If the system and applications are in the ssd but data is stored in a hdd, how do you take advantage of the ssds speed if in the end you are working at hdd speeds?.And Dvd or bluray both are useless for video editing.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
What to expect from iMac 2012 - Discussion
- Thread starter Schonert
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If the system and applications are in the ssd but data is stored in a hdd, how do you take advantage of the ssds speed if in the end you are working at hdd speeds?.And Dvd or bluray both are useless for video editing.
retina iMac MIGHT BE REALLY COMING!
i found something to think about.. remember this post ?
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/technology/2012/05/thinner-apple-macbook-pro-with-retina-display-coming/
if you noticed every single rumor that was stated there about the macbook pro 15 inch was dead on.. and then said that the imacs would get a retina display as well.. where i dont think that the imac will get a retina display next upgrade this is something to think about ABC news was right about the release they might be just right again. I am pretty confident will see a july release wether itd be with retina or not
i found something to think about.. remember this post ?
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/technology/2012/05/thinner-apple-macbook-pro-with-retina-display-coming/
if you noticed every single rumor that was stated there about the macbook pro 15 inch was dead on.. and then said that the imacs would get a retina display as well.. where i dont think that the imac will get a retina display next upgrade this is something to think about ABC news was right about the release they might be just right again. I am pretty confident will see a july release wether itd be with retina or not
No, I don't own it yet. Still doing lots of research. If you spot any good info, please forward. I have seen a few negative reviews (mostly personal ones), as well, but generally more positive ones. Must of the negative reviews that I've spotted are regarding DOA drives in the unit, which were replaced on warranty, of course. It is odd to have any DOA drives, as you would think they would test them. Still looking for info. There is not much around about it.
The "official magazine" reviews have all been positive. The only negative point any of them have had is with the price. However, I'd pay $2,000 for a 12TB high end unit long before I'd pay $600 for a 2TB Lacie with only 1 or 2 slow WD green drives in it. The whole point is the RAID system, so you want to have at least 4 drives. To me, it seems absolutely pointless and bordering on stupid to ever purchase a 1TB or 2TB external Thunderbolt drive. I don't even know why they are available for sale. Those drives aren't going to use a fraction of the Thunderbolt throughput and won't be any faster than an internal drive, yet cost about 5 times what the drive alone would.
nagareru, it appears as though your looking for an argument with me. I already said my main concern is for performance stability in an expensive machine, hence my preference for SSD. I've also already said that I store my large files on external HDDs anyway, so for me, the only missing puzzle piece to this equation is an SSD in my next computer (I currently do not have any SSD's).
In response to you ludicrous last sentence. Have you ever even edited video for clients? If so, you'd realize they will almost always request a DVD of the finished product, which correct me if I'm wrong, but constitutes the necessity of an optical disk drive. So please, think before you type and it would save me and other users the frustration of repeating ourselves.
----------
I agree that the biggest barrier to entry for most consumers right now is the price point. I certainly would love a set-up like that, but after the cost of a new machine the wallet starts to thin. But it's certainly something to work for and look forward to as a future addition. Let me know how it goes if you do get one. Since it seems like you need to hold A LOT of data, I'd be interested to know how things work out in the long run for you.
I made a question before your long overly written explanation of "ssds ate better than hdd" if you cant answer it then just dont reply and let the question float around this thread. And no I am not trying to argue with you specially since you cant answer my question. And how you deliver content to your clients has nothing to do with editing. Unless you get footage from ripping dvds
Last edited:
I still think IF we get a Retina screen sooner rather than later it will be either a new model iMac or the screen will be an optional extra in the current case and include USB3 and Ivy Bridge (accross the range regardless on screen choice.
My money is still on retina in a new design iMac sometime in 2013.
nagareru, the answer to your question from Danza's point of view is "I don't care". He's doesn't want an SSD for performance. He wants it for reliability/longevity of the internal drive. .. So that should answer your question. The point of getting an SSD with applications only and using data from an external HDD is to reduce the likelihood of getting out the suction cups to replace a failed internal drive.
Ok I get his point, he wants a SSD to open applications and to turn on his computer faster. So is there any other benefit than the "reliability" for those who need storage more than 200gb? Then r/w speeds of data will still be at HDD speeds.
Last edited:
Distribution is implied with editing. You don't edit film just to hold onto it for yourself. The end result is to distribute it in some way to your target audience. And how I deliver something to my clients has EVERYTHING to do with editing. Is it 1080p or 720p or anamorphic? What FPS do I want? Should I convert it something else because I'm doing slow motion? Should I crop it? Will this be used on the web, a projector, a tv, or smartphone? The truth is, DVDs provide a useful medium to back something up and have a hard copy of a project in case the internet is down and the video can't be streamed or the digital copy I sent has some weird artifacts that didn't show up on my computer, the list goes on. I never said I needed to rip footage from DVDs. I usually shoot the footage myself or the client provides me some media they want to use. We have a 3-stage process for making a moving in Hollywood, and in the 3rd stage, Post-Production, we edit with intent of distributing which means burning DVDs, and, ideally, Bluray.
