Why not SSD options in the new iMac? Possible DIY?

Discussion in 'iMac' started by enochpeng, Nov 1, 2009.

  1. enochpeng macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2008
    #1
    I don't get why Apple won't put a SSD option in the new iMac lineup! They bring most machine to a whole new level....

    pls Apple let us have SSDs in 6-8 months
     
  2. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #2
    Because most SSDs are 2.5" and iMac uses 3.5" drives. If they make 2 x 2.5" iMac, people starts to whine about price and lack of capacity because +500GB 2.5" drives costs a lot and 2 x 500GB is only 1TB which is half of the maximum capacity in current iMacs plus they are 5400rpm drives which is way below desktop standard.

    256GB SSD + 500GB HD would be cool but that is not what consumers buy
     
  3. enochpeng thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2008
    #3
    But i think a 3.5" adapter inside would solve the problem, and external HD is always an option for those who wants SSD in their iMacs and at the end of the day iMac is still a "desktop" right? so why not SSD + External HD hah
     
  4. ljonesj macrumors 6502a

    ljonesj

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2009
    Location:
    Kingsport TN
    #4
    i know hard drives can fail but u people that want ssd do know that they have a finite amount of times they can be wrote to dont u so they can actually fail sooner than a mechanical hard drive plus there more easily messed up with power flucs and such
     
  5. glitch44 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2006
    #5
    You are absolutely wrong. Current estimates for lifetime of SSDs say you could rewrite the drive three times a day and it would still last 85 years.
     
  6. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #6
    I agree. Intel states that life expectancy of X-25 SSD is 1.2 million hours which is about 137 years
     
  7. ljonesj macrumors 6502a

    ljonesj

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2009
    Location:
    Kingsport TN
    #7
    ok what about thermals and such me personaly rather have a good old hd than the ssd u may be right on the write life of the drive but what about people use the drive a lot and i know its expensive to recover data off a hd what about a ssd if it goes how do u recover its files and i can understand the use for the os but what about important files if it does go
     
  8. NATO macrumors 68000

    NATO

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2005
    Location:
    Northern Ireland
    #8
  9. gianly1985 macrumors 6502a

    gianly1985

    Joined:
    May 30, 2008
    #9
    Look what I did to my old white 17" iMac:

    [​IMG]
    Click for full size - Uploaded with plasq's Skitch

    (as you can see, it is easy to fit a 2,5" drive in a 3,5" bay :rolleyes: You just need that 2$ pieces of metal with holes for screws....that can't be an excuse for Apple not putting an SSD option for new iMacs :rolleyes: )

    I would do exactly the same to a brand new iMac. You get the best of both worlds™.

    The difference is that on new iMacs the Superdrive is also SATA. So I would leave the big 1tb-2tb boy in its place and put the boot SSD in place of the Superdrive.

    Fast SSD for OS, slow HDD for storage. That's the way to go until we got big cheap SSDs.

    The 3-times-a-year I need an optical drive, I will use a USB 5.25" box with a Sony Optiarc 7241S inside:

    [​IMG]
    Click for full size - Uploaded with plasq's Skitch

    [​IMG]
    Click for full size - Uploaded with plasq's Skitch


    (BTW, that's a REAL dvd burner, not that sh*tty slim slot-in things you find in iMacs and laptops....)
    (and if I wanted, I could even put a Blu-ray burner in the USB box...)
     
  10. glitch44 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2006
    #10
    Is there a shortage of punctuation in Tennessee?

    Hard drives use more power and generate more heat than SSDs.

    You should backup all drives, whether HDD or SSD. Any drive can fail at any time.
     
  11. BertyBoy macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2009
    #11
    LOL, you compare it to Intel's X-25 SSD, retails here for about $1000 US per 64GB. How much do you want in an iMac ?
    Yep, the MTBF may be estimated at 1.2m hours, but hard drive MTBF is up at the same figure. And hard drives never fail do they ?

