Is Mojave made for SSD?

JustUs35

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Jun 23, 2019
13
2
Looking to buy a new computer, had read that Mojave is designed for SSD's So....if a computer is purchased with a 1 or 2 TB fusion drive will that limit it's performance or supported life span? If so Why isn't apple making the SSD standard equipment?
 

ignatius345

macrumors 68020
Aug 20, 2015
2,328
3,091
I don't know about Mojave specifically, but I've been using an iMac 5K with a 1 TB Fusion drive for the past three years -- and when I look at the state of the SSD portion of it (using the utility DriveDx, though there are others), I see some pretty worrying wear levels for its age. This older Fusion Drive is a 128 GB SSD paired with a 1 TB hard drive, by the way.

I have generally found the Fusion Drive to be quite a lot faster, most of the time, than a plain hard drive. Whatever apps and files you're most actively working on get moved over to the SSD, which makes it a lot faster to work with and save files once you're in the middle of a project -- but the way it works I believe puts a LOT of data through the SSD, from things I've read.

I'm currently looking to move to a newer iMac, and as much as it hurts my wallet, I'm going pure SSD this time -- mostly out of concerns for longevity (though the consistent extra speed will be welcome).
 

posguy99

macrumors 6502a
Nov 3, 2004
982
549
Looking to buy a new computer, had read that Mojave is designed for SSD's So....if a computer is purchased with a 1 or 2 TB fusion drive will that limit it's performance or supported life span? If so Why isn't apple making the SSD standard equipment?
Well, since you shouldn't buy a machine with a Fusion drive as primary storage, the question is moot.
 

Honza1

macrumors 6502
Nov 30, 2013
419
138
US
Looking to buy a new computer, had read that Mojave is designed for SSD's So....if a computer is purchased with a 1 or 2 TB fusion drive will that limit it's performance or supported life span? If so Why isn't apple making the SSD standard equipment?
Mojave will run fine on SSD, Fusion drive, or regular spinners just fine. Spinners will be slower, but that is true for any other OS.
Fusion drives should not be necessary by now since SSDs are cheaper and cheaper... But remember, Apple uses extremely fast SSDs and charges arm-and-leg for those. Fusion drive is - for its size - cheaper and performs quite well. Apple supports their hardware for 5+ years (often 7-8+ years) so if you buy today Fusion drive Mac, it should be supported for at least that long.
 

MagnusVonMagnum

macrumors 603
Jun 18, 2007
5,144
1,355
Easy enough to upgrade to a 2TB SSD drive on my 2012 Mini (plug and play after you open it up and remove a few screws), but Mojave has UNACCEPTABLE SMB problems, IMO if you use it for serving media to something like an NVidia Shield or FireTV running KODI (freezes up here every 18-19 minutes like clockwork and so far I've found NO solution. I've read Apple knows there's a problem, but god knows if/when they'll get it fixed. I'm seriously thinking restoring El Capitan from my backup drive at this point. I use my Mini as a server for the whole house audio/video system and this makes it almost unusable.

Otherwise, other than Siri and Dark Mode (and some warnings about 32-bit software breaking in the next upgrade, which means this Mini will probably never see another upgrade as I'm not giving up Photoshop CS3, etc. for some newer "rent" plan) it doesn't seem much different here than El Capitan. Three versions later and NADA (oh yeah there's the "news" app).
 

Fishrrman

macrumors P6
Feb 20, 2009
17,190
5,542
"if a computer is purchased with a 1 or 2 TB fusion drive will that limit its performance or supported life span?"

Quite possibly.
An SSD is ALWAYS the better choice.

"...so Why isn't apple making the SSD standard equipment?"

It's all "about the money"... ;)

RECOMMENDATION:
For a new Mac, GET AN SSD, even if it's a smaller one.
I recommend 512gb as "the sweet spot", but even 256gb will do fine.