----------
Let me ask you this, how many apps do you have that you actually use? Now, compare that to the amount of data you physically store. Are you copying lots of files back in forth or are you mostly just reading the files off a drive (music, movies, word docs, etc.)? I've said many times that this comes down to your preference and how you use your data and drive. I conceded that the speeds will be bottlenecked when using HDD, but this doesn't matter to me because I already use HDD in my workflow. I am concerned about performance and reliability of my machine in the long run. Where speed might become a major issue for someone is if they really care about the time it takes to copy large files onto an HDD, but Thunderbolt has been a nice improvement so that copying files to my external HDD is much faster. HDD is also affected by RPM so different drives r/w at different speeds. SSD offers more than just "reliability" and I've already stated many of the perks but more can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid-state_drive#Comparison_of_SSD_with_hard_disk_drives
Last edited:
Ya, the price is a bit tough to swallow. However, I've tried to convince myself that it will pay for itself
I have a recording studio and also do some graphics work and web development, so the speed and space would really be handy. I'm still trying to figure out how to do proper backups, as the RAID 5 isn't really a guarantee. My theory is to get firewire or USB 3 based externals if speed isn't the issue and price is, and to get Thunderbolt with several drives RAIDed if speed is the issue and price is not. I already have an 8-bay NAS, so that may end up being the backup unit. I also have the benefit that I can write the unit off as a business expense, which helps a little. I will post my progress. I'm just stalling in hopes that a new iMac comes out, so I can pair it with that.Agreed. On a desktop, there is still a need for Optical drives. Apple IS moving away from the need, but they're still needed. Heck, one of the things peope LOVE about the Mac is making home movies. That still means DVD.
Do we really need to slim down the iMac even more? It's already attractive and as a desktop is not meant to be mobile. I can understand wanting it out of the MacBook Pros but not out of the iMac.
But... people make the comparison to the Floppy drive. Offering it as an optional external so the people that still need/want one can get it.
The average Joe is already using optical less and less much like they were the old 3.5" floppies. And even in the PC world, good luck finding one of those even though they don't take up much room on a desktop.
So really, it's anyone's guess what Apple will do. Will they try to force it out (like the floppy) or will they keep it.
I'm fine with them keeping it even though I hardly ever use it anymore.
I agree in that I really don't care that much if the next iMac is slimmed down. Honestly, I'm just hoping they do a refresh in July because that's what I've been waiting for. I definitely agree that Apple is moving away from ODD and really pushing digital (ex. the App Store and iCloud). I wouldn't be sad to see the ODD go because I know they would still offer the USB SuperDrive as an accessory for the iMac as they do with the MBA and now the MBP Retinas. I would just love if I had the capability to burn Bluray with my Mac. I would imagine, if they did get rid of the ODD, it would come with the Retina iMac in the future because Apple is obviously trying to make their devices more streamlined and thinner where possible.
Last edited:
Yup. The first portable is from 1975 and the first laptop design as we now know it is from 1981.
Yes and that is why I don't think well see SSD as standard on the iMac for some time. But maybe we'll have 2Tb HDD with the option of a 256Gb SSD at the same price on the iMac soon. You can then chose speed or storage at the same price.
I'll be more than happy just to see affordable SSD options. Current the SSD+HDD options start out at $500.
I'd also like to see smaller SSD options. I don't need 256GB of SSD. I need enough to comfortably run my boot volume with apps. The HDD would be for larger data. I could handle a 64GB SSD mated to a 1TB HDD.
So it is clear that ssds will be slowed down when working with hdds. In that case the ssd will only be usefull to open the application faster. Just that. And this is some useful info for many people.
Sdds are more reliable than hdd ok but Unless your data isnt in the ssd you cant take advantage of the ssds speed.
Sdds are more reliable than hdd ok but Unless your data isnt in the ssd you cant take advantage of the ssds speed.
More than opening application
When you're running pretty much anything, various libraries etc. of your OS are being accessed as needed. Ditto for libraries etc. of a complex app like Photoshop. Your Mac doesn't load every bit of every app that's open when they first launch. So having the OS and lotsa big apps on an SSD speeds things up considerablly while the apps are being used, not just at launch.
When you're running pretty much anything, various libraries etc. of your OS are being accessed as needed. Ditto for libraries etc. of a complex app like Photoshop. Your Mac doesn't load every bit of every app that's open when they first launch. So having the OS and lotsa big apps on an SSD speeds things up considerablly while the apps are being used, not just at launch.
I dont know much about when working with pictures but with video is a different story. When you are applying effects, adding transitions etc, the application will constantly keep reading the video file that is typically stored in a HDD therefore at HDD speeds. Video applications do load every plug-in when loaded. So the speed benefit the ssd offers will be only for opening applications on and off. The HDD will bottleneck the SSD.
