The story may change in your life. I was in your position for many years, but now I’m retired and don’t spend much time on the desktop but still want one. I’m pretty sure I could get by with the base unit, but I want to make sure I understand what I’m doing before I buy. 5 or 10 years ago, I wouldn’t have given it a second thought to max out the ram and get at least a 1TB drive. I was making money back then. Now, I’m retired and my needs are significantly less and my wallet doesn’t have money coming in like it used to. On top of that, Apple charges to upgrade are ridiculous. Still, I’ll get what I need and maybe a bit more. My intent is to go with 512 an 16 ram but I think it’s worth the discussion.
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.
How crazy to buy an iMac with the 256GB drive.
- Thread starter ger19
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Good for you - the fact that you store your music on Apple Music might work for you but I don't want to wait for buffering or internet connection issues to listen to music
- Media streaming is normal these days but leaves you subject to the availability whims of the streaming services.
- Storing all your photos in iCloud is not the smartest thing to do because you have no offline backup that you control. If Apple ever loses your photos you're doomed - I know Google was recently experiencing issues of losing customer data so it isn't wise to rely exclusively on cloud solutions.
- My applications folder has plenty of apps and is enormous Adobe apps alone are usually 4GB+ each, some developer apps are around 12GB each - I think in iOS simulators alone I have over 40GB of data.
I'm not claiming that my workflow is the best. I'm expressing my workflow, and my assumption that many are like me.
Not many people rips music and dvd's and store everything at home on their internal drive or in a NAS.
Not many people captures photos with a DSLR and stores all RAW photos locally.
Not many people installs an iOS simulator.
It makes no sense at all for everyone to pay for a machine that can "grow with the user". Apple is not gonna give away stuff for free. And consumers are not gonna pay for something they might or might not use in the future.
For consumers with other needs, such as yourself, you can either purchase the Mac with higher storage, or you can just purchase a cheap external SSD such as Samsung T7.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
This is another way to go but it entirely trusts strangers in “the cloud” as caretakers of all media… that they will keep it all available when you want it… that they won’t lose any of it… that hackers won’t manage to get hold of it and hold it for ransom… that for-profit middlemen injected between user and media won’t decide to charge more for it… and that forever rent for access is required to keep all this going. It also completely depends on an internet connection for access to any of it.
If that works fine for some, this is an option to buy minimum configs. If you would rather own & control your content, pay up for some storage and dodge the forever rent and towards blind faith & trust in complete strangers.
Depending on the app list, one with everything in the cloud could lean on only an iPad or iPhone with minimum specs… and not even bother with Mac.
Which way is best? That’s a mind of the beholder consideration. I’m pretty anti-cloud, so I’ve spent the extra to own/control/backup my media. But someone else may be perfectly fine with the opposing approach. Renting is generally cheaper than cash outlays for more storage… for a while… and then the benefits of ownership turns that table for all of the rest of the time. Choose wisely (for you reader).
I don't take DSLR photos or use RAW. I have mostly iPhone photos in JPEG, but I have 150GB of photos because I have 15 years of photos... photos grow with time and as each iPhone gets better and better cameras the photos get larger and larger.
They would not be giving stuff away for free... everyone seems to have adopted this take that somehow flash storage prices are fixed in time and never drop. Back before Tim Cook took over as hard drive capacity increased we saw base storage increase. You could still buy smaller hard drives but Apple chose to increase capacity at the same price rather than lower the price. Since we transitioned to flash storage we have instead seen Apple has mostly kept around the 256GB base model storage amount. The MacBook Pro has FINALLY started to move above that amount but the rate at which Apple increases base storage does not follow the rate at which storage prices drop but instead lags behind by many years.
While not everyone needs a machine with the capacity to grow the fact that Apple charges outrageous prices and almost never improves the base model means that to get a machine that will grow with you is always going to be overpriced.
Edit: I don't rip CDs for music anymore but have an extensive collection of DRM free music from iTunes. I don't need to store it on a NAS but do keep it on my internal drive on my MacBook Pro, which travels with me, it isn't stuck at home because it has a non-useless amount of storage.
Really if you do anything more complicated than basic stuff a user is quickly going to suffer with 256 GB.
Exactly.
Not everyone needs 1TB of storage, but if one does, they can always get a Mac with larger amount of storage than the base 256GB.
(btw, the last two Mac I purchased, M1 MM and M2 Pro MM, I paid for the expensive 1TB storage option)
Not everyone needs more than 64 GB of storage, lets make that the base.
Not everyone needs more than an A15, let's make an A15 the base.
Not everyone needs more than 4GB of memory, let's make that the base.
...
It's difficult to find deals on current Macs with specs above the standard configurations, but I have frequently found that if you get a generation older or more you can get a lot more RAM and SSD space for far less than the original price.
I avoided the Apple tax on upgrades by buying a 14" MBP with M1 Max, 64GB RAM and 2TB SSD. Originally it would have been $4099 before taxes. I got it earlier this year for $2600 from B&H, saved the sales tax by using their card, and it included AppleCare.
