New base 21.5" iMac good for wife?

[casperes1996]

It really does depend on what batteries you use though. I've had to change batteries after a week and a half (new batteries) on the trackpad, and had them last almost two months with a different set. (never turned off, daily usage of a lot - gets to sleep only when I'm at school, with my girlfriend/friends or out of the house for something else. Otherwise, I'm nearly constantly using it for something, be it movie making, games, music, etc.)

 

[fathergll]

My opinion is that SSDs have spoiled the population. Mechanical drives are plenty, especially for everyday tasks and general OS navigation. It won't feel slow, just slower than a SSD.

I would have an issue spending over $1000 for a desktop computer in 2015 that is pure HD. My 3 year old MacBook Air could run circles around it in many tasks. It’s really old tech and these computers are not exactly bargains for what you are getting.

 

[Dark Void]

I would have an issue spending over $1000 for a desktop computer in 2015 that is pure HD. My 3 year old MacBook Air could run circles around it in many tasks. It’s really old tech and these computers are not exactly bargains for what you are getting.

The fact that they are still baseline in some Apple products is besides the point though.

 

[fathergll]

The fact that they are still baseline in some Apple products is besides the point though.

But thats the point, they are still floating around in 2 out of 3 baseline desktop Apple products. If they weren't an option nobody would bring them up.

I currently have a pure HD in my 2012 I7 Mac Mini. It's slow compared to my fusion Retina iMac or Macbook Air. No questions about it. I would not recommend someone to purchase one in 2015.

 

[Dark Void]

But thats the point, they are still floating around in 2 out of 3 baseline desktop Apple products. If they weren't an option nobody would bring them up.

I currently have a pure HD in my 2012 I7 Mac Mini. It's slow compared to my fusion Retina iMac or Macbook Air. No questions about it. I would not recommend someone to purchase one in 2015.

The case here though is keep it baseline or spend more for solid-state. The discussion of speed only disregards storage as well. I understand that SSDs provide faster read/write speeds than mechanical HDDs in both testing and the real world. I've used many SSDs, many HDDs, and my opinion is that HDDs do not provide a slow experience, just a slower experience than SSDs.

It's all subjective in any case. I use a HDD in my Mac Mini. It starts up in ~30 seconds and apps load quickly on a cold startup, and instantaneously after being cached with memory. I don't do anything where a SSD would truly shine, although I am aware that I would notice the difference in everyday tasks. The point is that I don't perceive my current experience as "slow."

I don't mind shaving 20 or more seconds off of my startup time or opening up Chrome or iTunes, a half or full second faster. It really doesn't matter to me. Navigating Finder is smooth, Photoshop works just fine. I'm not disappointed.

The fact that mechanical drives are still offered in these premium desktops is sad, don't get me wrong - but that doesn't change the fact that it is what it is. Within the decision of spending more money (and sacrificing storage space) - a SSD is not the most sensible option for every single user at this point in time.

The Mini that I use is from 2012 - but let's assume I were buying a 2014 model today. If I had known this would be my experience as far as speed and fluidity and I decided to pay $200+ dollars for a SSD and lost all of that internal storage space and started to having to look to other solutions, I'd want my money back for something that I was told "is faster." It's a subjective matter due to cost effectiveness in comparison to your needs/desires even though the difference is more than noticeable both statistically and in practice.

 

[casperes1996]

The Mini that I use is from 2012 - but let's assume I were buying a 2014 model today. If I had known this would be my experience as far as speed and fluidity and I decided to pay $200+ dollars for a SSD and lost all of that internal storage space and started to having to look to other solutions, I'd want my money back for something that I was told "is faster." It's a subjective matter due to cost effectiveness in comparison to your needs/desires even though the difference is more than noticeable both statistically and in practice.