If that's "not enough storage space", then add an EXTERNAL USB3 SSD -- these are cheap now.
 

kohlson

macrumors 68000
Apr 23, 2010
1,993
539
Looking to buy a new computer, had read that Mojave is designed for SSD's
I read somewhere years ago that Mac OS X was designed for SSDs. Of course it runs on regular HDDs. But IIRC from a Mac OS X white paper, 3-4 years ago (maybe even 10.9) the OS does lots more small reads and writes. It's not so much that SSDs are faster - and SATA III SSDs are not faster than HDDs - it's that SSDs enable more IOPS and have essentially zero latency.
I, fo one, cannot understand why Apple insists on selling systems with HDDs. Oh wait, I am a stockholder, so I do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigBoy2018

MagnusVonMagnum

macrumors 603
Jun 18, 2007
5,144
1,355
Apple's profit margins on upgrades are around 5-10x higher than everyone else SO.... why in HELL would they NOT sell garbage as standard? I paid $243 for a 2TB SSD for my 2012 Mac Mini. It doesn't do 2000MB/sec, but it does do 500+ which is PLENTY FAST compared to a standard hard drive (let alone random read/write speeds compared to standard which are orders of magnitude faster). What does Apple charge for a 2TB drive? On the newer Mac Mini it's $1400 (plus the trade-in of the 128GB SSD included). I just paid $60 for 16GB ram upgrade for my 2012 Mini (and I still have the 8GB RAM). Apple charges $200 + trade-in of included RAM when you buy a Mini and can't upgrade later. Apple are THIEVES, IMO. You can upgrade the RAM on the new Mini, but the SSD is soldered in (and it doesn't have to be; they come with connectors normally; they do it so they can ROB YOU BLIND).
 

d.steve

macrumors 6502
Jan 6, 2012
253
72
Sort of. Mojave and High Sierra include APFS, a new file system format that allows more efficient utilization of SSDs over the older HFS+ format, which was designed around rotational HDDs.

I wholeheartedly agree with the others - I wouldn't go any way but SSD for my boot at this point, with external SSD and/or HDD for additional storage.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigBoy2018

JustUs35

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Jun 23, 2019
13
2
I was all set to get the stock high end 27" with the 2TB Fusion drive. I do light photoshop (mostly resizing of the image) occasionally, mostly Apple's "Photos" for any image adjustment. Then it's email browsing youtube etc. I'm sure the high end iMac would work great...but for that amount of $$$ I would like the machine to give good, fast service for 5-7 years...without fear of Apple stoping support of something. I guess I'll need to save more, wait and get a BTO with a 1TB SSD. (Photo library is over 600Gb). But I fear my 10yr old imac is getting mighty slow and finicky on the internet...will need to do something this year for sure.
 

MagnusVonMagnum

macrumors 603
Jun 18, 2007
5,144
1,355
I was all set to get the stock high end 27" with the 2TB Fusion drive. I do light photoshop (mostly resizing of the image) occasionally, mostly Apple's "Photos" for any image adjustment. Then it's email browsing youtube etc. I'm sure the high end iMac would work great...but for that amount of $$$ I would like the machine to give good, fast service for 5-7 years...without fear of Apple stoping support of something. I guess I'll need to save more, wait and get a BTO with a 1TB SSD. (Photo library is over 600Gb). But I fear my 10yr old imac is getting mighty slow and finicky on the internet...will need to do something this year for sure.
Get a smaller internal SSD for the OS and use an external drive (SSD or HD) for photos. I bought a 2TB SSD for $243 for my Mini. They external version isn't much more. You can get a 5TB external 2.5" rotational drive for storage for $120-130. There's no reason to spend thousands on a larger internal SSD from Apple for things like photos except possibly on a notebook where you don't want to carry it with you. But on a desktop? I've got two external hard drives and even two external BD writer drives (one that can read 4K) connected (with an 8-port USB 3 hub and another 8-port USB 2 hub for mice, keyboards, older stuff, etc. that's plugged into the USB 3 hub). It's not an issue.
 

