples upgrade prices, you have the right to complain, but you are overlooking the fact that this is what it is like with all manufacturers, in all industries. This is completely normal and to be expected. Sure, you can buy SSDs and memory, and other components off of newegg, amazon or anywhere else for much cheaper. Why does this bother you? Those are all aftermarket components. You cant compare the prices to OEM prices, even if the components are exactly the same. Does this bother you with cars? Look at how expensive your car parts are when a dealer includes or replaces them. Or a typical repair shop. Those car component prices are double or triple what you would pay than if you bought them yourself off of autowarehouse, autoparts.com our any auto parts site (the auto equivalent of newegg, macmall, etc.). You would think that auto manufacturers and dealerships would be able to get the components for much cheaper wouldnt you? A dealer charge $1,000 for GPS when you can get GPS installed, yourself, for $200. You can get 18 inch tires for $200 but the dealer will charge you $800. Upgraded brakes for $120 versus the dealers $760.
Im not saying that the dealer/manufacturer pricing disparity between aftermarket is fair. But the premium you are paying is for them to include all of these in the car/computer for you. Dont like what they charge, install it yourself or build your own computer.
Very few things in cars are user upgradable. But they are for people who have the knowledge and skills. So are the iMacs. Sure, Apple can design their computers specifically to make hard drives easy to replace (i.e. not obstructed by other components that need to be removed to get to the hard drive) but this is another debate. I wish they would design them to be easy to replace as I have always replaced the drives, myself. The new iMac is the first Apple computer Ive owned that I dont think I can do this myself. I hate this. But this is a separate complaint from the prices that Apple charges for upgrading components. What they charge for upgrading to SSD or increasing memory is normal and to be expected for all manufacturers.
Im not saying that the dealer/manufacturer pricing disparity between aftermarket is fair. But the premium you are paying is for them to include all of these in the car/computer for you. Dont like what they charge, install it yourself or build your own computer.
Very few things in cars are user upgradable. But they are for people who have the knowledge and skills. So are the iMacs. Sure, Apple can design their computers specifically to make hard drives easy to replace (i.e. not obstructed by other components that need to be removed to get to the hard drive) but this is another debate. I wish they would design them to be easy to replace as I have always replaced the drives, myself. The new iMac is the first Apple computer Ive owned that I dont think I can do this myself. I hate this. But this is a separate complaint from the prices that Apple charges for upgrading components. What they charge for upgrading to SSD or increasing memory is normal and to be expected for all manufacturers.
Still overpriced considering that no longer get the hdd when upgrading in the BTO. The price of 256gb drives dropped below 200 dollars ages ago as well.
----------
The time it takes to spin around and seek is still the same on both sizes. Sequential reads are actually slower on the smaller drives.
----------
The time it takes to spin around and seek is still the same on both sizes. Sequential reads are actually slower on the smaller drives.
all of the 21-inch and 27-inch previous gen iMacs had 7200RPM drives. i dont think I've encountered one with a 5400RPM drive.
the imac I use has a 7200RPM drive
