Is the 768Gb drive really that stupid?

[RoastingPig]

whats the magnet, tape and guitar pick cost total like 40 bucks total? and hour of labor on the imac, whatever your time cost to you. 400bucks for a more reliable SSD a 500gb 840. your paying like 800$ more for 256gb more storage in my eyes plus you get to keep the 1tb if you add your own ssd

 

[Fenn]

...Even the $600 for the 840 pro is much cheaper then the $1300 Apple charge. Im sorry but there is no way to justify Apples SSD price if you have half an ounce of technical ability.

My 768 SSD was a $800 upgrade from the 3TB fusion with my student discount. The $1300 is the price to upgrade from the base 1TB model, and I'm guessing most people on the fence are already deciding on the $250 or $400 fusion options. Is it overpriced? Yes, absolutely considering they don't offer a 512 option with a comparable market price.

The dealbreaker isn't about the $900 upgrade from the 3tb fusion, which I would consider to be market value overpriced by $350. Does it suck that this is our only option, and Apple essentially forced me to spend an addition x amount of money for a size of HD I really didn't need? Yes, it hurts, but I found it the only option for what I needed.

For me it is simply the fact that I have yet to have a mac that didn't go into service at some point in it's first three years. Recently I have had a Mac pro that needed new mobo, my 2008 imac needed am 8800 GPU and a hard drive, my 2011 a new CPU, and my MBP needed a new display. Yes YMMV but I just don't think a $400 overpriced drive is worth giving up three years of service when no one has any idea about potential failure rates for these. If you plan on servicing your own machine yourself, then have at it, but for anyone considering swapping in a drive themselves is it worth the gamble in the long run that nothing else catastrophic will happen? For me it wasn't so I pulled the trigger on the 768, and I haven't regretted it a bit.

 

[TwoBytes]

Just a side question, how does apple have a 768SSD when the largest one available on the market is 480GB?

If they are fusing two drives together, doesn't that effect performance/corruption/recovery factors that fusion haters are hitting on at the minute about being unreliable for pro work?

 

[themomopan]

it's dead stupid going to this ssd size, no one has that much data that they need it to run at ssd speeds, or at least one in a 100,000 does. Going with that option is like buying a Vaseline jar and saying come on apple... well you know.

I own and work with a Red Scarlet-X. I edit the footage on it as well. Yes..I need the speed and space. if 15 minutes of footage equals up to 40 gigs, imagine what a full length feature would add up to. (Some up to 10-20 TB)

 

[cosmicjoke]

i have 512gb in my mac pro and use nearly every drop of it for operating systems, applications, and games... good thing it only cost me $450 i have an additional 8tb of storage for media and backups....

A large SSD is entirely worth it to me, $1300 worth it would kind of suck, considering 512gb crucial m4s are under $400 now, but if you want an imac with one ya gotta do what ya gotta do i guess.

 

[johnnyturbouk]

i just saw that that the lacie TB ssd (500GB) is $699 from apple isa shop
that is £435! Here, in the UK, the same drive retails for £599 ($950USD)

If i was fortunate enough to be living the other side of the pond, i really think a modest 512gb would be enough for my current needs! As R.o.g has demonstrated, it really seems quite straightforward to ripping those macs open

i am know undecided between the lacie 512 raid, vs an internal ssd, like the a samsung 840pro 512, or ocz vector 512gb.

 

[gnasher729]

so how exactly does it work under bootcamp, the storage that is?

(p.s. who'd have thought apple would have dropped the ball with their software development in bootcamp, after all their software development is so stellar these days...)

Here's what Apple software development is all about: Does it sell more Macs?

There was a point in Apple's history when Bootcamp was very important. To get people to switch from Windows to Macs, Apple had to be able to say "look, even if this Mac thing doesn't work out for you, you can always use Bootcamp and turn that Mac into a nice PC". And "even if there is a Windows app that you can't use, you can install Bootcamp and use it". This is getting less and less important nowadays. I don't think Bootcamp sells many Macs anymore. And I myself think that Parallels or similar software is much more practical, and Parallels will use a Fusion Drive automatically without any problems.

