I'm so disappointed...

Discussion in 'iMac' started by dilgit, May 21, 2011.

  1. dilgit macrumors regular

    Sep 24, 2010
    I've used my new iMac 27" i7 - 3.4GHz -16GB - 2TB HDD since last Tuesday, and I must admit I'm disappointed from the SLOW iMac's boot time compared to my MacBook Pro with the Intel 256GB SSD drive sata III.
    Here's a short comparison I did:

    OSX Boot: iMac - 34sec | MBP - 16sec
    Win 7 Boot with Parallels, from within OSX: iMac - 52sec | MBP - 18sec
    OSX + Win 7 boot in sequence: iMac - 83sec | MBP - 34sec

    There's also a HUGE difference in software boot time between MBP and iMac.
    Conclusion: I'm going to add a SSD drive to my iMac ASAP!!!
  2. tzd macrumors newbie

    May 8, 2011
  3. ZMacintosh macrumors 65816


    Nov 13, 2008
    Not quite sure what you were expecting with the HDD in an iMac to beat an intel 256GB SSD? obviously an SSD would be much quicker to boot up as its not a mechanical disk and essentially doesnt need to spin up and has faster internal reads so it can launch up much quicker than a huge 2TB drive that needs to power up, spin up and access/read info to initialize the system.

    I agree, getting an SSD in the iMac would be a no brainer and the best upgrade you can get for it right now.
  4. iSayuSay macrumors 68040


    Feb 6, 2011
    Yea ... sure SSD is great, but you should´ve realized that placing SSD on iMac ain´t as easy as on MacBook Pro

    I too have been disappointed for lack of options apple offered for iMac SSD. I´m not willing to spend another $500 only for storage. So I´d better pick smaller and cheaper SSD while waiting on Thunderbolt chassis, doing it nice and clean without voiding my warranty or break something while I´m at it
  5. kevin2223 macrumors member

    Jul 31, 2010
    In a few months bootable Thunderbolt cases/external SSD solutions will be available, so if you are nervous about opening the iMac, it might be worth waiting. There will surely be a premium for cases/drives, though - although they still make more sense than damaging parts in the upgrade process.
  6. alust2013 macrumors 601


    Feb 6, 2010
    On the fence
    Not sure why the disappointment. It's an SSD vs. HDD, the SSD will win every time. Just use sleep mode. That way you only have to deal with boot and app launch times once. After that, you won't be able to tell the difference for most things.
  7. iSayuSay macrumors 68040


    Feb 6, 2011
    And also ... you might boot 10 or 20 seconds faster with your MBP + SSD .. but iMac encode or export video 10 or 20 mins faster, even only with stock HDD.

    You do the math, and suddenly those 10seconds faster boot become negligible. Faster boot doesnt mean your MBP more powerful, you do realized that, dont you?

    Of course SSD + iMac would blow any Macbooks out of the water, but considering the cost of bigger SSD, and the risk of installing SSD inside ... well I´d take Thunderbolt SSD anytime
  8. darknite38 macrumors regular

    Nov 18, 2010
    Oh my god somebody call the police the imac takes 15 more seconds to boot up than the ssd macbook air does!!
  9. spacepower7 macrumors 68000

    May 6, 2004

    Why would a regular HD ever be faster than an SSD?
  10. dilgit thread starter macrumors regular

    Sep 24, 2010
    Well. I did not expect the HDD to be as fast as the SSD, but the difference is so HUGE that it amazed me. I guess I'll wait for an external Tbolt SSD that can boot the iMac.
  11. timtom33 macrumors member

    Mar 30, 2011
    Can you not send it back and just reorder one with an SSD? Would Apple let you do this or not?
  12. MH01 Suspended


    Feb 11, 2008
    Boot time. .? Who cares frankly, and yeah HDD is slower, put a SSD in the iMac and it's all sorted. Do you love the MBA, very quick boot time, alas sucks at grunt tasks , where the iMac will cut through them.
  13. rdowns macrumors Penryn


    Jul 11, 2003
    A few seconds over boot time? WHo gives a ****. I thought these inane arguments ended in the 90s.
  14. djrod macrumors 65816


    Sep 16, 2008
    Madrid - Spain
    A few seconds? As in twice the time to boot? 16 vs 34 it's a big deal, and it's e ven more noticeable launching apps and in day by day use... Once you go SSD there is no turning back
  15. MH01 Suspended


    Feb 11, 2008
    For a desktop does it really matter .? Boot time that is. We are not debating that the SSD much better, but it comes at a cost, and if you put one in the iMac then things will speed up. The op calling the iMac disappointing cause he compared it to a mbp with a SSD in regards to boot time is kinda silly. Now had he encoded a hd video and complained that the iMac took twice as long fair enough.... But that is not going to happen as it's gpu/CPU.
  16. johnfkitchen macrumors regular

    Sep 7, 2010
    An earlier poster said "I´m not willing to spend another $500 only for storage.", and here's the underlying perception problem.