I strongly agree with you. That said, whilst it's true that not everyone should have an SSD over an HDD (as long as SSDs are more expensive and provide less storage/long term idle storage, which they probably will as long as they're made).I believe most (like 70%+) people would benefit more from a small SSD than a large HDD, especially with the external storage options available. Or of course the best of both world. Fusion

 

[fathergll]

The case here though is keep it baseline or spend more for solid-state. The discussion of speed only disregards storage as well. I understand that SSDs provide faster read/write speeds than mechanical HDDs in both testing and the real world. I've used many SSDs, many HDDs, and my opinion is that HDDs do not provide a slow experience, just a slower experience than SSDs.

It’s just arguing semantics. Everyone is in agreement there is a noticeable day to day difference, it’s not just benchmarks. Whether or not you want to classify it as “slow” is an intangible rating.

It's all subjective in any case. I use a HDD in my Mac Mini. It starts up in ~30 seconds and apps load quickly on a cold startup, and instantaneously after being cached with memory. I don't do anything where a SSD would truly shine, although I am aware that I would notice the difference in everyday tasks. The point is that I don't perceive my current experience as "slow."

I don't mind shaving 20 or more seconds off of my startup time or opening up Chrome or iTunes, a half or full second faster. It really doesn't matter to me. Navigating Finder is smooth, Photoshop works just fine. I'm not disappointed.

The reason why people jump on the ‘SSD or Fusion’ bandwagon is because it’s one of the few upgrades that pretty much universally someone can tell in a blindfolded test. People argue to the cows come home about video card upgrades, hyper threading in cpus, RAM upgrades…you name it. SSD/Fusion upgrade everyone can see the difference in day to day tasks. Whether or not you care about shaving off time is entirely up to you.

The fact that mechanical drives are still offered in these premium desktops is sad, don't get me wrong - but that doesn't change the fact that it is what it is. Within the decision of spending more money (and sacrificing storage space) - a SSD is not the most sensible option for every single user at this point in time.



The Mini that I use is from 2012 - but let's assume I were buying a 2014 model today. If I had known this would be my experience as far as speed and fluidity and I decided to pay $200+ dollars for a SSD and lost all of that internal storage space and started to having to look to other solutions, I'd want my money back for something that I was told "is faster." It's a subjective matter due to cost effectiveness in comparison to your needs/desires even though the difference is more than noticeable both statistically and in practice.

Why not a Fusion drive?

 

[Dark Void]

Why not a Fusion drive?

It's the same argument that I made, only you don't lose the storage. It's the same cost to upgrade when looking at anything above a traditional mechanical drive. Therefore, if, like I said, I were buying today and this was to be my experience regarding speed (what I am experiencing now on a 2012 Mini with a 5400 RPM HDD), it is plenty for me and I'd rather save $200+. I don't think the money is worth it for what I do.

This is just a matter of it being the circumstance. They are still standard in most Apple desktop offerings and therefore you need to make an inclined decision based on what you need or want. Spending the extra BTO money on a Fusion Drive or SSD doesn't make it the better decision just because it's a "faster" experience. I've had mechanical drives hold up in speed and reliability for many years at a time in different desktops and notebooks that I have owned and used daily.

 

[jerwin]

Apple knows how broadly SSDs have been taken up by its customers. Once sufficient numbers of users have SSDs, it can introduce performance and usability enhancements that would otherwise not make sense. You want to be on the side of "isn't this new feature great", rather than "it's too slow for me to use".

 

[fathergll]

Spending the extra BTO money on a Fusion Drive or SSD doesn't make it the better decision just because it's a "faster" experience. I've had mechanical drives hold up in speed and reliability for many years at a time in different desktops and notebooks that I have owned and used daily.

"I am aware that fusion drives and SSDs provide much better of an experience"
-Dark Void page 1


If you don't think having a much better experience is not worth $200 then honestly I don't know what you would considered worth upgrading. The rest of us at Macforums are going to recommend people go with some sort of SSD in the year 2015 because as you stated yourself...."fusion drives and SSDs provide much better of an experience".

 

[Samuelsan2001]

Thanks - any ideas about manually powering down the keyboard and trackpad, or do they automatically go into sleep mode?

