If you don't see the what's wrong with comparing STORAGE formats to A FUEL SOURCE then... have a nice day.
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 Launches New 4K & 5K iMacs, Magic Keyboard, Magic Mouse 2 and Magic Trackpad 2
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If you don't see the what's wrong with comparing STORAGE formats to A FUEL SOURCE then... have a nice day.
If you don't see the what's wrong with comparing STORAGE formats to A FUEL SOURCE then... have a nice day.
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.
If it were me, I would've thrown conveyor belts in there somewhere.
Did you just compare a computer and storage formats to a tractor and gasoline?
OK I'm out... conversation is too stupid to continue.
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!
Try to explain it as literally as possible.
Fusion drives provide you with a little bit of fast space, and a whole lot of slow space. Because you only have so much fast space, you're going to fill it up rather quickly. Now the way Apple probably has it set up is that it likely shunts lesser used files and applications off to the slow space to make room for more commonly used stuff. The problem with that is that the amount of fast space they give you isn't nearly enough. Unless you're accessing the same files with the same applications day in and day out, you're going to eventually be bottlenecked by the transfer from the slow space back to the fast space. And if you go too wild, your previous set of quick access files and apps will eventually be moved over to the slow space to make room for what you're doing now.
Basically, Fusion drives as they're being sold by Apple now are pretty speedy, provided you work within a narrow usage scenario.
Fusion drives provide you with a little bit of fast space, and a whole lot of slow space. Because you only have so much fast space, you're going to fill it up rather quickly. Now the way Apple probably has it set up is that it likely shunts lesser used files and applications off to the slow space to make room for more commonly used stuff. The problem with that is that the amount of fast space they give you isn't nearly enough. Unless you're accessing the same files with the same applications day in and day out, you're going to eventually be bottlenecked by the transfer from the slow space back to the fast space. And if you go too wild, your previous set of quick access files and apps will eventually be moved over to the slow space to make room for what you're doing now.
Basically, Fusion drives as they're being sold by Apple now are pretty speedy, provided you work within a narrow usage scenario.
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.
That's not how a fusion drive works but thanks for playing.
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!
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
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?!
Last edited by a moderator:
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?
Apparently it's VERY challenging to figure out for some.
I don't care what algorithms are used to move data over and back, it's still a storage medium and still only has so much space to store things. Yes, it might do slightly better than a purely linear comparison (you'd have to add a small solar panel charger analogy or something to make it more exact on the fuel one or the apple concentrate not staying mixed and heading to the bottom to represent only using small programs transferred (i.e. it'd taste like Apple Cider for the first small cup, but increasingly taste watered down as you filled larger glasses). But COME ONE. This isn't meant to be 1:1 perfect! It's simply trying to illustrate you can't fit 1TB on a 24GB drive not matter how you slice those Apples! If you only boot and use email and some other small programs, you might not notice a difference, but use some real software...any real software and that 24GB drive is going have to swap out a LOT and swapping means 5400 RPM speeds, not SSD speeds PERIOD. No "magic" code can change that basic fact of physics.
I don't know if some people are purposely acting obtuse or physics simply isn't their strong suit, but it's not hard to figure out that going from a large drive to smaller drive is going to have negative consequences overall no matter how you try and slice it.
See, here's someone that fully understands the issue.
Seeing they don't offer the older drive anymore, I'd say it's more likely they're trying to save the $20-30 per Mac. The sad thing is they don't really need the money. Apple makes most of their profits from the iPhone. Macs represent a tiny percentage of profits to begin with and how much more is a few extra dollars going to change? It WILL change customers' perception of Apple, though and repairing your reputation can be a lot harder than getting back $20 per $2700 Mac!
It might save power on a notebook compared to a 7200 RPM drive, but it makes ZERO sense on a desktop. I can only once again assume they are getting the 5400 RPM drives in bulk for next to nothing and thus charging the customer more to upgrade (while saving on the new fusion drives). Just look at their SSD prices to see how much they're ripping you off. $500 (with trade-in) for a 512GB drive? Those are $139 for a cheap one retail consumer and $350 for a top of the line one. Apple can get both in bulk for a LOT less. Their profit margin must be 100-300% depending on drive selections. RAM? Same thing. They're probably getting lower margins on the 4K and 5K screens and this helps make up for it.
