So first off, no denying it, its ball shrinkingly expensive and I WISH Apple offered a 256/512Gb option. But I'm seeing alot of chatter that anyone getting the 768Gb is "being stupid". I'm about to buy an iMac and on the fence over what storage option to get but really it doesn't seem as stupid as everyone is making out...if I'm wrong please show me the way! A) It is the only way to use Windows with SSD speed properly on the Mac. I've seen experiments with WinClone that work but honestly results seem varied and inonsistent and I don't really like messing around too much now that I'm off Windows. Some people have applications (or would like to futureproof future applications) that are Windows only and going back to HDD would suck for those apps. B) Whilst expensive, it doesn't seem RIDICULOUS compared to competitors. e.g. the LaCie 512Gb SSD costs £600, implying a cost of £900 for 768Gb. So the Apple one is priced £140 more than this, which is a nice chunk but not a massive premium to pay for having it internal and BootCamp-able C) Fusion drive looks great for certain users, but I feel like it's nowhere near the same as pure SSD levels. Once you go above the 128Gb SSD its a guessing game as to what will open fast what will open slow and thats very different from knowing everything you open will be blazing SSD speed. Also it doesn't seem to differentiate by datatype. If I watch a movie a few times Fusion will put that on the SSD where it will not benefit from the SSD speed, wasting space. Not saying that Fusion drive is bad, but I'm saying there is definitely a difference between Fusion and full SSD. I'm also not saying the all SSD isn't massively expensive for what it is. I'm just saying in the absence of any other lower capacity option, I don't really think going all SSD is as "stupid" as many on these boards suggest, there are definitely some viable reasons to go with it? Please fire away and correct me if I'm wrong and save me a bunch of cash!