Maybe look at a solution like this.....

http://www.amazon.com/Mobee-Technol...rds=apple+keyboard+and+trackpad+charging+dock

 

[Lankyman]

My opinion is that SSDs have spoiled the population. Mechanical drives are plenty, especially for everyday tasks and general OS navigation. It won't feel slow, just slower than a SSD.

Do you mean similar to the way a cycle feels slow in comparison to a top of the range BMW?

I suspect you are doing a much better job at convincing yourself than anyone else. Have you ever heard the phrase 'swimming against the tide'?

 

[Abazigal]

It seems that the only real reason for using SSDs on a Mac is the faster load and transfer times.

On a laptop, it makes a far more compelling case. Lower power usage, no moving parts (less prone to damage and data loss), smaller space, quieter, all of which are invaluable for a space-constrained device, and the consumer would be willing to accept all these in exchange for less storage space (or the same storage space at the same price).

But for a Mac desktop, these benefits are less meaningful. What do I care about power usage when my Mac is plugged in 24/7? My iMac is going to remain stationary on my desk all the time, so no moving parts isn't as useful. Lesser space means squat when my iMac is still going to be the same size overall.

I suspect it's this reason that Apple still sells Macs with HDDs. They still represent a cheap source of large storage which still suffices for many an average consumer, who likely aren't very speed-sensitive to begin with.

 

[Lankyman]

It seems that the only real reason for using SSDs on a Mac is the faster load and transfer times.

On a laptop, it makes a far more compelling case. Lower power usage, no moving parts (less prone to damage and data loss), smaller space, quieter, all of which are invaluable for a space-constrained device, and the consumer would be willing to accept all these in exchange for less storage space (or the same storage space at the same price).

But for a Mac desktop, these benefits are less meaningful. What do I care about power usage when my Mac is plugged in 24/7? My iMac is going to remain stationary on my desk all the time, so no moving parts isn't as useful. Lesser space means squat when my iMac is still going to be the same size overall.

I suspect it's this reason that Apple still sells Macs with HDDs. They still represent a cheap source of large storage which still suffices for many an average consumer, who likely aren't very speed-sensitive to begin with.

I upgraded by mid-2011 21.5 inch iMac a few weeks back - adding an additional drive so I now have all my data on the original drive with the OS and apps on the SSD.

The machine now feels like it has had a dose of rocket power. It was never this fast when it was new. I suggest you upgraded then post on the subject again.

 

[Abazigal]

I upgraded by mid-2011 21.5 inch iMac a few weeks back - adding an additional drive so I now have all my data on the original drive with the OS and apps on the SSD.

The machine now feels like it has had a dose of rocket power. It was never this fast when it was new. I suggest you upgraded then post on the subject again.

I am in fact using a 128 gb ssd on my iMac that was installed after purchasing it, in addition to its existing 1 tb drive.

Do I appreciate the speed boost? Sure. But I don't think we are representative of the general populace.

 

[jerwin]

It seems that the only real reason for using SSDs on a Mac is the faster load and transfer times.

That may have been true in 2008, but right now, SSDs are much lower latency devices than hard drives.

 

[Dark Void]

"I am aware that fusion drives and SSDs provide much better of an experience"
-Dark Void page 1


If you don't think having a much better experience is not worth $200 then honestly I don't know what you would considered worth upgrading. The rest of us at Macforums are going to recommend people go with some sort of SSD in the year 2015 because as you stated yourself...."fusion drives and SSDs provide much better of an experience".

I'm not exactly sure what you are defending. You are quite thick to avoid what I am saying though. You didn't have to go hunting for evidence to discredit what I am saying, as I repeated what you are now quoting in speaking with you directly. I'll try to sum it up in a few sound sentences for you.

Fusion Drives and SSDs are faster than traditional mechanical drives. However, I am currently satisfied with the fluidity of my system that is using a traditional mechanical drive. If I were purchasing a Mac desktop today with my usage, the BTO upgrade costs of a SSD (which also sacrifices storage) or Fusion Drive would not be worth the cost to me for the improved read/write speeds that they provide even though they are noticeable.

