Not even close, just because YOU can't afford it doesn't mean it's not viable for everyone else.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Faster 'NVM Express' SSD Interface Arrives on Retina MacBook and OS X 10.10.3
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Not even close, just because YOU can't afford it doesn't mean it's not viable for everyone else.
Yeah, cause using a 50TB NAS is definitely common amongst Mac users...
SSD is progressively killing HDD for both system and storage. Most people don't deal with NAS or external storage in general. The few that do rarely store anywhere near 50TB of content.
A lot of people used to buy laptops with small SSDs (128/256GB) and buy an external HDD for file storage, but that was only because stuff like a 1TB SSD was prohibitively expensive, not because HDDs were somehow better at storing content. Now that SSD prices are getting lower, people won't go through the hassle of plugging external HDDs anymore.
HDDs will of course remain common for stuff like servers, but as far as consumer technology is concerned, they're effectively dying. Your comment feels like it's from 6-7 years ago.
A 6TB HDD NAS would be something like 250$. 6TB SSD NAS would be something like 2500$. 250$ vs 2500$. Need i say more? Most people can't get away with 512GB. Facebook-twitter people are not "most people". A lot of people, you know, WORK on their computers (I know, sounds crazy, but hey) Some people have lots of photos, videos, music too. This discussion is stupid. HDDs are for STORAGE. SSDs are for PERFORMANCE. Nobody needs a 50TB SSD Nas. It would be useless and bottlenecked anyways.
----------
Show me a company that works with SSD only storage clusters. I'll wait. Google has big-ass datacenters, Google is rich. One would think they MUST have SSD storage. Right? rrrrright........... Don't talk about stuff you don't know.
----------
You are again talking about people who use computers as ipads. There are people like that, sure, but a lot of people need a lot of storage (think about working with video (even common you tubers). Think about working with 4K video, too (which is coming everywhere). A SSD would last what, 7 minutes of video?) Please, educate yourself.
If you look more closely at the article picture, you'll notice two interesting changes to the SSD partition layout:
- EFI partition is larger, 300 MiB vs. 200 MiB on most Macs (including my mid-2014 13" rMBP)
- no Recovery HD partition.
This means that Apple managed to shrink the recovery partition down from 650 MB and fit it into EFI partition.
However, even after the latest "Yosemite Recovery Update" that was released simultaneously with 10.10.3, recovery partition on my rMBP is about the same size as always, with 90% used of 650 MB.
So the new Retina Macbook clearly uses something different. My guess is that it's a new version of "Internet Recovery", but with some portion of base OS preloaded on EFI partition and the rest (including utilities) downloaded from Apple servers on demand. It probably enables faster boot compared to regular internet recovery.
The downside would be that if, for example, you travel without wi-fi and need to repair your drive using Disk Utility, you better have portable backups with you and pray to ancient HFS+ gods, because otherwise you're SOL.
Of course, this has absolutely nothing to do with NVMExpress, but interesting nonetheless.
- EFI partition is larger, 300 MiB vs. 200 MiB on most Macs (including my mid-2014 13" rMBP)
- no Recovery HD partition.
This means that Apple managed to shrink the recovery partition down from 650 MB and fit it into EFI partition.
However, even after the latest "Yosemite Recovery Update" that was released simultaneously with 10.10.3, recovery partition on my rMBP is about the same size as always, with 90% used of 650 MB.
So the new Retina Macbook clearly uses something different. My guess is that it's a new version of "Internet Recovery", but with some portion of base OS preloaded on EFI partition and the rest (including utilities) downloaded from Apple servers on demand. It probably enables faster boot compared to regular internet recovery.
The downside would be that if, for example, you travel without wi-fi and need to repair your drive using Disk Utility, you better have portable backups with you and pray to ancient HFS+ gods, because otherwise you're SOL.
Of course, this has absolutely nothing to do with NVMExpress, but interesting nonetheless.
Last edited:
Except, in this instance, we're talking about what's inside a MacBook... I think it's farcical that hdds are still the default in some Macs.
Keep your floppy disks and hdds mate, the rest of us will push on.
Last edited:
It's another nail in the coffin for HDDs (as primary storage, not in regard to backups) for most consumers. Not the last nail, and fusion drives might keep the HDD alive in the consumer space for a while. But once a 1 TB SSD costs only $100 more than a 128 GB SSD + 1 TB HDD, even the fusion drive will go.
Just about how many consumers have 50 TB of data? And no, I never believed the fallacy that SSDs are only for the system. SSDs are for all files that a semi-regularly read or written. In fact, once you have an SSD, not filling its free space (except for a 40 GB or so buffer) is a waste of money.
floppy disks... my god, what does THAT have to do with anything? yea, hdds are still inside new imacs (which is a shame, sure). i was talking in GENERAL. SSDs are not killing HDDs anytime soon. they have different application.
I'm becoming convinced the majority of people here are just entertainment consumers. Which is cool, but don't talk about stuff you know nothing about.
In terms of a NAS, you are 100% correct.
In terms of a external Thunderbolt scratch disk working on project files, no, there are definitely performance to be gained by having SSD. Think working with 4K.