The next video card.
Hey all,
I posted this in the 680m video card thread but thought I would post here also as I've been following this thread for a long time. Let me know what you think please:
I know the 680m is the top spec mobile nVidia card and SHOULD be iMac bound (either that or the 7970m from AMD), but why are you all so convinced that it will be the 680m and not the 675m? I was just looking here and am thinking that this (the 675m) will be the top STANDARD card instead for the 27". Now according to this site it was originally released in March, which may beg the question, why would it not have been released if it's been available for the past 3-4 months? The answer, I believe, is that the 680m is still going to be made available but only as a pricey BTO option instead and is holding everything up.
To further substantiate this claim, let's look at some of the important facts here. To do this, we'll have to compare to the current top end GPU (the AMD 6970m) and see what advancements will be made.
TDP: Same. 100 watts both (although 6970 claims 75-100 range)
Tech: Same. Both 40nm.
Memory: Same. GDDR5 with 2GB maximum.
Memory Bus: Same. 256 bit.
So why would apple put in a card that is nearly identical (from a broader perspective) to the one already being used? I think to further differentiate this card from the previous, we'll see them use the 2GB version of the 675m instead. This will help offset the small performance gains while still having something to "tout". For Example: "Introducing the all new iMac, with TWICE the graphics memory of the previous generation for all your textures." Sounds EXACTLY like apple to me. Small performance gain, exaggerated marketing jargin, a few fringe benefits (read: CUDA). Plus, this way they can still pass on the astronomical expense of a 680m to the consumer via BTO prices and maintain a high profit margin.
Combine all of this with the fact that the new MBPs are switching from AMD to nVidia and I think we have our answer. Either all that, or they'll just stick in a 7970m. But if they do that, what will be the BTO? 1GB as standard and 2GB BTO? In any event, it's going to be small changes this year... big ones come next year with a redesign.
Give me your thoughts please, I'm very interested to see what you all think. Hellhammer, any thoughts my friend? You've been quiet lately!
Regards,
Luvin
Hey all,
I posted this in the 680m video card thread but thought I would post here also as I've been following this thread for a long time. Let me know what you think please:
I know the 680m is the top spec mobile nVidia card and SHOULD be iMac bound (either that or the 7970m from AMD), but why are you all so convinced that it will be the 680m and not the 675m? I was just looking here and am thinking that this (the 675m) will be the top STANDARD card instead for the 27". Now according to this site it was originally released in March, which may beg the question, why would it not have been released if it's been available for the past 3-4 months? The answer, I believe, is that the 680m is still going to be made available but only as a pricey BTO option instead and is holding everything up.
To further substantiate this claim, let's look at some of the important facts here. To do this, we'll have to compare to the current top end GPU (the AMD 6970m) and see what advancements will be made.
TDP: Same. 100 watts both (although 6970 claims 75-100 range)
Tech: Same. Both 40nm.
Memory: Same. GDDR5 with 2GB maximum.
Memory Bus: Same. 256 bit.
So why would apple put in a card that is nearly identical (from a broader perspective) to the one already being used? I think to further differentiate this card from the previous, we'll see them use the 2GB version of the 675m instead. This will help offset the small performance gains while still having something to "tout". For Example: "Introducing the all new iMac, with TWICE the graphics memory of the previous generation for all your textures." Sounds EXACTLY like apple to me. Small performance gain, exaggerated marketing jargin, a few fringe benefits (read: CUDA). Plus, this way they can still pass on the astronomical expense of a 680m to the consumer via BTO prices and maintain a high profit margin.
Combine all of this with the fact that the new MBPs are switching from AMD to nVidia and I think we have our answer. Either all that, or they'll just stick in a 7970m. But if they do that, what will be the BTO? 1GB as standard and 2GB BTO? In any event, it's going to be small changes this year... big ones come next year with a redesign.
Give me your thoughts please, I'm very interested to see what you all think. Hellhammer, any thoughts my friend? You've been quiet lately!
Regards,
Luvin
Oh no I have to wait a whole 16 seconds for CS3 to open on my 2005 G5PM, and that's with a bunch of other programs running and only about 1Gb of RAM not used... seriously saving say 15 seconds in opening a program but then having to run files off the HDD so no real gain.
Definitely less heat.
Depends where your system does it's caching. That will have more bearing on speed than your actual data files.
There is a major performance boost in just having multiple drives, regardless of what each is. I've tried every combination over the years, and the biggest speed increase by far was when I went to SSD for system drive and separate HDD for data. Your system can be accessing both, simultaneously.
If you want everything fast, then go my "dream" route... SSD for system and Thunderbolt RAID array for data. The RAID array will actually be faster than the SSD, so your data will no longer be the bottleneck. Plus, you'll have tons of space.