How is this so hard to understand? I don't do anything intensive. I don't care for spending $200+ so my computer starts up x number of seconds faster or Chrome opens up in a half bounce/instantaneously instead of one. If I were doing more intensive work that required or would benefit from much higher read/write speeds then it would be worth the cost.

You may think "well what's $200 in regards to a $1200+ desktop" but when you look at the Mini, $200 is a large percentage of its entire cost.

 

[jerwin]

Hasn't this wandered off from the original topic?

 

[MartinAppleGuy]

I'm not exactly sure what you are defending. You are quite thick to avoid what I am saying though. You didn't have to go hunting for evidence to discredit what I am saying, as I repeated what you are now quoting in speaking with you directly. I'll try to sum it up in a few sound sentences for you.

Fusion Drives and SSDs are faster than traditional mechanical drives. However, I am currently satisfied with the fluidity of my system that is using a traditional mechanical drive. If I were purchasing a Mac desktop today with my usage, the BTO upgrade costs of a SSD (which also sacrifices storage) or Fusion Drive would not be worth the cost to me for the improved read/write speeds that they provide even though they are noticeable.

How is this so hard to understand? I don't do anything intensive. I don't care for spending $200+ so my computer starts up x number of seconds faster or Chrome opens up in a half bounce/instantaneously instead of one. If I were doing more intensive work that required or would benefit from much higher read/write speeds then it would be worth the cost.

You may think "well what's $200 in regards to a $1200+ desktop" but when you look at the Mini, $200 is a large percentage of its entire cost.

You are completely right and I agree, people on these forums really over promote SSDs and FDs. Macs can be restarted once in a blue moon, so saving 15-20 seconds will never help me get that money back. App caching allows apps to open almost as fast as an SSD from a HDD as long as they have been opened once before, so again, never going to get the money back. Time is money, but money is also time. I honestly struggle to see myself ever getting so much more work done that I make 800 quid in the lifetime of the iMac more than the HDD set up (800 quid for the price to go from a 1TB HDD to 1TB SSD).

 

[Dark Void]

You are completely right and I agree, people on these forums really over promote SSDs and FDs. Macs can be restarted once in a blue moon, so saving 15-20 seconds will never help me get that money back. App caching allows apps to open almost as fast as an SSD from a HDD as long as they have been opened once before, so again, never going to get the money back. Time is money, but money is also time. I honestly struggle to see myself ever getting so much more work done that I make 800 quid in the lifetime of the iMac more than the HDD set up (800 quid for the price to go from a 1TB HDD to 1TB SSD).

Precisely, I like to take advantage of all of the components. I don't find opening apps to be "slow" even on a cold start up, and once they are cached in the memory it is just as instantaneous as solid-state. It's not a substitute for read/write speeds, but depending on what you do on the computer and how much storage that you need, I can't fathom why people cannot understand why SSDs are not for everyone at this point in time when they aren't standard. Fusion is a great middle of the line, but it is equally expensive when talking about these Apple BTO configurations (while keeping storage intact however) and if you aren't dissatisfied with the speeds of a mechanical drive and you can't really utilize the speeds of fusion/SSDs, it may not be a smart investment.

I'm not sure why this is so difficult to grasp. I guess that I come from a time where computers were just becoming mainstream in the home and I have used a wide variety of technology. If it isn't single core on a dial-up connection, I really don't find it to be "slow" - it's all subjective or opinionated anyway. I think it is worth bringing up though to consider instead of blindly paying more for something because you were vaguely told on an internet forum that it "is faster" or HDDs "are slow." I probably go into way too much detail than people would like to read but I'm just trying to be helpful.

It makes me think about what people gave as responses before SSDs existed or started becoming mainstream options. Just about every time you see something related to a computer with a HDD on these forums nowadays explaining a slow or non-fluid experience a lot of users immediately reply "the problem is the HDD, get a SSD." I realize that time goes on and operating systems and software becomes more demanding, but before SSDs, were HDDs the problem? Or is it just because something faster exists now? Food for thought.