    One perception is that RAM, SSD and HDD are all just "storage", and that given that RAM is say $10 per GB, SSD is $2 per GB and HDD storage is 5 cents per GB, clearly the only storage to buy is HDD. The others are a total waste of money.

    But you're not just paying for the ability to store data. You're paying for its ability to deliver data.

    If what you're looking for is fast access, then RAM is clearly the cheapest technology. It's orders of magnitude faster than SSD and only 5x as expensive. That's why another poster said "use sleep".

    In reality, we are not looking to store OR access data alone. We're looking for both, and we're looking for both in different mixtures. The email we received ten years ago will probably only be accessed during a full backup, i.e. Rarely. The photos we took yesterday we are probably accessing quite a lot. Today.

    The metadata for our photo library we will access very frequently on an ongoing basis.

    Apps we use will be accessed most days.

    That's why we need a hierarchy of storage technologies, and they will always have a range of "access density" capabilities.
  17. harcosparky macrumors 68020

    Jan 14, 2008
    Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn! Can I get back the time I wasted reading this thread?

    I mean .... DUH!

    An SSD boots faster than an HDD!!!

    How many times a day you gonna boot your iMac? ROFLMAO

    I did some calculations on boot time comparison and time saved using an SSD over an HDD. I then took into consideration the cost of acquisition $/Gig and came to the conclusion that there is no way an SSD can save you enough time to recoup cost of acquisition over three years unless, you do nothing but the following BASIC routine ....

    10 Boot
    20 Shutdown
    30 GOTO 10

    So at this point an SSD is nothing more than a waste of money.

    I guess " Bragging Rights " are expensive.
  18. dilgit thread starter macrumors regular

    Sep 24, 2010
    Now get this:
    Photoshop CS5 boot time: iMac = 6.3 sec | MBP = 1.5 sec
    Word or Outlook boot time: iMac = 4 sec | MBP = 1 sec
  19. MH01 Suspended


    Feb 11, 2008
    So you have never heard of this SSD technology ?? Yeah it's faster.... My 2009 mbp is also faster then my 2005 PowerBook, but if I could put in a SSD into the PowerBook it would probably boot faster..... Alas I just do not boot up my machines and apps ;) enjoy your machine, and start using the apps so the CPU and GPU do something....
  20. MacHamster68 macrumors 68040


    Sep 17, 2009
    i mean i come into the office and press the start button and while the computer is booting i go and make myself a nice cup of coffee or tea , a ssd would ruin my day having no time any more for coffee breaks , tea breaks, cigarette breaks :(
  21. timtom33 macrumors member

    Mar 30, 2011
    The laptop i am using now (which is currently my main pc) just took 27 seconds to load up Word...
  22. MrWillie macrumors 65816


    Apr 29, 2010
    Starlite Starbrite Trailer Court
    Well then spend several hundred bucks and you can shave less than 4.8 sec of load time in photoshop and three seconds in office.

    Yep percentage wise it's big, but even though one microsecond is ten times faster then 10 microseconds, is it really noticeable ?

    Again, I would wait for Lion, which will hopefully support drive spanning (or whatever they are calling it) and purchase a $100 SSD from OWC and have the best of both worlds.
  23. theSeb macrumors 604


    Aug 10, 2010
    Poole, England
    Shock newsflash: ssd drives are much faster than mechanical HDD drives. Wow.

    Thanks for that.
  24. iSayuSay macrumors 68040


    Feb 6, 2011
    Haha .. you nailed it sir, in every good sense :)

    Yeah .. many times I´d just talk to family or people around me while waiting my Mac to boot up, and shoot I haven´t finished talk around yet my Mac ready to use already. It´s too fast, even with stock HDD :p

    Of course SSD is amazing, but not with that price point. It´s not a matter of ¨perception¨ :D, I want SSD, I just want a smaller and cheaper one .. and then I´ll connect it to my Thunderbolt. I can live without SSD, spending a few seconds should be no problem for me.

    Like I said, 10 seconds faster boot, but 10 minutes longer to get the job done, that ain´t impressive :p
    (talking about regular iMac vs MBP+SSD or MBA)

    So, processor matter, RAM also matter, SSD well it´s matter if they only cost half what they are now :p That´s why I´ll use smaller SSD in the future when TB devices reach the market.

    Only a crazy will hate SSD, we would just like a typical person who hate Macs because it seems overpriced, while it has excellent value. I just don´t need the bigger and more expensive one.

    Which SSD has the lowest $/Gb ratio today? The 120Gb one, aint it?
  25. dh2005 macrumors 6502a

    Jan 25, 2010
    That actually made me chuckle.

    You saved three seconds opening Outlook... and you think that warrants the phrase, "Now get this"?!

    I don't mean to be rude to you - I paid extra for an SSD in my MBP, myself - but let's not pretend that three seconds is a significant period of time for something you do once or twice a day.

Share This Page