I think Apple will update Bootcamp to support Fusion. Give it some time. Apple released the new iMac system concurrently with MS's Windows 8--they're probably working with Win 7 & 8 to engineer drivers that'll work with both eventually. I'm sure the same with Parallels and other VM software companies that are just now getting their Fusion Drive equipped gear. It takes time to make it work and it is probably difficult as one OS will surely have to be given preference when it comes to what is allowed SSD access vs. what will be only allowed on the 'spinner'

It wouldn't be Bootcamp that has to support Fusion, it would have to be Windows. And once Windows supports Fusion drives, Dell, HP, and everyone else could sell Fusion drives and Apple wouldn't like that at all. What Apple _may_ be working on is removing the limitation that Bootcamp cannot be used on any drive over 2.2 TB - including the Fusion 3TB drive, but that limitation has nothing at all to do with Fusion.

Parallels and over VM software doesn't know about Fusion and doesn't need to know about Fusion. Parallels creates files on your hard drive and _pretends_ to Windows that these files are actually real hard drives. But because these files are just ordinary files, Fusion can and does optimise them just as it would optimise any other files.

 

[rw3]

Just a side question, how does apple have a 768SSD when the largest one available on the market is 480GB?

Apple's version of the SSD is a blade type that uses the Samsung controller, hence why it can go above 512GB (480GB on SandForce controllers). OWC does make a 960GB SATA2 SSD that uses two 480GB PCBs that are fused together in a RAID of sorts. That 960GB uses two SandForce controllers to get to the 960GB of storage in a single drive.

The Samsung 830 controller that is on the Apple SSDs (blade and traditional 2.5" SSD) can be used up to 1024GB from my own research and what I understand about its makeup.

 

[hfg]

The Apple 768GB SSD is a single blade device that was originally offered for the MacBook Pro earlier this year. It is unique due to its capacity at this time.

Apple has made it difficult to configure the new 27" iMac due to their poor choices of configurations. This is even more difficult if the user wants to run bootable Windows due to a Windows limitation of 2.2TB maximum drive size:

1TB HD --- slow, small capacity, slow Windows
3TB HD --- slow, large capacity, no Windows without extreme effort
1TB Fusion --- fast for most users, small capacity, slow Windows
3TB Fusion --- fast for most users, large capacity, no Windows BootCamp
768GB SSD --- fast, medium capacity, fast Windows BootCamp


How nice it would have been to have had these options:

Your new 27" iMac can be ordered with up to 2 storage drives. They are of different technology due to size constraints within the iMac. If you choose a SSD and a Hard Disk, you can elect to have it configured as a Fusion drive.

DRIVE 1:
- none
- 128GB SSD
- 256GB SSD
- 512GB SSD
- 768GB SSD

DRIVE 2:
- none
- 1TB Hard Disk
- 2TB Hard Disk
- 3TB Hard Disk
- 256GB SSD
- 512GB SSD

CONFIGURATION (requires SSD and HD):
- none
- Fusion


Then I would have been happy!


-howard

This is how they do it for the Mac Pro with 4 drive capability to constrain the number of permutations.

 

[Mac32]

Agreed. Even only offering an added 256gb or 512 gb SSD only option would have been so easy for Apple, but oh no...

 

[johnnyturbouk]

DRIVE 1:
- none
- 128GB SSD
- 256GB SSD
- 512GB SSD
- 768GB SSD

DRIVE 2:
- none
- 1TB Hard Disk
- 2TB Hard Disk
- 3TB Hard Disk
- 256GB SSD
- 512GB SSD

CONFIGURATION (requires SSD and HD):
- none
- Fusion

If they offered these, i would have ordered my iMac on release day!

it boils down to greed, simple!. Apple are giving us consumers very limited choices; to milk the proverbial cash cow, dry!