    Don't see Apple offering it in an iMac in the near future. But any user with an IQ over 60 could purchase a 3.5" SSD unit and install it. Google for a 3.5" SSD and there's plenty of choice. Performance and reliability not guaranteed. Imation 128GB SSD 3.5" SATA for $400.
     
  12. UltraNEO* macrumors 601

    UltraNEO*

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2007
    Location:
    近畿日本
    #12

    End of the day, it's all about price.

    Maybe the better question you should be asking is why Apple doesn't offer a SSD CTO option for users like yourself who'd want them...

    ...trust me, you don't wanna buy a SSD from Apple, there's a high probability it'll be expensive! Have you seen the price of their HD's?
     
  13. 300D macrumors 65816

    300D

    Joined:
    May 2, 2009
    Location:
    Tulsa
    #13
    Put an SSD in the optical drive bay and get an external Firewire Blu-Ray drive, thats what I'll be doing.
     
  14. gianly1985 macrumors 6502a

    gianly1985

    Joined:
    May 30, 2008
    #14
    What are you talking about, I paid my 160gb Intel x25-M only 340€ (500$). (maybe you were thinking about the ENTERPRISE series of Intel SSDs, the X25-E)

    160gb is a fair capacity for OS and apps, SSDs take a very small volume, Apple could have left the 3,5" HDD for storage and put the SSD (even an 80gb Intel, which retails for 250$) as a second disk just for OS and apps, this single move would have taken the performance of iMacs to the next level, customers would be jawbreaking all the time at Apple Stores for the speed in opening applications, it could have been another "apple all or nothing revolution", like the removal of the floppy or the iMac g3 the first computer which relied only on USB ports, the (recent) ban of CCFL, the (recent) ban on TN panels from desktop computers, etc.

    Apple could have become the first company to offer SSD for boot as a DEFAULT.....I hope to see the day this will happen....the impact on daily use of SSDs is so great that this would really impress customers....
    You do remember how much Macs used to cost just one year ago?

    You do remember the "access price" for a 24" IPS iMac? Then March 2009 ---> BAM! Price cut! 24" IPS for everyone!

    You do remember the "access price" for a Macbook PRO? Then June 2009 ---> BAM! Price cut! Now PRO for everyone!

    You do remember the "access price" for a Macbook Air? Drammatically cut, now MBA for everybody at the price of a Macbook of one year ago...

    Where I'm going with this? It's been a time of great price cut, they could have easily cut a little less and put a DEFAULT SSD on every Mac (at least iMacs, which have plenty of internal space) in the process....

    1) Mechanical parts ---> more likely to fail.

    2) so? Even if failure rate was the same, you do realize SSDs are blazing faster than a HDD? SSDs would still be better hands down....

    And it is plain stupid. Why on LAPTOPS and NOT ON DESKTOPS? (usually desktops are supposed to be faster than laptops...)
    And any user with any IQ above 80 would realize that you can easily fit a 2.5" ssd in a 3.5" bay :rolleyes: Why looking for 3.5" SSD.....the best buy is the Intel x25-m 80/160gb and it is a 2.5"...and I put it in my iMac....(as you can see in the pics above)

    That's why they offer it on low end Macbook Air and not on 2000$ quad core 27" machine....get it.....crystal clear.....
    You do realize Apple's been selling SSDs as CTO/BTO option for laptops for a year or so? (and 2 years on Macbook Air)

    The real problem, beside the price, is that the sell shitt* SAMSUNG SSDs....the worst on the market (but still better than an HDD).....they should switch to Intel.....so for the moment is better to buy an SSD on your own.....still, it would be a good thing to use SSDs (even Samsung's) as a default disk for booting in every machine.....it would be another "apple revolution"....

    (anyway Samsung is working on better SSDs for the near future, so there's some hope for the future...)
     
  15. gianly1985 macrumors 6502a

    gianly1985

    Joined:
    May 30, 2008
    #15
    That's the PERFECT thing to do.