 

[jerwin]

" I realize that time goes on and operating systems and software becomes more demanding, but before SSDs, were HDDs the problem?

A system needs a bit of IO per second per instruction per second: about 10 instructions per second implies a need for 1 byte of IO per second. --Gene Amdahl

Go back far enough, and CPU's were slow enough, and memory scarce enough that a deficit in IO wasn't as blatant.

 

[Dark Void]

Go back far enough, and CPU's were slow enough, and memory scarce enough that a deficit in IO wasn't as blatant.

Understandable, and the differences that solid state provides are certainly apparent but it is not necessary for everyone of course.

If you are tunnel visioned towards Apple (notebooks anyway), you are getting there, but also have to realize that it is an expensive, premium product. When you look at all of the other computers offered out there, you realize that it's not blatant enough to where everyone has to have one.

 

[jerwin]

Here's a bit of Mac World UK review of the cut price retina imac.

The new entry-level version is equipped with just a simple 1 TB disk, which does make this model feel slower in general use. Start-up time is lengthened , even if this yardstick from the Windows PC world is almost insignificant here since Macs excel at sleep mode; and don’t demand restarting every Tuesday to apply weekly security patches from Microsoft. But there is some inevitable lag in the system interface, noticeable when applications take a few more bounces in the Dock before they launch.

The Seagate hard disk inside this new iMac is quite fast though as disk technology can allow. With the drive nearly empty, it could reach sequential speeds up to around 210 MB/s (with reads and writes effectively the same speed); the drag really starts to show when multiple demands are made upon the disk drive, and in small-file random read/write speeds. Averaged with data from 4 kB to 1024 kB, we saw speeds of around just 30 MB/s.

Compare this to the PCIe-attached flash drives in other Macs, which would average around 300 MB/s in the same latter test – a ten-fold difference in speed, which would be even marked when the queue-depth (number of paralleled storage I/O operations) is increased.

That’s not to say the disk-only iMac is too retarded to use comfortably. However if you’re used to using a MacBook Air, for instance, you may find a disk-based iMac even with its 3.3 GHz quad-core processor may feel subjectively a little slower in daily use.
​

http://www.macworld.co.uk/review/mac-desktops/retina-33ghz-imac-27in-preview-3612911/

Note that StartUp Time is a laughable measurement. And the criterion they use is "subjectively a little slower".

Macs are expensive. Macs aren't upgradeable. A subjectively slow but expensive mac is irksome. Specifying a SSD at the beginning is the most cost effective way to get a subjectively fast mac.

OK. Maybe your internet connection is the real bottleneck. But you can upgrade your internet connection at a later time.

 

[Lankyman]

You are completely right and I agree, people on these forums really over promote SSDs and FDs. Macs can be restarted once in a blue moon, so saving 15-20 seconds will never help me get that money back. App caching allows apps to open almost as fast as an SSD from a HDD as long as they have been opened once before, so again, never going to get the money back. Time is money, but money is also time. I honestly struggle to see myself ever getting so much more work done that I make 800 quid in the lifetime of the iMac more than the HDD set up (800 quid for the price to go from a 1TB HDD to 1TB SSD).

I would agree if you were paying Apple tax. However, these are jobs you can do yourself for a fraction of the price.

There's also the issue of longevity. It's recognised that fitting an SSD is the one upgrade that will really boost a computers performance and as a by product can add 5+ years to it's lifespan.

That has to be money well spent.

 

[MartinAppleGuy]

I would agree if you were paying Apple tax. However, these are jobs you can do yourself for a fraction of the price.

There's also the issue of longevity. It's recognised that fitting an SSD is the one upgrade that will really boost a computers performance and as a by product can add 5+ years to it's lifespan.

That has to be money well spent.

Sorry, busy for a long reply. But 5+ years applied to the longativity is a made up figure by yourself and is completely untrue. It can componsate for other aspects of a computer such as lower RAM for when it pages out, but putting any figure on how it adds to the machine is impossible and completely indeterminable.