Do I need that much power right now? I don't necessarily need the processor or that huge SSD (1.45TB are still free at the moment) but I certainly use all the RAM I can get for editing photos and playing music with my laptop. My old 2016 MBP was struggling to load my MainStage concert files. Now what took 5+ minutes loads in about 10-15 seconds on my new machine, and I can see that I'm using more than 32GB RAM just for MainStage!
I avoided the Apple tax on upgrades by buying a 14" MBP with M1 Max, 64GB RAM and 2TB SSD. Originally it would have been $4099 before taxes. I got it earlier this year for $2600 from B&H, saved the sales tax by using their card, and it included AppleCare.
Do I need that much power right now? I don't necessarily need the processor or that huge SSD (1.45TB are still free at the moment) but I certainly use all the RAM I can get for editing photos and playing music with my laptop. My old 2016 MBP was struggling to load my MainStage concert files. Now what took 5+ minutes loads in about 10-15 seconds on my new machine, and I can see that I'm using more than 32GB RAM just for MainStage!
Nah. The M1 iMac is an incredible machine, and just a huge leap forward from the Intel ones in every way except screen size.
Future Me has always dearly wished he could go back in time and spend that extra $200 on some spec I skimped on.
To be fair the M1 iMac was only really a good replacement for the 21.5" iMac. The GPU in the M1-M3 is still not quite up to par (as far as I know, the M3 might have closed the gap) with the Radeon RX 5700 you could get in the 27" iMac.
I consider the M1 iMac a replacement for the 21.5" iMac and the Mac Studio the 27" iMac replacement.
This! I have an iPhone 13 that has 128 GB of available storage, and I'm only using 19 GB. I would likely never fill even a quarter of the available storage on my iPhone. If I were to buy an iMac, I think 256 GB would be fine and I would likely never fill that up.
If I'm buying dozens or hundreds of machines for a school, or for a finance department accessing web tools, or putting a machine up in reception, or equipping a public library, or looking for a computer for my kid who's too young for a phone full of 4k video, or, or, or... I don't want to pay for memory or storage I don't need.
There are a lot of machines that never do anything but access the web, and there are machines that get wiped and reinstalled nightly with a known good image because they're publicly accessible.
People keep creating scenarios where one might want more memory or storage, but that doesn't eliminate the purpose of the lowest spec machines, it merely explains why we also need higher spec machines.
There are a lot of machines that never do anything but access the web, and there are machines that get wiped and reinstalled nightly with a known good image because they're publicly accessible.
People keep creating scenarios where one might want more memory or storage, but that doesn't eliminate the purpose of the lowest spec machines, it merely explains why we also need higher spec machines.
A lot of people do not need massive internal storage, especially with Thunderbolt for USB-C NVME storage or other similarly fast medium. 512GB is the floor for me with music production software though, so I have 1TB internal storage. Everything else I work on is stored on 2x 4TB Crucial P3+ and 2TB P5+.
Plus, not everybody needs more space to log into bank websites to pay their bills, surf the Internet, or run their SaaS software in office environments. It's all about the market.
Plus, not everybody needs more space to log into bank websites to pay their bills, surf the Internet, or run their SaaS software in office environments. It's all about the market.
256GB is a good size for a non-primary Mac, for me. Photos, Messages, Desktop, Documents are all stored on iCloud so I only need room for the local portion of those, plus the apps I run. My laptop is sitting at about 150GB in use right now, and that's pretty steady.
That does, of course, mean that I'm paying for iCloud Storage for all those things. But I don't mind doing that, since it ensures that my two Mac minis and my MacBook Pro stay in sync.
That said, I did opt for 1GB storage on that MacBook. Yes, I'm only using 150GB right now - and I don't have any specific plans for the other 850GB. I just decided to get the storage "in case" I ever need it. But, that worked with my budget - it might not work with yours.
That does, of course, mean that I'm paying for iCloud Storage for all those things. But I don't mind doing that, since it ensures that my two Mac minis and my MacBook Pro stay in sync.
That said, I did opt for 1GB storage on that MacBook. Yes, I'm only using 150GB right now - and I don't have any specific plans for the other 850GB. I just decided to get the storage "in case" I ever need it. But, that worked with my budget - it might not work with yours.
May I ask - why external storage?My plan is to get an external 1TB SSD for all my data storage. I guess if the base drive got full, I could load some programs to the external disk as well.
As for esthetics, I found a hub that integrates with the base and has a connection for an M.2 SSD.
USB C Hub for iMac 24 inch 2021/2023, Minisopuru USB Hub Adapter Support M.2 NVMe SSD, iMac USB Hub for iMac M1/M3, iMac Accessories with USB C 10Gbps, USB A 3.2, SD/TF, M.2 SSD(Not Included), Silver.
iMac M3 imac 2023 imac usb hub iMac accessories imac 24 imac 24 inch 2021 imac 24 inch 2023 imac adapter imac 24 inch imac usb adapter imac hub imac 24 inch 2021 accessories USB hub imac usb c hub imac usb c hub multiport adapter usb c hub for iMacwww.amazon.com
Looks pretty clean.
It's seems really fashionable on this forum.