    HDD Bay ---> 2tb HDD for storage

    Optitcal drive bay ---> Intel x25-m 160gb for OSX and applications

    External ---> Fireway Blu-Ray burner or Blu-Ray combo (DVD-burner and Blu-Ray reader)

    That's the optimal configuration for an iMac at the moment.
     
  16. OldCorpse macrumors 65816

    OldCorpse

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Location:
    compost heap
    #16
    Hmm. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the connection from the optical bay much slower than from the HDD bay? I seem to have read that somewhere... if true, that would kind of defeat the whole purpose of an SSD as far as speed goes. If it's not true, then yeah.
     
  17. gianly1985 macrumors 6502a

    gianly1985

    Joined:
    May 30, 2008
    #17
    Every Mac released before October 2008 has a slow PATA connection for the optical bay.

    Every Mac released AFTER October 2008 (so every Unibody, MacMini nVidia, March 2009 iMacs, etc) has a SATA connection for the optical bay. So there should be no problem, I don't think apple is so greedy to use a SATA 3.0Gbps for the HDD Bay and a SATA 1.5Gbps for the optical bay. (that's the only way it could be slower)

    (btw, I DO use an SSD on an old SATA 1.5Gpbs ICH7-M in my 2006 iMac and it's STILL worth it, the most important parameteters are RANDOM READ and RANDOM WRITE and they are not SATA1.5Gbps-limited)
     
  18. layziegtp macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2009
    #18
    SATA is SATA. They should both be the same speed.
     
  19. OldCorpse macrumors 65816

    OldCorpse

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Location:
    compost heap
    #19
    No. There's SATA 3.0 and SATA 1.5.

    I thought that the optical bay had a slower SATA 1.5.

    In other words: FAIL. Unless someone can verify - NOT SPECULATE - that the optical bay has SATA 3.0 connectors.
     
  20. gianly1985 macrumors 6502a

    gianly1985

    Joined:
    May 30, 2008
    #20
    Why so aggressive? :)

    I wouldn't be in your position, actually after the "new iMacs? Not gonna happen" debacle there's a reference to your nickname in the definition of "Fail" :)

    As I said above, even in SATA 1.5Gbps conditions, it is still worth to use an SSD and you get most of the boost. I can say it, I use my SSD with an old ICH7-M with SATA 1.5Gpbs and it is blazing fast.

    That said, I will look for info about the speed of the optical drive SATA. If I had a recent Mac, I could easily verify it with a benchmark of both SATA connections. Unfortunately, I only have an old fashioned Mac with PATA optical bay.
     
  21. ljonesj macrumors 6502a

    ljonesj

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2009
    Location:
    Kingsport TN
    #21
    Ok i just stated my thoughts one the ssd i have one in my eeepc its slow type and I have felt and seen the temps of a harddrive and a ssd there not the same the ssd was way hotter in that test my concerns are esd when putting it in you can esd a hardrive but its seems more of a concern on a ssd
     
  22. gianly1985 macrumors 6502a

    gianly1985

    Joined:
    May 30, 2008
    #22
    Seriously, I'm Italian and I can understand Miley and Billy Ray when they speak the Tennessee-thing but I cannot understand you.

    Get some punctuation.
     
  23. Andy348 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 18, 2009
    Location:
    Montreal
    #23
    Not long enough. I was planning on handing my MacBook down to my great, great grandson :(
     
  24. ljonesj macrumors 6502a

    ljonesj

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2009
    Location:
    Kingsport TN
    #24
    Ok sorry for the no punctuation thing but why is it then when I go to a forum. Most can understand my typing fine then there are the few that dont. I guess its all the games I play online that make it so.
     
  25. jmpage2 macrumors 68030

    jmpage2

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2007
    #25
    I think they should offer it as a BTO option but in reality it is still far too expensive.

    How many are they going to sell at $500 for an upgrade from a 1TB hard drive to a 160GB SSD?

    It would fit perfect for users like myself who store just about all of their media on external/network drives but the typical user doesn't operate like that yet.
     

Share This Page