Did you seriously fail to comprehend the point? Your post is too stupid to comprehend.
If you don't see the what's wrong with comparing STORAGE formats to A FUEL SOURCE then... have a nice day.
Did you seriously fail to comprehend the point? Your post is too stupid to comprehend.
If you don't see the what's wrong with comparing STORAGE formats to A FUEL SOURCE then... have a nice day.![]()
The smaller the fuel tank, the less fuel you have, the less distance you can go. The smaller the hard drive, the less data you can store in it, the sooner you run out of space.
Did you just compare a computer and storage formats to a tractor and gasoline?
OK I'm out... conversation is too stupid to continue.![]()
The issue we are facing right now, is that usage scenario became much much more narrow when Apple decided to stop using 128GB of flash storage and instead down graded it to 24GB, so now there's a lot less that will fit on the flash storage but instead be stored on the slow 5400 rpm drive.Basically, Fusion drives as they're being sold by Apple now are pretty speedy, provided you work within a narrow usage scenario.
He wasn't even comparing them directly. It's called a generalisation to try and get idiots to understand. Obviously a tractor and fuel is not a computer and storage. Nobody said it was. Brush up on your English if you can't comprehend someone using a comparison as an example to simplify the explanation and explain the logic. His logic is flawless:
The smaller the fuel tank, the less fuel you have, the less distance you can go. The smaller the hard drive, the less data you can store in it, the sooner you run out of space.
I simply tried my best to get certain people to understand why less storage on an SSD is a bad thing by using an appropriate analogy. It was a good analogy, but apparently I didn't make it simple enough and thus some people still cannot comprehend the most basic of concepts and will continue to believe that you can still get a gallon of apple cider from 1/4 the amount of apples normally used if only you have a magic Apple barrel!![]()
That's not how a fusion drive works but thanks for playing.
Storage isn't similar to fuel and the movement of data between the two sources is non-linear as opposed to the usage of fuel which is linear, ie it always goes down. Your fuel only goes down. While data is moved back and forth between two sources. The closest fuel usage analogy could possibly be how a hybrid car functions in that one source creates electricity and moves energy over. But even that is flawed as the gasoline portion still depletes. Your data between the SSD and the HDD constantly moves back and forth swapping intelligently, which makes your analogy completely inept but of course you'll ignore that fact since I've already stated it before and this is why you don't work for Apple.
In your thinking it's "small box of apples makes small quantity of juice", when it's more along the lines of "small box of apples has many seeds to grow more apples"
Think outside the box man.
Since I always need to explain everything on every post, this isn't an example just an analogy of the thought process... and I've now wasted precious time in my life explaining something that shouldn't need explaining.
I'm out.
The issue we are facing right now, is that usage scenario became much much more narrow when Apple decided to stop using 128GB of flash storage and instead down graded it to 24GB, so now there's a lot less that will fit on the flash storage but instead be stored on the slow 5400 rpm drive.
It's got nothing to do with fusion or how fusion drives work. That's not what they were even talking about. He was stating that a small drive fills up faster than a big drive. Fusion is designed to use as much of the SSD as possible, the smaller the SSD, the faster it fills up because it can hold less data. That means there is less data on a smaller SSD than there is on a big SSD. How is this challenging to figure out?!
Right. With 128GB, it was effectively the best of both worlds, somewhat like my little fast-big slow setup I've got now without a division lying between them. It would've provided you enough room for the OS, the vast majority of your apps, and a much larger pool of commonly accessed files. Most people lucky enough to have the larger Fusion drive probably only occasionally notice the bottleneck when the OS shifts files about.
But when you consider OSX takes up, what, 9-10GB, which is likely always kept on the SSD portion of the drive, then you realize that their new Fusion drives only effectively offer you 17-18GB of fast space. That's enough for a small collection of decently sized apps, but it leaves no room for anything else. If you stretch your legs beyond that small envelope of space, you'll notice that bottleneck quickly and constantly.
If you ask me, the smaller drive is nothing more than a way for Apple to either upsell to an SSD, making more money off the top, or to save a good $20-$30 per iMac sold without having to lower the price of the machine. There's literally no other reason for them to chunk off a good 100GB off their old Fusion Drives.
...and why the hell are they using 5400RPM drives?
Well, I dropped just on $4K Australian for a 27" 5k iMac package and I cannot believe the crap keyboard. It rattles and hurts your fingers when you type. I mean it REALLY hurts your fingers. The percussion effect is something else. It is lifted straight from the 12" MacBook. Why doesn't Apple give their customers the option to buy a Mac WITHOUT a keyboard or Mouse.
But that is my point - I want the all in one computer but not the accessories. This does not give you the option to choose the late 2015 iMac 27inch without a keyboard - it comes in the package fitted in a keyboard slot in the styrofoam.Surely you must know that you're expected to pay extra if you want a usable keyboard.
Why use a cable that will be easily accessible for next to nothing instead of their $20 proprietary cables? Unfortunately apple prioritizes profit over user experience.
I was really hoping for a wireless keyboard version with a 10 key and/or maybe backlit keys.
(I have the logitech k750. but was hoping for an Apple keyboard..that said the Logitech was only $29.00 on sale)
Also, does $129.00 feel a bit much for anyone else for the trackpad?
I highly doubt profit margins are the only concern when pricing them.
provided my Apple Cinema Display continues to work problem free (it is getting old)
Partly because I had a change in circumstances but I've been able to accelerate my purchase decisions. I'm probably leaning towards to the 5k iMac because the 4k has cut too many corners. The performance of the 5k is good, though I am paying a premium for the apple product. I looked at the cost of 5k 27" displays and they're very expensive, with that in mind it makes sense to stick with Apple. A dell 27" 5k display is in the 2k range, and that's just the monitor, where as I get the whole computer with AppleI have been waiting for a new display for 2 years now. I'm hoping for something with USB-C over Thunderbolt 3, but I'm scared it will be 5K which means laggy UI. I'm amazed at how smooth OS X is when I'm running in clamshell to dual 1089p and 1200p displays than when I'm running on a sole 2880 x 1800 display.
Partly because I had a change in circumstances but I've been able to accelerate my purchase decisions. I'm probably leaning towards to the 5k iMac because the 4k has cut too many corners. The performance of the 5k is good, though I am paying a premium for the apple product. I looked at the cost of 5k 27" displays and they're very expensive, with that in mind it makes sense to stick with Apple. A dell 27" 5k display is in the 2k range, and that's just the monitor, where as I get the whole computer with Apple
Compare prices between all 27" iMac models with the 2GB Fusion Drive. Middle model is 100 USD more, but you'll get a lot more powerful M390 GPU. Add another 100 USD and you'll get the best model with M395 and a bit better CPU.For me the 2TB option makes the most sense, but I think its absolutely ludicrous that Apple is offering the 1TB storage with only 24GB of flash