It reminds me of an article I read once about Katz Deli in New York City. It said they couldn't stay in business selling corn beef sandwiches, even at $15 a pop. The margins are too low and beef is too high now. What keeps them in business are side orders. Cheap stuff like french fries and soft drinks. The markup on THOSE is incredibly high (but customers don't realize it since they still cost far less overall than the sandwich) and that is how they make a good profit despite insane real estate costs, etc. in New York (and lots of customers since they're famous with the tourists).
Last edited:
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. I don't need this crap - half inclined to send the whole thing back. Its not even back-lit. Luckily I have same size Logitech k811 Easy Switch keyboard - back lit and silky smooth and with a rechargable battery. And it is charged with a USB cable.
This keyboard is inexcusable. The Apple advertising hype is deceptive - as usual. Just don't buy it if you can avoid it. I've never had to retype so many typos for years. It forces errors - and I'm sure it will produce RSI if folks actually use it. This is DARK magic - not good magic at all. "Not all magicians are good, Harry."
ANOTHER Crapple keyboard for the throw out rubbish collection next week. What the hell has happened to Apple.
This keyboard is inexcusable. The Apple advertising hype is deceptive - as usual. Just don't buy it if you can avoid it. I've never had to retype so many typos for years. It forces errors - and I'm sure it will produce RSI if folks actually use it. This is DARK magic - not good magic at all. "Not all magicians are good, Harry."
ANOTHER Crapple keyboard for the throw out rubbish collection next week. What the hell has happened to Apple.
Last edited:
Surely you must know that you're expected to pay extra if you want a usable keyboard.
They do. It's called the Mac Mini. It comes without a mouse, keyboard or monitor. You can buy whatever ones you desire. Sadly, they got rid of the quad-core i7 option and you can't take the thing apart to upgrade like the 2012 model, but at least you aren't paying for a horrible keyboard and mouse you'll likely never use.
I have the 2012 Mac Mini Server (quad-i7). I use an off-brand 22" monitor (1680x1050), a Logitech black keyboard that keeps on ticking (despite getting so much use that half the key labels are worn off, but I don't need them since I can properly type) and a Microsoft 5-button Intellimouse Optical USB (one of the best mice ever made; it fits the hand comfortably and always moves smoothly and takes a half decade to wear the buttons out). I don't need or want an iMac that comes with an iCrap keyboard, an iCrap Mouse, (the trackpad isn't bad so I won't insult it) and a monitor that is tied to the computer hardware so you have to keep buying monitors just to upgrade your hardware (I've had this monitor for like 7 years now and two computers).
If this Mac Mini could change it's graphics chip via a card slot, I'd be set for another 3-4 years. Sadly, there are no Macs with a good GPU anymore. Even the Mac Pro has no consumer options (unlike Mac Pros of the past) due to a custom slot connector. It's overpriced as a consumer desktop and not updated enough to be a real Pro computer (and can't take internal expansion which is ridiculous at that price; Pros don't want a MESS of jumbled wires everywhere to do anything useful). It just seems like Apple is trying very very hard to kill off all users but the iFanatics and iComputer-Illiterates these days.
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.
LOL! They had a ¾ of a trillion dollar year, how much of that came off $20 cables. I highly doubt profit margins are the only concern when pricing them.
I can live without the backlight, although my Logitech has no problem including it, but no 10 key is a deal breaker. Sorry Apple, I actually work on my computer. On top of that, with Logitech's unifying receivers, I can use my own wireless mouse and keyboard at the office. Apple definitely has them on the looks but Logitech's functionality is ruling the day for me.
Really? Aside from profit, what would motivate a company to charge $20 for a cable which likely cost them 20 cents each?
Apple makes the billions they do from penny pinching in every area possible.
In 1999 standard desktop computers had 7200 rpm hard drives, 1 GHz processor, dedicated graphic cards and upgradable RAM. You could also add many HD or DVD-RW drives. They had multiple connections and slots. They were not expensive though, no more than $800. They could be used to play the latest video games, connect to the internet, design in Photoshop or to produce any kind of music.