JustUs35

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Jun 23, 2019
13
2
I think once you start adding up the costs of the different combinations, besides getting dizzy, there's not much difference in total costs...Using the edu store prices:
27" 3.7 i5, 8gb+1TB SSD= $2549 (Add Memory at a later date)
27" 3.7 i5, 512SSD $2189 + 1TB external SSD $200= $2389 (Add Memory at a later date)
21" 3.0 i5, 16gb, 1TB SSD =$2209
21" 3.0 i5, 16gb, 512 SSD 1849 + 1TB ext. SSD $200 = $2049

so.... to go with the large 1TB internal drive would be around $150. only large savings would be to go with a 21.5" instead of the 27" but would give up the better processor, much better graphics card and of course 4K vs 5K screen...That is why I was thinking of the high end stock 27" with the 2TB Fusion drive...comes in at $2099!....But so many are against the fusion..makes me hesitate. Really how bad/slow could it be? especially compared to the 2009 iMac I use now.......How screwed up could the 128 Flash part get in 7 years?
 
Last edited:

MagnusVonMagnum

macrumors 603
Jun 18, 2007
5,144
1,355
I think once you start adding up the costs of the different combinations, besides getting dizzy, there's not much difference in total costs...Using the edu store prices:
27" 3.7 i5, 8gb+1TB SSD= $2549 (Add Memory at a later date)
27" 3.7 i5, 512SSD $2189 + 1TB external SSD $200= $2389 (Add Memory at a later date)
21" 3.0 i5, 16gb, 1TB SSD =$2209
21" 3.0 i5, 16gb, 512 SSD 1849 + 1TB ext. SSD $200 = $2049

so.... to go with the large 1TB internal drive would be around $150. only large savings would be to go with a 21.5" instead of the 27" but would give up the better processor, much better graphics card and of course 4K vs 5K screen...That is why I was thinking of the high end stock 27" with the 2TB Fusion drive...comes in at $2099!....But so many are against the fusion..makes me hesitate. Really how bad/slow could it be? especially compared to the 2009 iMac I use now.......How screwed up could the 128 Flash part get in 7 years?
You don't need an external SSD for photos, movies, etc. 2TB external Hard Drive = $60. 5TB = $129. You're also cheating big time on the memory and then claiming there's no price difference. Price a 2TB internal SSD + 16GB of ram and see where you are compared to 512GB SSD internal + 5TB HD external + 16GB upgrade. It's night and day and you end up with far more storage space (photos and movies don't need to be SSD fast as there's no point to it unless you like to watch movies at 50x speed). A 2TB SSD upgrade on the new Mini is $1400 more! Get the small drive and a 5TB external drive and you save almost $1300. Do the ram yourself and you save $160 more. That's almost $1500 in savings for something that doesn't matter one iota for photos/movies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SaSaSushi

JustUs35

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Jun 23, 2019
13
2
You don't need an external SSD for photos, movies, etc. 2TB external Hard Drive = $60. 5TB = $129. You're also cheating big time on the memory and then claiming there's no price difference. Price a 2TB internal SSD + 16GB of ram and see where you are compared to 512GB SSD internal + 5TB HD external + 16GB upgrade. It's night and day and you end up with far more storage space (photos and movies don't need to be SSD fast as there's no point to it unless you like to watch movies at 50x speed). A 2TB SSD upgrade on the new Mini is $1400 more! Get the small drive and a 5TB external drive and you save almost $1300. Do the ram yourself and you save $160 more. That's almost $1500 in savings for something that doesn't matter one iota for photos/movies.
I feel that a 512 SSD internal would not be large enough. On the present iMac, besides the 600gb photos, there's over 300Gb now, not much elbow room for the future....(which is why the 2TB fusion in the original post)....I do not disagree with you..but with the printer, scanner, TM back up. USB cf card reader, etc, it will get pretty crowded on the desk.With spending so much ands trying to keep the cost down I just don't want to have any regrets.....If all the photos were on an external drive Would Time Machine be able to back them up? along with the main drive?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ignatius345

Fishrrman

macrumors P6
Feb 20, 2009
17,190
5,542
OP wrote:
"I feel that a 512 SSD internal would not be large enough."

Then.... supplement it with an EXTERNAL USB3 SSD. That will solve your problems.

