Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'iMac' started by johnfkitchen, Jun 10, 2011.
Thanks a lot (sarcastically) Before now I was very content to have the normal hard drive. I was going to get the hard drive because I didnt think it would only make a little difference. Now I'm back on the fence deciding if I want the SSD. But 500 probably will be the factor the keeps me from getting it.
I'm in the same boat with my 27" iMac I read this earlier this afternoon. I am contemplating the 256GB SSD + 1TB HD vs 1TB HD and use the $600.00 toward 16GB memory via OWC and the Maccessity LowKey Stand then put the balance toward the new iPhone or an iPad 2
SSD certainly is nice. Price is steep. Main consideration is ,will you see the difference in what you personally use it for? Another consideration is which brand SSD Apple is putting in the 27" models.
I couldn't resist posting this link because this configuration is pretty much what I have ordered, except I upgraded the 1TB drive to 2TB for even more speed.
And I dont really care what brand of SSD Apple uses. Any SSD knocks the socks off HDD speed. Let's say that SSD is ~10x faster than HDD. If another brand of SSD is say 1.2x faster again, the difference doesn't matter.
Think of this analogy. Let's say your commute takes you an hour in your "HDD car" and then you switch to the 10x faster "SSD method of commuting". Now the commute takes you 6 minutes. If someone were to offer you the ability to reduce it by another 2 minutes to 4 minutes, would you even care?
Maybe for bragging rights, but not because it is transformative. Transformation happened in the first 10x improvement. Now it's time to look for another serious problem to transform!
It doesn't matter what you use the machine for, if you use it at all then once you go SSD you will NEVER go back. The overall zip added to the machine is astonishing.
You notice SSD in all daily common tasks.
Other stuff like having 8gb ram or 16gb, a 1gb or 2gb video card probably never check any difference for most users.
SSD is expensive but worth it for me.
I totally agree. My iMac is the same as tested by MacWord. Looking good.
Love my iMac the way it is don't need ssd its fast enough for my liking. Its helps a lot on a lower spec machine like my MBA. Not even going to waste my money
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Maybe as I get older/old I can see the futility of chasing the next best and fastest syndrome. It reminds me very much of who's got the fastest car, manufacturers the world over know that if they dangle the carrot of "mine's faster than his" that it will sell more product. My C2D iMac is more than fast enough for my needs so I will leave the testosterone challenge to you younger ones - besides it's much cheaper once you can see the futility of the race.
To be fair, is this a surprise?
Your title may as well be "Latest iMac fitted with the latest technology is fastest iMac yet".
Seems like some people and sites just have nothing to report on nowadays.
Except that's not the point, it's the fastest mac, of ANY model, they've ever tested. That includes the current top of the line $4000+ Mac Pro model. The only caveat is they haven't tested that high end Mac Pro with an SSD installed. The point is, the current generation iMac hardware is now capable of performing in the same territory as Mac Pro workstations, which given the history of the iMac/Power Mac/Mac Pro divide is pretty notable.
Once you delve into their numbers it does show that the Mac Pro has the edge in things that you might use a Mac Pro (high end CPU intensive tasks), but the gap is narrow enough to make the possibility of using an iMac as a high end workstation (I've started offering my users the option of iMac's now, instead of just defaulting to Mac Pros, as I did in the past. About 3/4 take the iMac now.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; nl-nl) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)
Funny, those "i am happy with my config without ssd".. Whats the need to share this? ;p
SSD powered iMac in a few days on my desk. Cant wait
It is probably because I'm older that I understand the value of experiencing excellent performance in a computer system. I'm retired now, but in my 45 years of working in the computer industry, I learned a lot about why performance is important to the users of computers, and how to get high performance.
But that's not the point of this thread. The point is that the iMac has risen to become a credible alternative to the Mac Pro, and can clearly fulfil the role of high power workstation and multi-user server.
"The point is that the iMac has risen to become a credible alternative to the Mac Pro"
...not in the quality of its components.
this is called a discussion board for a reason ya know
True, and iMac lacks some of the robust redundancies of the Mac Pro. Good point.
Holy Crud, $2,700 nowadays for a computer?
I know, it's a nice monitor, too, but still...
Makes me glad I hackintoshed with an SSD and saved some dough...
Made it 6 months ago (pre sandy bridge) but still very fast with an older i7. When you build it yourself, you don't overbuy on your SSD size (I have a partitioned 120 GB one, with Win7 and SL on 60GB partitions which are both less than half full).
SSDs ARE fantastic - it will be nice when the price is a bit less and we can get em in everything without breaking the bank.
"Chasing the next best and fastest" might be fair for most people when discussing minor CPU clock differences or 12GB to 16GB memory, but SSDs have a noticeable, significant effect on day to day things. They are expensive, but they make a big difference. You may consider the difference to not be worth the cost, but it has nothing to do with bragging rights or testosterone.
Back in '98, I paid over $5,000 for a Gateway computer with dizzying specifications.*
128 megs of RAM
14 gigs of hard drive
Can you believe it! Such power!!
It's still running. As a backup server with 384 megs of RAM and about a terabyte of disk. But it's about to be turned off when my iMac is up and running.
Oh, and I guess I could have saved money by stealing the operating system, but I didn't. It came with W 95 and the rights to a 98 upgrade.
Times have changed....
To be honest, I'm still cranky that there wasn't a 512GB SSD option, considering at least the 21.5" models shipped with the same Toshiba HG3s as the 2011 MacBook Pros (we'll have confirmation of the 27" as of Tuesday).
I totally would've paid the additional premium for it. Oh well.
Just think, next year is Ivy Bridge. Get ready for 8-core Ivy Bridge iMacs.
Computers are far, far cheaper!!
And to reduce costs further, some are prepared to steal from Apple and even boast about it publicly.
well according to this article apple stole from a student if true it is a huge theft!
Lets see apple has billions and billions of dollars this kid and his family have ? thousands and thousands?
I don't get why you are quick to defend the most powerful richest computer company in the world. They have a great product but unless you work for them stop before you defend their billions.
Well, I did pay for the OS disk. I know it violates the EULA. I'm typing this on a 27" iMac, my 6th mac, never mind 3 iphones, innumerable ipods, and an iPad. So I feel as if that Apple has done alright by me. Never mind the dozens I encouraged to buy macs. Didn't want to put my self $2700 in the hole to run a machine that I would primarily run Win7 on for work, so I built it.
I'm sorry it makes you mad, but I don't feel one bit guilty...