They could easily allowed us to have 128/256/512 blase ssds, and use the sata3 port for a traditional hdd, or second ssd, for those who require it!

PS has it been confirmed that apple are using a 768gb blase sad?

 

[Kirkle]

I've seen other prices listed here, but a Samsung 840 (512GB) currently costs $364.88 on Amazon.

OWC SSD replacement kit for 2012 27" iMac (not yet out) will probably cost about $60 when released.

Ordering an iMac with the standard 1TB drive will not cost anything (other than the price of the machine itself), so for someone willing to open their iMac and do a simple hard drive swap, upgrading a 2012 27" iMac to 512GB SSD will cost under $500.

256GB = slightly over $200
128GB = about $150

It could be done cheaper, but this is a good ballpark at the time of writing.

Replacing the hard drive on one of these iMac will not be particularly difficult, but will void your warranty (or so I am told), so I would make sure that everything else is working before replacing the drive yourself.

Even with the risk, $365 for 512GB is far more sensible than $1300 for 768GB.

 

[hfg]

If they offered these, i would have ordered my iMac on release day!

it boils down to greed, simple!. Apple are giving us consumers very limited choices; to milk the proverbial cash cow, dry!

They could easily allowed us to have 128/256/512 blase ssds, and use the sata3 port for a traditional hdd, or second ssd, for those who require it!

PS has it been confirmed that apple are using a 768gb blase sad?

No one has received and opened a SSD only iMac yet. But since they already have that blade SSD in their system (it is an option for the MacBook Pro), I am assuming that they are using the same one. Unfortunately, from the posts R.OG has done here, the 768GB SSD configuration of the iMac probably won't include the SATA cable for the hard disk drive bay, and it is a non-standard power plug on the motherboard. Hopefully that cable will be available at some time from a third party such as OWC.

I am unaware of a standard "disk size" SSD of 768GB capacity. I have seen one OCZ 2.5" 1TB SSD for sale at a whopping $2500 ... and they seem to be selling them. They are available at Amazon, Newegg, eBay, B&H, etc. and seem to come and go as far as availability ... so someone is buying them at that price.

http://www.amazon.com/OCZ-Technolog...e=UTF8&qid=1355680743&sr=8-1&keywords=1tb+ssd

Considering costs, a similar performance drive might be the Samsung 840 Pro which is $600 for 512GB. These other large and expensive SSDs make the Apple blade more realistically priced in todays market.

http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-Elect...id=1355680844&sr=1-3&keywords=samsung+840+pro



-howard

 

[hfg]

I've seen other prices listed here, but a Samsung 840 (512GB) currently costs $364.88 on Amazon.

OWC SSD replacement kit for 2012 27" iMac (not yet out) will probably cost about $60 when released.

Ordering an iMac with the standard 1TB drive will not cost anything (other than the price of the machine itself), so for someone willing to open their iMac and do a simple hard drive swap, upgrading a 2012 27" iMac to 512GB SSD will cost under $500.

256GB = slightly over $200
128GB = about $150

It could be done cheaper, but this is a good ballpark at the time of writing.

Replacing the hard drive on one of these iMac will not be particularly difficult, but will void your warranty (or so I am told), so I would make sure that everything else is working before replacing the drive yourself.

Even with the risk, $365 for 512GB is far more sensible than $1300 for 768GB.

That is not a fair comparison ... you are comparing prices for a high-performance, largest-capacity-available blade SSD against common capacity, lower performance, commodity sized SSD. Probably better to compare costs against the Samsung 840 Pro which may be more in line performance wise. Or the $2500 1TB OCZ drive which is also state-of-the-art capacity and performance.

And as has been pointed out, the $1300 upgrade is against the entry level iMac with 1TB only disk. Most users should consider the difference in cost against what they would probably otherwise consider (likely a Fusion drive).