The thread asks:
"Is Mojave made for SSD?"

Well, not exactly.

However...
Modern versions of the Mac OS (starting with Mavericks) changed the way the OS "loads" RAM. These changes make VM disk swapping much more "active". The more "swapping" going on, the more disk activity. With all this disk activity, the "inherent slowness" of platter-based hard drives becomes apparent and undeniable.

SSDs -- being MUCH MUCH MUCH faster -- do not suffer from this heightened activity.

Fusion drives -- at least when new -- are less likely to exhibit slowdowns due to excessive reads/writes. BUT... as the SSD portion of the fusion drive fills up, and disk activity is "moved" to the platter based HDD portion, then they, too, slow down sometimes.

So, the answer to the thread's question is:
Although Mojave is not "made [exclusively] for SSDs", it runs much better when you have one.
 

SaSaSushi

macrumors 601
Aug 8, 2007
4,079
470
Takamatsu, Japan
I feel that a 512 SSD internal would not be large enough. On the present iMac, besides the 600gb photos, there's over 300Gb now, not much elbow room for the future....(which is why the 2TB fusion in the original post)....I do not disagree with you..but with the printer, scanner, TM back up. USB cf card reader, etc, it will get pretty crowded on the desk.With spending so much ands trying to keep the cost down I just don't want to have any regrets.....If all the photos were on an external drive Would Time Machine be able to back them up? along with the main drive?
I have a 512GB SSD in my 2017 iMac and have never filled it more than half. Per the advice given to you above, music, photos, movies and other media files can be stored on inexpensive external USB3 HDD with no negative effect on performance.

I use Carbon Copy Cloner to make backups of my photo and music libraries from one external HDD to another as well as to cloud storage. I use Time Machine and also do daily (bootable) clones of the Mac SSD to external HDD.

I definitely wouldn't recommend wasting internal SSD real estate on media files that will run just as well on inexpensive external HDs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fishrrman

Coconutcreampie

Suspended
Aug 31, 2016
143
73
NY America
I don't know about Mojave specifically, but I've been using an iMac 5K with a 1 TB Fusion drive for the past three years -- and when I look at the state of the SSD portion of it (using the utility DriveDx, though there are others), I see some pretty worrying wear levels for its age. This older Fusion Drive is a 128 GB SSD paired with a 1 TB hard drive, by the way.

I have generally found the Fusion Drive to be quite a lot faster, most of the time, than a plain hard drive. Whatever apps and files you're most actively working on get moved over to the SSD, which makes it a lot faster to work with and save files once you're in the middle of a project -- but the way it works I believe puts a LOT of data through the SSD, from things I've read.

I'm currently looking to move to a newer iMac, and as much as it hurts my wallet, I'm going pure SSD this time -- mostly out of concerns for longevity (though the consistent extra speed will be welcome).
Yep, pure SSD is what you want. I replaced the 1TB Fusion Drive in my late 2012 iMac with a 1TB OWC blade SSD and an 8TB WD Red NAS Drive for all my photos and video files. The videos are typically played through Home Sharing to my Apple TV and my iPad. The new setup is ridiculously better than my old Fusion Drive, never mind the fact that it is also ridiculously larger. No, I did not create a new Fusion Drive.

My 1TB Fusion Drive performance had dropped to below 200 MBps write, and read was stable at just under 400. The original hard drive was slow on its own. Perhaps in the 115 range at best. The new setup is 485 write and 520 read for the blade SSD and 185 for both read and write on the big HDD. The 2012 iMac unfortunately had SATA only speeds for the blade storage slot. Still, the performance is a night and day difference to the Fusion Drive. I also never let the drive sleep, as it designed to run 24/7, unlike the original drive. My Home Sharing response with the Apple TV app on my iPad went from around 30 seconds to start a video to essentially instant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ignatius345