My wife has had 2TB storage since 2013, and it's ALWAYS been 100% internal. Why ruin aesthetics of a perfect computer?
For $400 you can upgrade to 1TB SSD via Apple.
Your enclosure and the external disk are $90 + $60 = $150.
Now, it does seem crazy to save $250 and then, for 10 years, have a dodgy-looking third party enclosure under your mac and to have to always choose where to save your data.
The iMac might also fall down from that thing! Balance will be off. Think of the damage it can cause.
Plus, there was a great argument from @theluggage that it's impossible to split massive libraries between disks and that it's dangerous to get your system disk to below 10% free.
Last edited:
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
One part of securing my data, beyond backing it up, is to have it on another disk. May not make sense, but that’s one of my reasons.
I could partition a disk, but I like an external drive having a different drive letter. Again, may not make sense, but that’s one of my reasons.
As for the hub, it does affect the esthetics of the machine, but in my opinion, it’s okay. The hub I’m looking at is pretty tight and I see no reason at all that it would be unstable.
As for cost, 1T, per your example, is still cheaper but look at a 2TB. It’s a $600 add on.
It really falls into being something that is the way I like doing it. There is a cost savings and I’m not tied to the esthetics quite the way you seem to be. I think my proposed option is cleaner than having a wire to the back of the machine leading to a portable disk or even worse, a separate hub on the desk or hanging off the bottom of the screen.
I could partition a disk, but I like an external drive having a different drive letter. Again, may not make sense, but that’s one of my reasons.
As for the hub, it does affect the esthetics of the machine, but in my opinion, it’s okay. The hub I’m looking at is pretty tight and I see no reason at all that it would be unstable.
As for cost, 1T, per your example, is still cheaper but look at a 2TB. It’s a $600 add on.
It really falls into being something that is the way I like doing it. There is a cost savings and I’m not tied to the esthetics quite the way you seem to be. I think my proposed option is cleaner than having a wire to the back of the machine leading to a portable disk or even worse, a separate hub on the desk or hanging off the bottom of the screen.
USB 3.2 speeds ought to be plenty for a secondary storage drive. I used a SanDisk Extreme USB 3.2 speed SSD in a pinch for a month. It held my Capture One Pro photos and catalogs so it was actively reading and writing to it a lot as I edited photos. I was surprised at how well it worked.
I've also done some light video editing directly off of a USB 3.2 speed external SSD. Again, it was fine.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with external storage and since you're buying an iMac, it won't even be an inconvenience and you won't have to deal with an SSD sticking out of the side.
You're thinking of home users only and yourself.
How many iMacs do you see at a reception desks being used for nothing other checking in people and looking up info.
Or even keeping the receptionist from getting bored when things are quiet.
For those situations the iMac is nothing more than an attractive looking dumb terminal.
How many iMacs do you see at a reception desks being used for nothing other checking in people and looking up info.
Or even keeping the receptionist from getting bored when things are quiet.
For those situations the iMac is nothing more than an attractive looking dumb terminal.
256GB is fine for "personal productivity" - i.e. WP/light DTP, spreadsheets, browsing and email - plus a modest selection of MP3 tunes while you work and enough family photos to bore your colleagues int submission. If photo work - from serious amateur upwards, and anything having to do with raw files, or managing large media collections - possibly in lossless format - is a major reason for buying your Mac, then, nah, 256GB isn't going to cut it - but neither is 512GB - 1TB, and going beyond that on a Mac internal drive soon gets very expensive.
Yes, you need local copies and backups of cloud stuff - but the internal SSD - which will die with the Mac it is embedded in - isn't the best place for that either! You're going to want to store your raw/lossless stuff on external discs (+ at least two backups) anyway - and if you need multiple TB of storage then mechanical hard drives still offer the most affordable bulk storage. Eggs and baskets, folks.
It's worth noting that the OP was talking about an iMac - so there's no huge disadvantage to keeping your photo and music libraries on a permanently-attached external drive. If you're talking about a laptop then there's an obvious extra advantage to having everything on the internal drive.
I'd still say that 512GB would be a sensible minimum for anything beyond "personal productivity" if only Apple didn't charge so much, 1TB is a luxury (and should be the default on a $2000 computer in 2023) but beyond that you should look to external storage unless you have a very specific reason for requiring that much space on the internal drive.
Sure - and that's what I'd do as long as I could spare the cash, but not everybody is rolling in it and that's adding 30% to the price of (say) a base iMac to gain 750GB of storage and you have to make that decision at the time of purchase.
Or, for $100-$150 you can get a full 2TB external SSD that will attach neatly to the back of your iMac with a velcro pad. It might not be as fast as the internal drive, but for storing most documents and data you wouldn't know. You can add it at any time and, when you fill it up, pop it in a drawer as an archive and start on a new one (you'll probably get 4 TB for the price then).
Alternatively, that £150 will get you an external drive with 8TB of spinning rust - not nearly as fast or quiet as SSD, but if you want lots of storage, it can't be beaten.
The other thing to remember is that if your Mac goes to silicon heaven, gets stolen or has to go in for repair then the internal SSD goes with it, and you're reliant on whatever backups you remembered to make.