 

[Kirkle]

That is not a fair comparison ...

I disagree. It isn't an exactly equitable comparison, but in function it is a practical comparison. The difference between the top-of-the-line SSD and a standard SSD is, in everyday usage, not that dramatic.

Of course, even the 840 Pro only cost $600 for 512GB... who knows, maybe by the time most people start actually getting these 27" models, Samsung will have a 768GB Pro available.

There is always a premium on having the latest tech, but $1300 for 768GB is going to seem massively overpriced in 2014 (when the one-year Applecare will be over and people can consider dropping in their own 768GB drive). Personally, I'm planning to install a small SSD for the time being and then upgrade it to something more substantial when the prices come down.

 

[DerekS]

I really debated on getting the 768 SSD, and in some ways I wish I did.

It is less likely to fail than a spinny disk, meaning your machine is less likely to require cracking it open.

The price was just...painful though. I went 1TB Fusion.

 

[jkautosports]

That exact SSD blade (made by Samsung) can be purchased for around $900. You could always have an authorized service center install it for you... I know some places charge as low as $69 to replace an iMac hard drive (previous model). Going this route preserves the warranty.

You could always wait til 768gb is old news... that will surely make prices drop. If you need it NOW, then you basically have to decide if you'd rather buy it from Apple for $1300 and be done with it, or save about $300 and go the other route...

 

[Michaelgtrusa]

The Apple 768GB SSD is a single blade device that was originally offered for the MacBook Pro earlier this year. It is unique due to its capacity at this time.

Apple has made it difficult to configure the new 27" iMac due to their poor choices of configurations. This is even more difficult if the user wants to run bootable Windows due to a Windows limitation of 2.2TB maximum drive size:

1TB HD --- slow, small capacity, slow Windows
3TB HD --- slow, large capacity, no Windows without extreme effort
1TB Fusion --- fast for most users, small capacity, slow Windows
3TB Fusion --- fast for most users, large capacity, no Windows BootCamp
768GB SSD --- fast, medium capacity, fast Windows BootCamp


How nice it would have been to have had these options:

Your new 27" iMac can be ordered with up to 2 storage drives. They are of different technology due to size constraints within the iMac. If you choose a SSD and a Hard Disk, you can elect to have it configured as a Fusion drive.

DRIVE 1:
- none
- 128GB SSD
- 256GB SSD
- 512GB SSD
- 768GB SSD

DRIVE 2:
- none
- 1TB Hard Disk
- 2TB Hard Disk
- 3TB Hard Disk
- 256GB SSD
- 512GB SSD

CONFIGURATION (requires SSD and HD):
- none
- Fusion


Then I would have been happy!


-howard

This is how they do it for the Mac Pro with 4 drive capability to constrain the number of permutations.

Some of these configs could happen in the summer update.

 

[Yebubbleman]

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!

It's not so much that it's stupid as much as it really is ball shrinkingly expensive, and likely not worth it unless the $1300 admission price is affordable to you (in which case, congratulations, what's your secret to financial success?). Very few things demand SSD performance in Windows, let alone on an iMac. You're probably better off buying a separate Windows machine with an SSD than you are payng $1300 just for the privilage of being able to run both Windows and OS X on your new iMac and have both take advantage of your SSD's speed. If you're fine with SSD-like performance in OS X, while 7200RPM hard drive like performance in Windows, I think there's no reason to not just do a Fusion Drive. But 768GB of SSD is so expensive that you really need to be rich or have a specific need for it in order to justify it.