BigBoy2018

macrumors 6502a
Oct 23, 2018
833
1,453
I was all set to get the stock high end 27" with the 2TB Fusion drive. I do light photoshop (mostly resizing of the image) occasionally, mostly Apple's "Photos" for any image adjustment. Then it's email browsing youtube etc. I'm sure the high end iMac would work great...but for that amount of $$$ I would like the machine to give good, fast service for 5-7 years...without fear of Apple stoping support of something. I guess I'll need to save more, wait and get a BTO with a 1TB SSD. (Photo library is over 600Gb). But I fear my 10yr old imac is getting mighty slow and finicky on the internet...will need to do something this year for sure.
Replace the spinning portion of the fusion drive with a 2.5 inch SATA SSD. I’ve done it on a few iMacs and it makes a HUGE difference, plus its hundreds of $’s less than Apples offerings.
In fact, my 27 inch iMac has a 4tb sata ssd - a size which apple doesnt offer at all!!

https://www.ifixit.com/Guide/iMac+Intel+27-Inch+Retina+5K+Display+Hard+Drive+Replacement/30522
 

Jack Neill

macrumors 6502
Sep 13, 2015
432
225
San Antonio Texas
The lack of user upgrades is what would keep me from buying new hardware. I have stuck to Hackintosh and old Macs because I can do upgrades like ram and SSD's with hassle.
 

MagnusVonMagnum

macrumors 603
Jun 18, 2007
5,144
1,355
The lack of user upgrades is what would keep me from buying new hardware. I have stuck to Hackintosh and old Macs because I can do upgrades like ram and SSD's with hassle.
There really is no excuse for why Apple solders their new drives (when they make plug-in replaceable PCI bus drives). They do it for sheer GREED reasons (They don't want you buying a 128GB version and then replacing it with a 2TB drive for under $300. They want you to pay $1400 more so they can pocket $1100 in pure PROFIT. That is the problem with Apple (worse than ever today; it wasn't so bad in back in 2008, for example let alone when they made a beautiful Power Mac that had a side latch where you could put in PCI cards without even needing a screwdriver to open the case). They treat Mac users as morons who don't know how to plug in a connector and are willing to buy a Mac anyway, even if they're blatantly ripped off.

I just upgraded my 2012 Mac Mini to 2TB SSD and 16GB of ram for a total of $300 and it feels like new again. My alternative to get the SAME SETUP was to spend $2700 for the new Mac Mini. Other than a somewhat faster CPU and built-in GPU (you have to buy a Thunderbolt 3 external GPU if you want anything remotely approaching gaming capability on it, even for just Windows and that would put you well over $3000, which is RIDICULOUS. There isn't ONE Mac that can compete with a $1200 Windows custom built tower for things like gaming. You have to pay over $3000 to even get close. Don't get me started on the new Mac Pro. It's priced completely out of the consumer price range. Well, that's not to whom it's targeted someone might say. Yes, but there is NO other upgradeable Mac out there today PERIOD. Cannibalism of sales? They don't offer ANY 'power' consumer Mac so what's to cannibalize? Sell the TOY computers to the fanboys and let the real hobbyists have a real computer already!

I just put Windows 10 on the 2012 Mac (I bought Windows 8.1 Pro on sale for like $68 many moons ago to play a certain pinball game (along with many other old PC games) in Windows, only to discover my RAID 0 setup couldn't have more than one boot partition so it sat there unused for years). Now with the SSD, I can put Boot Camp in there. I found out you can use a Windows 8 key for Windows 10 straight up. So I got Windows 10 Pro for $68, essentially. I have to say it's not "awful" so far. It boots even faster than Mojave (about 15 seconds compared to 23). All the old games I've tried have worked so far. That pinball games works. With MacDrive installed so Windows can read HFS+ and even APFS now, I can even run KODI on other devices in other rooms in the house and it can access my media library from Windows or macOS. The next version of macOS won't support my old Photoshop CS3 anymore or Office 2008 (32-bit software) along with most of my Mac games which would stop working as well. Meanwhile, Microsoft Office 2000 and Photoshop 7 STILL WORK from my old pre-Mac machine in Windows 10. Apple is meanwhile heading to oblivion (nothing like killing off the few games ever made for the Mac in one fell swoop by dumping 32-bit support for highly questionable reasons and almost no real benefit to the user). Apple's problem has always been less software support and now between dumping older programs that won't get updated (like games) and shoving Notarization in everyone's face in the future, it will bring the Mac back to PowerPC days support levels....