Now, 16 years later the future has come and Apple presents their new incredible alummmminnniiiiummm desktop computers, with ammmazzzzing 5400 rpm hard drives (soldered to the mother board), RAM memory not upgradable, no DVD reader, no connectivity with the current standard (USB-c), a blazingly fast 1.6 GHz processor...
You will not be able to play the latest video games, design in Photoshop or edit video like a pro, sometimes you will have to use a cable mouse forgotten in a dusty drawer because the included one has no battery left, in two years the computer will be running like a turtle... but it has a beautiful apple logo on it... All this for just $1700, buy now!!!
Now, 16 years later the future has come and Apple presents their new incredible alummmminnniiiiummm desktop computers, with ammmazzzzing 5400 rpm hard drives (soldered to the mother board), RAM memory not upgradable, no DVD reader, no connectivity with the current standard (USB-c), a blazingly fast 1.6 GHz processor...
You will not be able to play the latest video games, design in Photoshop or edit video like a pro, sometimes you will have to use a cable mouse forgotten in a dusty drawer because the included one has no battery left, in two years the computer will be running like a turtle... but it has a beautiful apple logo on it... All this for just $1700, buy now!!!
Last edited:
Well, you need a faster computer now (in both CPU and ISP connection speed) to process all those damn ads, social media plugins and flash animations that didn't exist as such back in the late 1990s. Back then some sites were 100% usable and readable with a LYNX text browser and loaded quickly over a 56k dial-up modem. NOW I can't even view a MOBILE web page in my iPod Touch 4th Gen device from just a few years ago because it doesn't have enough RAM to hold 200 plugins, advertisements and social media links that a TYPICAL site has on it. And that's the MOBILE site! It just "blinks" as it TRIES to load all these damn ads and fancy do-dads and then just CRASHES again and again and again and again. It's unusable. It's pathetic. It's why even Apple recognized the need for damn Ad Blockers on an iPhone. It's gotten SO out of hand.
There's no more actual information today than back then for a typical "news" type web site. The difference is now it's cluttered with dozens of sponsored other article images, buttons and animations and ads and other garbage that have NOTHING TO DO WITH the actual NEWS (which is typically just formatted TEXT) you clicked on a link to READ. Whole page pop-ups (that open on the same page and not another window to avoid pop-up catchers from recognizing them) will just suddenly come out of nowhere and block the entire screen. You might be able to do something about that on your home browser by turning off Javascript, Flash, etc., but it's a pretty bad disaster on a typical mobile smart phone type setup by comparison. Imagine how fast things would load if we had 1990s style web pages today. It'd be instantaneous and most people wouldn't need a new computer for a good decade or more. And that is why they push that garbage so we keep buying faster equipment to keep up with NONSENSE that doesn't need to be there in the first place.
There's no more actual information today than back then for a typical "news" type web site. The difference is now it's cluttered with dozens of sponsored other article images, buttons and animations and ads and other garbage that have NOTHING TO DO WITH the actual NEWS (which is typically just formatted TEXT) you clicked on a link to READ. Whole page pop-ups (that open on the same page and not another window to avoid pop-up catchers from recognizing them) will just suddenly come out of nowhere and block the entire screen. You might be able to do something about that on your home browser by turning off Javascript, Flash, etc., but it's a pretty bad disaster on a typical mobile smart phone type setup by comparison. Imagine how fast things would load if we had 1990s style web pages today. It'd be instantaneous and most people wouldn't need a new computer for a good decade or more. And that is why they push that garbage so we keep buying faster equipment to keep up with NONSENSE that doesn't need to be there in the first place.
I 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
Good for you! Out of curiosity, what storage do you think you'll go with? Fusion drive?
I have not used a 5K iMac except for the demo units which actually ran very well, but I'm worried that the graphics card/OS X Metal combo isn't quite there yet, but the iMac has a more powerful GPU than my 750M so who knows.
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
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.
In Euro zone it is even better deal with the middle model.