 

[akdj]

The Samsung 830 performs similar, is $400 and its the most reliable drive available. Even the $600 for the 840 pro is much cheaper then the $1300 Apple charge. Im sorry but there is no way to justify Apples SSD price if you have half an ounce of technical ability. You would be surprised just how many people pull their iMacs apart. Also ifixit actually give it a 3/10 for reliability, not 2

For people that NEED over 512GB of internal SSD storage then i guess there is no choice but to pay the Apple tax and get the 768GB option ( i could mention OWC's blade SSD options but i don't trust them) Im guessing the price of the higher capacity SSD's will come down dramatically in the future, i bet ill have a 1TB SSD for much less then $1300 in the next 2 years. Till then a 512GB SSD plus the 128GB Blade from my fusion upgrade for a total of 640 GB will get me by.

Good for you! Obviously this option isn't aimed at you, nor needed by you. We get it! You're able to perform iMac surgery. Most can't. Most won't. Not sure how many folks you think are opening their iMacs, but it sure isn't many. Like I said, less than 1% would be my guess, especially considering these new iMacs mandate screen removal before doing anything other that a RAM upgrade.

Understandable that you don't need it. Some of us can definitely make use of it though. Many photographers I work with charge $4500-5500 per wedding. A $1000 upgrade that makes this much of a performance leap is completely justified an easily forgotten (price wise) when you're making cash with your rig

If it's a home computer for checking Facebook and email...agreed, you're not the target market for this upgrade.

I disagree. It isn't an exactly equitable comparison, but in function it is a practical comparison. The difference between the top-of-the-line SSD and a standard SSD is, in everyday usage, not that dramatic.

Of course, even the 840 Pro only cost $600 for 512GB... who knows, maybe by the time most people start actually getting these 27" models, Samsung will have a 768GB Pro available.

There is always a premium on having the latest tech, but $1300 for 768GB is going to seem massively overpriced in 2014 (when the one-year Applecare will be over and people can consider dropping in their own 768GB drive). Personally, I'm planning to install a small SSD for the time being and then upgrade it to something more substantial when the prices come down.

Such is the world of technology. Prices ALWAYS decrease. Performance always increases. One can always wait, OR one can choose to buy now and enjoy the perks of owning the latest, fastest, most efficient technology for whatever their needs are.

J

 

[Yougotcarved]

unless the $1300 admission price is affordable to you (in which case, congratulations, what's your secret to financial success?)

Being an investment banker. i.e. trading my soul and life for $$$

 

[Yebubbleman]

Being an investment banker. i.e. trading my soul and life for $$$

Then, in that case, go for it.

 

[Yougotcarved]

Then, in that case, go for it.

Ha well I actually quit but have savings..just deciding whether or not its worth it...anyway long story that you didnt ask so ill shutup!

 

[barefeats]

Here's a riddle: What costs less than the $1300 768G factory SSD and goes faster?

Answer: The 512G Little Big Disk Thunderbolt (two 256G SSDs in RAID 0) costs $699 and measures 700+MB/s READ and 500+MB/s WRITE. Those transfer speeds are for the newest, faster model.
http://www.lacie.com/us/products/product.htm?id=10549

The 1TB model (two 512G SSDs in RAID 0) runs $999 -- cheaper, faster, and more capacity than the factory 768G SSD.

You could order your iMac with the 3TB 'normal' HDD from the factory and use it for a Time Machine volume and make the LBD your boot drive.

Just saying...

 

[vannibombonato]

Here's a riddle: What costs less than the $1300 768G factory SSD and goes faster?

Answer: The 512G Little Big Disk Thunderbolt (two 256G SSDs in RAID 0) costs $699 and measures 700+MB/s READ and 500+MB/s WRITE. Those transfer speeds are for the newest, faster model.
http://www.lacie.com/us/products/product.htm?id=10549

The 1TB model (two 512G SSDs in RAID 0) runs $999 -- cheaper, faster, and more capacity than the factory 768G SSD.

You could order your iMac with the 3TB 'normal' HDD from the factory and use it for a Time Machine volume and make the LBD your boot drive.

Just saying...

But then you'd have to live with the dramatic trouble of having something attached to your iMac besides the power cord...
(just teasing )