No wonder Jony Ives left.... It's no longer about state-of-the-art hardware and tools to enable users to do great things, it's about the next quarter and stock buybacks and profit margins and that's about it. It's quite sad. Apple wasn't cheap under Jobs, but it wasn't just a money making machine either. It attempted to make truly great products. My 2008 Macbook Pro was rated better than the others of the same type running Windows and a good value. The 2012 Mini Server was a good value. The new Mini is a model of fleecing with no other alternatives for Apple's RIDICULOUSLY OVERPRICED DRIVES than to buy the smallest one offered and go external afterwards (making a mess of the desk that a small footprint computer was supposed to cleanup).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jack Neill

Tech198

macrumors G5
Mar 21, 2011
13,967
1,640
Australia, Perth
Looking to buy a new computer, had read that Mojave is designed for SSD's So....if a computer is purchased with a 1 or 2 TB fusion drive will that limit it's performance or supported life span? If so Why isn't apple making the SSD standard equipment?
I don't think you could ever say "an OS is make specially for..." because SSD's are natively faster anyway regardless of the OS, than spinning hard drives

Apple, as they often do, probably tweak their own SSD's for any of their own OS's, then third-party versions, for better performance. But i wouldn't say that's a Mojave specific reason. It would be on any Mac with SSD as standard builds.

Improvements like APFS helps, but to me fast is fast. I could tell the difference when copying files using APFS Filesystem, but it's no biggie.
 
Last edited:

Jack Neill

macrumors 6502
Sep 13, 2015
432
225
San Antonio Texas
There really is no excuse for why Apple solders their new drives (when they make plug-in replaceable PCI bus drives). They do it for sheer GREED reasons (They don't want you buying a 128GB version and then replacing it with a 2TB drive for under $300. They want you to pay $1400 more so they can pocket $1100 in pure PROFIT. That is the problem with Apple (worse than ever today; it wasn't so bad in back in 2008, for example let alone when they made a beautiful Power Mac that had a side latch where you could put in PCI cards without even needing a screwdriver to open the case). They treat Mac users as morons who don't know how to plug in a connector and are willing to buy a Mac anyway, even if they're blatantly ripped off.

I just upgraded my 2012 Mac Mini to 2TB SSD and 16GB of ram for a total of $300 and it feels like new again. My alternative to get the SAME SETUP was to spend $2700 for the new Mac Mini. Other than a somewhat faster CPU and built-in GPU (you have to buy a Thunderbolt 3 external GPU if you want anything remotely approaching gaming capability on it, even for just Windows and that would put you well over $3000, which is RIDICULOUS. There isn't ONE Mac that can compete with a $1200 Windows custom built tower for things like gaming. You have to pay over $3000 to even get close. Don't get me started on the new Mac Pro. It's priced completely out of the consumer price range. Well, that's not to whom it's targeted someone might say. Yes, but there is NO other upgradeable Mac out there today PERIOD. Cannibalism of sales? They don't offer ANY 'power' consumer Mac so what's to cannibalize? Sell the TOY computers to the fanboys and let the real hobbyists have a real computer already!

I just put Windows 10 on the 2012 Mac (I bought Windows 8.1 Pro on sale for like $68 many moons ago to play a certain pinball game (along with many other old PC games) in Windows, only to discover my RAID 0 setup couldn't have more than one boot partition so it sat there unused for years). Now with the SSD, I can put Boot Camp in there. I found out you can use a Windows 8 key for Windows 10 straight up. So I got Windows 10 Pro for $68, essentially. I have to say it's not "awful" so far. It boots even faster than Mojave (about 15 seconds compared to 23). All the old games I've tried have worked so far. That pinball games works. With MacDrive installed so Windows can read HFS+ and even APFS now, I can even run KODI on other devices in other rooms in the house and it can access my media library from Windows or macOS. The next version of macOS won't support my old Photoshop CS3 anymore or Office 2008 (32-bit software) along with most of my Mac games which would stop working as well. Meanwhile, Microsoft Office 2000 and Photoshop 7 STILL WORK from my old pre-Mac machine in Windows 10. Apple is meanwhile heading to oblivion (nothing like killing off the few games ever made for the Mac in one fell swoop by dumping 32-bit support for highly questionable reasons and almost no real benefit to the user). Apple's problem has always been less software support and now between dumping older programs that won't get updated (like games) and shoving Notarization in everyone's face in the future, it will bring the Mac back to PowerPC days support levels....