You do realize that people who use computers "as ipads" as you describe are like 10,000 times more common than people working with 4K video? You seem a bit out of touch with how most consumers use their computer. 99%+ people don't even have the ability to watch 4K content, let alone produce some.
By the time a significant proportion of consumers watching 4K content happens, the price of SSDs will be even lower. People seem satisfied with heavily compressed 4K content with a bitrate 15Mbps. That's over 3 days of video to reach 512GB. Besides, most consumers stream or store in the cloud content nowadays.
take even full hd. you'd have to be filthy rich to work with uncompressed full hd videos on ssds. a lot of people make full hd videos. look at youtube. cmon now
And yeah, unfortunately i realize it's like that. That's why apple PRO software is disappearing, everything is dumbed down etc etc. Well, that's how businesses work. It sells, so no complains.
----------
Yeah. but you still have to store everything you've done SOMEWHERE after that, right?
Floppy disks. You know, the ancient things you seem so fond of.
HDDs been killed in my MacBook. I swapped out the optical disk drive in my (2012, 15") and now have twin SSDs. A lot better for my work flow than when I had to use a hdd for my bulk storage. And yes, i do work with video; the speed is gold.
Last edited:
So you're telling me most youtubers care about storing uncompressed videos? Again, you seem incredibly out of touch with consumers. The vast majority of people's cameras compress videos as they are shot. People use their phones, or use their DSLR's video mode and store it on SD cards. They don't use cameras with hard drives to capture hundreds of gigabytes worth of raw, uncompressed video.
Most people that do work on their computers do not generate large amounts of data. Photographers, videographers, science and engineering do but most people don't. And most people that use a Mac are using it as their private computer in the first place.
And yes, Facebook and Twitter people are the majority. I don't know the exact numbers but probably about 80% of the population of the US is on Facebook or Twitter or other social networks.
You realize that you are talking about less than 5% of apple's customer base right?
You realize i was making a point that SSDs can't KILL HDDs? Goddammit think about people just having a movie collection or their favorite tv shows or something. That would require, say, 2-3TB. What are you gonna do, spend more money on your SSDs to store MOVIES which don't require anything as fast as SSDs than on your entire COMPUTER?
Man, it's like talking to a wall...
Now who's talking about something they have no idea about.
Trolls wont be fed by me anymore.
Umm, it is hard to understand because what you say makes zero sense and is inaccurate.
HDD and SSD are both for storage and they're both for the systems.
What you are trying to say is:
1. Hard drive is still great for low-consumption/medium-term archival type of storage that does not require a lot of writes. However, hard drive do degrade over time via bitrot, so it is not for long term storage. Best to keep backing up your data at least twice. It is also recommended to replace your hard drives once it exceed 5 years of usage. It is vital that you verify your data backups twice a year.
2. SLC/MLC SSD is excellent for the main/primary drive for daily consumption, while HDD or even hybrid SSD/HDD is still much cheaper for low use storage.
TLC or higher *LC SSD will replace HDD over time as it can store much more data in the same space as SLC/MLC SSDs at a much lower price with a lower performance grade.
They're working on stacked or 3D NAND chips that will enable them to archive even greater storage at lower prices as well. Intel announced one a few weeks ago that can enable the path to a 10TB SSD within a year or two but no news on what the expected price are and it is not yet known if it will be TLC or MLC.
Prices will decline over time for SSDs, it already is reaching $.40 per GB for some SSD. You can grab a 1TB SSD for 360$, that isn't true 2 years ago as it would've cost $600 and even more 5 years ago that exceeded $1 per GB. Granted, the archival 8TB drives are 300$ now. HDD itself peaked at the bit density, it is getting almost too difficult to keep ramping up the density. SSD is definitely not peaking anytime soon as we still have 5-10 years worth of technologies coming that can increase the density and decrease the costs. This is why HDD will die out, we will get 10TB SSD faster than we will get 10TB HDD and prices will drop over time to reach $.3 per GB or lower as soon as the stack/3D NAND is ready.
The screenshot above is from Anandtech.
Last edited:
Nope. And that 10TB SSD will cost 10 times more than even 8TB HDD.
I have SSDs in all of my machines. It's not like i'm ANTISSD or something. It's just that HDDs are here to stay. I have a movie collection that would cost 3000$ to store on SSDs. That would be the dumbest thing to do.
At launch yes, but 5 years from now? I already told you that prices are dropping rapidly over time from more than $1 per GB to even now $.40 per GB in the last 5 years.
HDD will die over time. Nobody here said it will die now.
I know the prices. I follow this stuff pretty routinely. 5 Years is a LOOOOOOONG time. And it will not cost anywhere near HDDs anyway.
SSDs have been a godsend. I've resurrected countless of old computers thanks to them. But SSDs for storage is a long long road.
Man, I thought I am storing a lot of movies and I have about 300 GB worth of them. And that is with me keeping the ripped DVD and not just the converted movie file. And since I got Netflix, I am getting a lot less DVDs or online purchases.
----------
Mine would cost about $150, that is not the dumbest thing to do.
That would be roughly 30 Movies in compressed 1080p. It's not a lot, come on now
Also, DVDs? And then people call ME old.
No, just next drive series.
XP941 boards were "F"
Early Apple SM951 are "G"
And these latest are "H"