No wonder Jony Ives left.... It's no longer about state-of-the-art hardware and tools to enable users to do great things, it's about the next quarter and stock buybacks and profit margins and that's about it. It's quite sad. Apple wasn't cheap under Jobs, but it wasn't just a money making machine either. It attempted to make truly great products. My 2008 Macbook Pro was rated better than the others of the same type running Windows and a good value. The 2012 Mini Server was a good value. The new Mini is a model of fleecing with no other alternatives for Apple's RIDICULOUSLY OVERPRICED DRIVES than to buy the smallest one offered and go external afterwards (making a mess of the desk that a small footprint computer was supposed to cleanup).
I just put a QVO 2TB in one of my circa 2012 Hackintoshs, it’s an awesome drive the machine is fast af and still does everything I need from macOS.

Windows 10 is an excellent OS and works awesome on even older Macs, my MB 2,1 runs 10 perfect while it was abandoned by OSX updates years ago.
 

haralds

macrumors 65816
Jan 3, 2014
1,039
271
Silicon Valley, CA
I don't know about Mojave specifically, but I've been using an iMac 5K with a 1 TB Fusion drive for the past three years -- and when I look at the state of the SSD portion of it (using the utility DriveDx, though there are others), I see some pretty worrying wear levels for its age. This older Fusion Drive is a 128 GB SSD paired with a 1 TB hard drive, by the way.

I have generally found the Fusion Drive to be quite a lot faster, most of the time, than a plain hard drive. Whatever apps and files you're most actively working on get moved over to the SSD, which makes it a lot faster to work with and save files once you're in the middle of a project -- but the way it works I believe puts a LOT of data through the SSD, from things I've read.

I'm currently looking to move to a newer iMac, and as much as it hurts my wallet, I'm going pure SSD this time -- mostly out of concerns for longevity (though the consistent extra speed will be welcome).
The wear pattern on Fusion drive SSDs should be pretty bad, since it forces the frequent changes in that system on to the SSD. The larger the total system the worse.
Given current SSD pricing I think it's no longer a good idea.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ignatius345

ignatius345

macrumors 68020
Aug 20, 2015
2,328
3,091
The wear pattern on Fusion drive SSDs should be pretty bad, since it forces the frequent changes in that system on to the SSD. The larger the total system the worse.
Given current SSD pricing I think it's no longer a good idea.
Unfortunately Apple's SSD pricing is still quite high : /
[doublepost=1563564594][/doublepost]
I feel that a 512 SSD internal would not be large enough. On the present iMac, besides the 600gb photos, there's over 300Gb now, not much elbow room for the future....(which is why the 2TB fusion in the original post)....I do not disagree with you..but with the printer, scanner, TM back up. USB cf card reader, etc, it will get pretty crowded on the desk.With spending so much ands trying to keep the cost down I just don't want to have any regrets.....If all the photos were on an external drive Would Time Machine be able to back them up? along with the main drive?
I'm in the same boat, looking at a 1TB internal SSD and cringing at the price hit, which is about $500 for that upgrade from 512GB to 1TB.

I will say, your Photos library is a very easy one to migrate over to an external. I moved all my media (Photos, iTunes Library) out to an external SSD and it's working just great.

I'm still pushing toward 600GB on my internal drive, though. For me the big sticking point is iCloud Drive, which has to be in one's home folder. I vastly prefer to not do the "optimize storage" setting, because I like to have all my data available and backed up locally. I don't trust iCloud (or any cloud service) that much.
 
Last edited: