or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple's new Fusion Drive debuts in latest iMacs, Mac minis
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's new Fusion Drive debuts in latest iMacs, Mac minis - Page 2

post #41 of 115

FWIW: GB SSD drives that are competitive on price with Single Platter GB HDD will take 5+ years and by then the traditional HDD will be a whole new beast.

post #42 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by cameronj View Post

LOL i'm sure Apple feels really bad for you.  Having to buy their high end product for your high end needs.  Gee, why doesn't Apple start selling a workstation class system for the price of the Mini!  What a rip-off!?!

 

Hey, be a douche all you want. Only one of us actually worked there. This is a stupid decision to slim down the system for no apparent performance gain beyond the traditional CPU.

 

Having to wait to buy a Mac Pro coming out some time in 2013 costs money.

 

Having to not even write code in OpenCL other than on the iMac which I would get the 27" just only to see dumping in an additional $5k for the Mac Pro is a waste of money.

 

I'd rather put that iMac money on a Tbolt Display or two.

post #43 of 115
I've been using a similar setup for years now (as some of you know). I hope this OS foundation/framework/whatever gets dissected and ported so I can use it on my 2010 MBP. It's great to have the SSD for my boor and apps and my 1TB HDD for my user partition but it would be better if it was as single seamless drive and my ~'/Library files could also be on the SSD for an even speedier system.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #44 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

Oh the memories ... I agree we thought nothing of the price of drives back then. It was just so amazing not to need tape! Hey, were you ever tempted by a Cube? I saw a demo of their wavelet technology and my draw dropped then I saw the price and it dropped again. Then I went back to my suite of Media 100 stations and waited for rendering...

There's tempted, and then there's tempted.
post #45 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

The Mac Mini is a useless product for my needs other than having a bottom feeder Mac for Web/Mail and publishing. Nothing for Engineering even at the entry level for OpenCL.

 

Too bad.

 

The iMac obsession with thin is ultra disappointing. I'll not touch the Nvidia garbage and their yield issues in the 28nm stamp out. The lack of commitment from Nvidia with OpenCL alone has me p/o'd enough as it is, but the garbage 512MB and up to 1GB RAM on the GPGPUs is embarrassing Apple.

 

You sacrifice potential performance for being ultra-thin. Looks sexy, too bad she can't reproduce.

 

Mac Pro is the only option left for heavy computing work.

 

"Too bad"? What???

"Embarrassing Apple" What???

 

The Mac Pro was always the only option for heavy computing work.

The Mac Mini and iMac are for consumers. Always have been.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #46 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

If you were replying to me (hint, it's Quote not Reply) I think you misunderstood. In Time Machine there is a user option to select items to leave out. I was merely (and long windily perhaps) saying I hoped the new drive has a Systems Preferences setting to exclude items from being transferred to the SSD. If so I am sure Apple's new device will be mind blowing.
BTW my MBP required very little work to achieve what I did and being a 2010 model it was worth the small effort to make it way faster booting from an SSD.
For many years I did indeed have an Apple engineering department at my company and many highly qualified staff but alas these days I am semi retired so just play around for myself.

Well you are clearly way smarter than I am at posting on AppleInsider.

I still think you are wrong in thinking you can outsmart the software/firmware and do a better job of managing the SSD vs. HDD in a new iMac or Mini.

As you seem to think your modification of your MBP is the model of performance tweak, I suppose I'll share my mod as well: my older MacMini that came with a DVD drive was getting long in the tooth, so I got a couple of SSDs & an OWC mounting kit to replace the DVD & HDD drive with a the SSDs. I then RAIDed them together into a striped volume. It's pretty nice and I kept my iTunes on this setup for a while (until I replaced the Mini with a newer model). It performed well, but I knew that there were playlists I listened to often enough to be worth putting on the SSD just to save wear & tear on the HHD not to mention power consumption, but of course, with all my media living on external disks, it was impractical to move only the commonly used files to the SSD.

A 3TB Fusion drive would not just place my OS & Apps on the SSD, but also my most commonly accessed media, and anything else I might not think of that is accessed frequently, I don't know about you, but this is exactly the kind of thing that the machine should handle, not me!

On my iMac where I do my freelance graphic & phot work its doubly true. I don't want to have to manually move projects to the inactive, HDD storage as I complete them. I want the Mac to just figure out the project I've worked on everyday this week should be moved to SSD storage. In fCt, every new file should start life on the SSD & move to HDD if not accessed again soon. Then when my current project has been inactive for a time, the next active project will take its place on the SSD automagically.

nothing to see here

Reply

nothing to see here

Reply
post #47 of 115
it is funny that apple named it as 'fusion drive'. it looks like the first one apple made? come on. the technology is already existed before long. my laptop has the same tech. I don't understand why apple explains it differently? it's not really different. apple didn't invent it. other hard driver makers created it. don't make a bullshit, apple.
Life is good to enjoy....
and Mac makes me more please....
Reply
Life is good to enjoy....
and Mac makes me more please....
Reply
post #48 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by archurban View Post

it is funny that apple named it as 'fusion drive'. it looks like the first one apple made? come on. the technology is already existed before long. my laptop has the same tech. I don't understand why apple explains it differently? it's not really different. apple didn't invent it. other hard driver makers created it. don't make a bullshit, apple.

I've never seen a laptop with this tech. I've only seen it on servers, never on laptops and never for a consumer device.

But let's say it already exists on your notebook, where does it exist for OS X that Apple didn't create their own low-level OS service that will monitor which apps and files are accessed most and put them on the SSD instead of the HDD so they can accessed faster?


PS: I sure hope you don't think this is the same as Intel's Turbo Memory.



edit: This just popped up. You should read it: http://www.anandtech.com/show/6406/understanding-apples-fusion-drive
Edited by SolipsismX - 10/23/12 at 11:26pm

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #49 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

 

You don't seem to understand subsidized pricing compared to base and cto configurations. There is a higher markup for customization at time of sale when purchasing a new machine. You see this as subsidized as opposed to not paying the cost of configured to order.

You're trolling. If you need a thorough analysis, yes, I've made a mistake. The mistake was my conclusion was elaborated 

  1. without actually having seen any details of Apple's pricing, just having heard their "price starts from..." advertisements,
  2. having spoken about well reputed SSD storage brands,
  3. having operated slightly outdated recollections of SSD pricing.

 

Now we know it all. No, Apple has no intention to subsidize this component to Mac buyers. Cheap Samsung's junk costs now $80 while Apple's charging $250. That's it.

 

Quote:
It's not a new concept. Seagate did something like this with their drives on a conceptual level where the NAND was used as a cache. I'm not sure how much of this was custom work, but they definitely had reference material available. It's still cool. I'll be watching these displays. I want to see how much they've improved.

You're trolling.

 

Yes, little trollie, as I wrote above I've installed a good dozen of Seagate's Momentus XT drives in Macs around me and I'm aware of the Seagate's concept. 

 

Yes, there's quite interesting link between Apple's implementation and what Seagate (and Samsung) did before. But I'd wager you can not figure it out even if you read the AnandTech's account of the situation: http://www.anandtech.com/show/6406/understanding-apples-fusion-drive

 

On the other hand, Apple's concept is closer to auto-tiering and even, if I can put it like that, to network balancing, than to Seagate's "something like this"; everyone says, there's more advanced relocation and storage management in the game, than simple measuring the sector access frequency.  

 

Here ends feeding you. Don't bother to write your comments citing mine. Don't expect me answering, read the AnandTech's article instead, this will benefit both of us. 


Edited by ivan.rnn01 - 10/24/12 at 5:30am

We mean Apple no harm.

People are lovers, basically. -- Engadget livebloggers at the iPad mini event.

Reply

We mean Apple no harm.

People are lovers, basically. -- Engadget livebloggers at the iPad mini event.

Reply
post #50 of 115

AnandTech's come up with their first understanding of what Apple's Fusion Drive is: http://www.anandtech.com/show/6406/understanding-apples-fusion-drive

 

They have a very interesting point:

 

 

Quote:
Apple creates a 4GB write buffer on the NAND itself. Any writes that come in to the array hit this 4GB buffer first, which acts as sort of a write cache. Any additional writes cause the buffer to spill over to the hard disk.

Methinks Apple's borrowed a controller or its microcode from Seagate or even from their worst enemy, Samsung. 1bugeye.gif


Edited by ivan.rnn01 - 10/24/12 at 5:33am

We mean Apple no harm.

People are lovers, basically. -- Engadget livebloggers at the iPad mini event.

Reply

We mean Apple no harm.

People are lovers, basically. -- Engadget livebloggers at the iPad mini event.

Reply
post #51 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by ivan.rnn01 View Post

AnandTech's come up with their first understanding of what Apple's Fusion Drive is: http://www.anandtech.com/show/6406/understanding-apples-fusion-drive

They have a very interesting point:

Methinks Apple's borrowed a controller or its microcode from Seagate or even from their worst enemy, Samsung. 1bugeye.gif

I was just thinking it's OS software writing across drives to copy files in and out like with the sleep image for RAM.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #52 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


I was just thinking it's OS software writing across drives to copy files in and out like with the sleep image for RAM.

OS with its massive data relocation will step in later and will operate on the HDD and on (128-4)GB of NAND Flash storage. But as AnandTech explains, the process of writing data to the drive is absolutely identical to the one that we see within existing hybrid drives, just a bit weirder: data from 4GB buffer are written onto HDD, not even in their mother Flash storage. Then, having 128GB of NAND Flash at hand, you can allow yourself a crazy extravagance of 8,16,32 GB of cache. Apple however sticks to 4GB, which we find in cheap existing hybrid drives. They therefore might have taken the controller as is and put it in.      


Edited by ivan.rnn01 - 10/24/12 at 8:29am

We mean Apple no harm.

People are lovers, basically. -- Engadget livebloggers at the iPad mini event.

Reply

We mean Apple no harm.

People are lovers, basically. -- Engadget livebloggers at the iPad mini event.

Reply
post #53 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by archurban View Post

it is funny that apple named it as 'fusion drive'. it looks like the first one apple made? come on. the technology is already existed before long. my laptop has the same tech. I don't understand why apple explains it differently? it's not really different. apple didn't invent it. other hard driver makers created it. don't make a bullshit, apple.

Your laptop does NOT have the same tech. You think that because you don't understand the tech that's in your laptop, or what Apple just announced.

As the article I linked to earlier from ArsTechnica points out, this tech is currently only being used in enterprise, in large systems. No one else has adapted it to individual user computing before.
post #54 of 115
Originally Posted by melgross View Post
Your laptop does NOT have the same tech. You think that because you don't understand the tech that's in your laptop, or what Apple just announced.

 

Seagate claims to have a hard drive that does what Apple's Fusion Drive says, so maybe he does and Apple is using those drives.

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #55 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by ivan.rnn01 View Post

AnandTech's come up with their first understanding of what Apple's Fusion Drive is: http://www.anandtech.com/show/6406/understanding-apples-fusion-drive

They have a very interesting point:


Methinks Apple's borrowed a controller or its microcode from Seagate or even from their worst enemy, Samsung. 1bugeye.gif

The article states that its the same Toshiba or Samsung drives used in their MacBooks and MB Pro's. But that's not the main feature here. The 4GB cache is just the starting point.

The big deal here is the learning mechanism which actually switches software from the HDD to the SSD, or the other way around, depending on the usage model.

This is very different from the way other computers use a cache drive.
post #56 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by ivan.rnn01 View Post

OS with its massive data relocation will step in later and will operate on the HDD and on (128-4)GB of NAND Flash storage. But as AnandTech explains, the process of writing data to the drive is absolutely identical to the one that we see within existing hybrid drives, just a bit weirder: data from 4GB buffer are written onto HDD, not even in their mother Flash storage. Then, having 128GB of NAND Flash at hand, you can allow yourself a crazy extravagance of 8,16,32 GB of cache. Apple however sticks to 4GB, which we find in cheap existing hybrid drives. They therefore might have taken the controller as is and put it in.      

I don't think you're getting this. It's safer to unload the cache to the HDD. In addition, you don't waste writes and erasures on the flash unnecessarily. The 128 GB flash is not intended for that kind of cache. That's not what this is doing. That flash is being used for programs, and some large files, as well as the OS. In order to not use the HDD as virtual memory forRAM, as usual, slowing things up all around, the flash is used for that. This is more complex then you're giving it credit for being.
post #57 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Seagate claims to have a hard drive that does what Apple's Fusion Drive says, so maybe he does and Apple is using those drives.

No they don't, and they are not claiming that. If you read both articles, the one from ArsTechnica, and the new one from AnandTech, you would see that.
post #58 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Seagate claims to have a hard drive that does what Apple's Fusion Drive says, so maybe he does and Apple is using those drives.

The Seagate Momentus XT is a hybrid drive in a single chassis, and it didn't really pan out because it uses a turd of a caching algorithm. It's not even smart enough to lock OS and apps to the flash. The Apple technology is two separate drives in a layered cache arrangement, and it sounds like it's smart enough to keep OS and apps on the SSD, and intelligently tracking and deciding whether a data file is used enough to merit being on the SSD.
Edited by JeffDM - 10/24/12 at 3:33pm
post #59 of 115
Originally Posted by melgross View Post
No they don't, and they are not claiming that.


Really?

 

 

Sounds just about like what Apple's doing. Not to speak on the quality of the drive itself, of course. I've never used one and I personally refuse to trust Seagate for anything anymore.

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #60 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Really?



Sounds just about like what Apple's doing. Not to speak on the quality of the drive itself, of course. I've never used one and I personally refuse to trust Seagate for anything anymore.

That says absolutely nothing, other than it does what apple is doing with the 4GB cache,and no, it's not the same, because it doesn't do anything else. It doesn't monitor your apps, and move them from flash to the HDD, or visa versa, depending on your usage patterns. thats the big thing here, and is what is used in enterprise systems. Why don't you read the articles about this before you continue to say things that are incorrect. It's interesting how many people love to claim that whatever Apple is doing has already been done, when they don't understand it. I see that with several people here.

Since the tech sites say that Apple's work here is different, and likely they know more than posters here who don't agree, I'll go with what they are saying, as should everyone else here.

Apple also posted a tech page about this..
post #61 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by majjo View Post

I've read the arstechnica and anandtech articles, and I still don't see any significant technical advantages this has over a caching solution like Intel's SRT. Honestly, I think Intel's SRT is the more elegant solution since:
1) Block level caching vs. File level should be a more efficient use of the space
2) You can specify how much of the SSD to use as cache and use the remainder as its own dedicated SSD drive
3) As a cache, everything on it is mirrored so if your SSD fails, there's no data loss and all you have to do is plug in a new SSD and let it rebuild the cache, whereas on Fusion, you lose your most often used files, and will most likely have to recover from a backup.
4) Usable with any size/brand SSD and HDD. Have an old / spare / outdated SSD lying around? throw it in as a cache!

Block leveling is only useful for a large multiuser network, banging on the storage. If you read the articles, as you say, you would have read that too.

You don't need to specify how much cache to use. That one of those techie things that aren't helpful to 99% of users.

The cache IS on the SSD, so there's no advantage in doing it any other way.

You can likely use it with another SSD. It was pointed pun in iFixits breakdown that there's room for another SSD in the 13' MB P, at least, but you'd need to get a cable. Old SSD's are much slower than the ones Apple is using these days. I don't recommend them for this.
post #62 of 115

Why no Fusion drive on the Server?

post #63 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by WelshDog View Post

Why no Fusion drive on the Server?

That's a good question, I think it would be at least as useful there.
post #64 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

The Mac Mini is a useless product for my needs other than having a bottom feeder Mac for Web/Mail and publishing. Nothing for Engineering even at the entry level for OpenCL.

 

Compared to the old mini the new mini is a better general purpose engineering computer except where GPU performance is required.  In which case the old mini wasn't that awesome either but a lot better.  IMHO the two additional i7 cores are probably worth more in practice than any OpenCL you could choke out of the Radeon in the old Mini.

 

Plus OpenCL is supported in the HD4000 on windows (if a little buggy) so if/when Apple provides the OSX drivers it'll work.  Support for OpenCL is in Apple's hands, not Intel's according to Intel.

 

http://software.intel.com/en-us/forums/topic/277695

 

 

Quote:
The iMac obsession with thin is ultra disappointing. I'll not touch the Nvidia garbage and their yield issues in the 28nm stamp out. The lack of commitment from Nvidia with OpenCL alone has me p/o'd enough as it is, but the garbage 512MB and up to 1GB RAM on the GPGPUs is embarrassing Apple.

 

You can spec a GTX 680MX w/2GB RAM on the iMac 27" according to the Apple website.

 

Access to both CUDA and OpenCL > just access to OpenCL.  CUDA still outperforms OpenCL in some areas.  If I were still playing with GP/GPU development I'd MUCH rather have a nVidia over Radeon for OSX so I had access to both.  The guys I know doing GP/GPU work around here seem to prefer CUDA but that's probably because they started with that.

 

 

Quote:

Mac Pro is the only option left for heavy computing work.

 

Given that many folks doing "heavy computational work" are using machines slower than a quad 3.4Ghz Core i7+GTX 680MX iMac that's BS.  That's more than enough to do MATLAB or IDL computational work.

 

Grants only go so far so a lot of researchers are using older Xeon hardware a few years old.  When they need more horsepower for "heavy computing work" they aren't depending on their personal workstation but banks of servers anyway.  We've still got more than a few R610s in our racks with older 5500s as compute boxes.  We have a couple populated C410x as well for GP/GPU use.  Mostly nVidia.

post #65 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

Compared to the old mini the new mini is a better general purpose engineering computer except where GPU performance is required.

Did anyone stop and ask whether it made any sense at all to use a low end computer for engineering? It strikes me as the wrong solution to the problem.
post #66 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


Did anyone stop and ask whether it made any sense at all to use a low end computer for engineering? It strikes me as the wrong solution to the problem.

 

At $800 the middle Core i7 mini is not exactly low end even if it is the entry level platform for Apple.  Even the $600 mini isn't very low end.

post #67 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

At $800 the middle Core i7 mini is not exactly low end even if it is the entry level platform for Apple.  Even the $600 mini isn't very low end.

Show me an engineering computer in that price range. It's the wrong tool for the job.

OK, there apparently are some:

http://www.dell.com/us/business/p/precision-t1650/fs

Base price, $600. 2GB RAM (base mini has 4GB) and Intel Integrated Graphics and monitor extra. Who would have thunk?
Edited by JeffDM - 10/26/12 at 1:28pm
post #68 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Old SSD's are much slower than the ones Apple is using these days. I don't recommend them for this.


The SATA SSD's being used by Apple are not much (if at all) faster than a Samsung 830 you buy off Amazon.  They are a lot faster than the old ones that Apple was using but they were really slow.

 

The Samsung 830 benches at 520MB/s read and 400 MB/s write.  The Apple SSDs are in the same ballpark:

 

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6063/macbook-air-13inch-mid-2012-review/4

 

I'd rather avoid the SSD lottery and get the SSD I prefer.  And I'd rather pay $169 than $300.

 

I'm not sold on Fusion.  I'd rather have 512GB of SSD (256x2) for $338 vs 1TB fusion for $250 on a mini.  

 

I'm still going to want a moderately sized RAID array (3-4TB) running off thunderbolt regardless of the extra 512GB.

post #69 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


Show me an engineering computer in that price range. It's the wrong tool for the job.'
OK, there apparently are some:
http://www.dell.com/us/business/p/precision-t1650/fs
Base price, $600.

 

Define engineering computer I guess.  If you need ECC RAM then no, none of Apple's desktops, except for the Pro, is the right tool.

 

That thing is an i3-3220 with non-ECC RAM.

post #70 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

Define engineering computer I guess.  If you need ECC RAM then no, none of Apple's desktops, except for the Pro, is the right tool.

That thing is an i3-3220 with non-ECC RAM.

I don't know mdriftmeyer's idea of an engineering machine, but mine is at least something sold as a workstation. Even then, to say that Dell is stretching plausibility with that machine the boundaries is saying it mildly.

Even with a Dell, you're not going to get ECC until you get above mini territory. If you can't get a Dell workstation with a discrete GPU for $800, what good does it do to complain that Apple doesn't offer a discrete GPU for the same price?


And this is kind of my point. You don't think of a $600 computer as a low end machine, but it's sub-low end for workstations. It also strikes me as a bad idea to complain that $600-$800 computers aren't suited to engineering. That's trying too hard to be a cheapskate while saying you're doing demanding technical work, depending your livelihood on a consumer device strikes me as doing something wrong.
Edited by JeffDM - 10/26/12 at 2:54pm
post #71 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by WelshDog View Post

Why no Fusion drive on the Server?

I imagine the Fusion drive will be a blade SSD + standard HDD and the SSD will use up the Mini's second HDD slot as there's no more room on the motherboard. The blade SSD is visible in the iMac pictures.

Fusion on the Server model would effectively be the same as Fusion on the middle model. The only difference is OS X Server being bundled but OS X Server is $19.99 from the App Store.

I don't understand why they have Server models. OS X Server should be a BTO option for every Mac but perhaps people would be less inclined to pay $180 for a 1TB hard drive that way.
post #72 of 115

Sounds like  a Seagate Momentus XT with more flash.

post #73 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary54 View Post

Sounds like  a Seagate Momentus XT with more flash.

It's not. Not even close. This is two physical drives, not one drive with some NAND cache. The "work" is done by the OS — something I hope gets hacked and ported for my OptiBay MBP — which determines at a much higher layer what files you need an why will benefit from being on the SSD. It's more an intelligent RAID0 setup.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #74 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


Did anyone stop and ask whether it made any sense at all to use a low end computer for engineering? It strikes me as the wrong solution to the problem.

"Engineering"? Depends on what you are doing. There are all kinds of engineering disciplines. They call software development "engineering." Trash collection is "sanitation engineering" What "engineering"? Are you calculating mathematical models or drawing or what? "Engineers" were using bleeding edge computers two decades ago that are less pocket calculators now. Your iPhone is a more powerful computer than the mainframe my uncle had back in the 50's.

 

 If you are trying to run CATIA on a mini someone is being ridiculous.

 

A 2009 model Mac Mini with a 9400M runs Vectorworks just great.

post #75 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


It's not. Not even close. This is two physical drives, not one drive with some NAND cache. The "work" is done by the OS — something I hope gets hacked and ported for my OptiBay MBP — which determines at a much higher layer what files you need an why will benefit from being on the SSD. It's more an intelligent RAID0 setup.

That's too bad. I'd rather see a commodity part that could be used in something else.

post #76 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary54 View Post

That's too bad. I'd rather see a commodity part that could be used in something else.

No way! Imagine if Apple used a commodity, off the shelf ARM SoC for their iPhone. Imagine if they stuck with popular, commodity ports instead of getting Thunderbolt in their machines and USB 1.0 long before that.

Fusion Drive is considerably faster than any hybrid HDD, which you can install into any Mac with a 2.5" or 3.5" drive. That is all done in the drive in firmware. Simply put it's a low-level operation that doesn't understand the needs of the OS or the user. This is exactly what I et al. have been asking for for years and it's finally here.

Having used an SSD for my boot drive and apps, and a HDD for my home folder (~/SolipsismX = /Volumes/SolipsismX) as two separate drives I've very excited for Fusion. This is a huge deal to me and Im very excited.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #77 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


No way! Imagine if Apple used a commodity, off the shelf ARM SoC for their iPhone. Imagine if they stuck with popular, commodity ports instead of getting Thunderbolt in their machines and USB 1.0 long before that.
Fusion Drive is considerably faster than any hybrid HDD, which you can install into any Mac with a 2.5" or 3.5" drive. That is all done in the drive in firmware. Simply put it's a low-level operation that doesn't understand the needs of the OS or the user. This is exactly what I et al. have been asking for for years and it's finally here.
Having used an SSD for my boot drive and apps, and a HDD for my home folder (~/SolipsismX = /Volumes/SolipsismX) as two separate drives I've very excited for Fusion. This is a huge deal to me and Im very excited.

If it's as you have described, standard format 2.5 or 3.5 disk, operating via firmware, then you have described a OS independent commodity part. There is a place for custom parts and place for commodity parts.

 

Apple's obsession with reinventing the wheel with commodity parts times past when the commodity parts worked just fine contributed to making them into a niche market player in the first place.

 

I have been a dedicated Apple computer user a long time, back in the days when Apple was on the ropes and the MS hordes were smelling blood to see it fold. But an Apple sycophant I am not. There is an undeniable hypocrisy to their manufacturing, sales and marketing which costs them in the larger market. They bill themselves as the computer for the every man (woman) yet engage in re-inventing the wheel creating these specialized parts when the commodity part will do just fine, making them more expensive and inaccessible to the every man, and engage in undeniable and outrageous price gouging for the commodity parts they do sell. Memory, drives. I never have and never will buy such items from Apple. They bill themselves as the computer company for everyone, yet they are undeniably elitist in practice. Which in turn is at the root of a lot of the market hostility towards Apple. Which I think is justified.

 

"Quality" and reinventing the wheel at every turn "custom" are not synonymous. How many different custom display connectors have they gone through? Sometimes just for one model.


Edited by Gary54 - 10/27/12 at 10:16am
post #78 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary54 View Post

If it's as you have described, standard format 2.5 or 3.5 disk, operating via firmware, then you have described a OS independent commodity part. There is a place for custom parts and place for commodity parts.

Apple's obsession with reinventing the wheel with commodity parts times past when the commodity parts worked just fine contributed to making them into a niche market player in the first place.

1) Yes, I described Hybrid HDDs as being OS independent. I described FUsion Drive as being a part of the OS.

2) If you really want to use a Hybrid HDD then you have no soapbox in which to stand and complain as you've had this ability for years.

3) Check out the performance reviews of Hybrid HDDs. You get a little better performance with the NAND caching but you don't get SSD-like performance and NAND is not SSD.

4) Once again, Fusion Drive is an intelligent OS-level comprehension of what is started often and would benefit from being on the SSD whilst giving you the capacity of the total of both drives listed as a single drive. This is not a Hybrid HDD!

5) Think of SSDs as RAIDed NAND orchestrated by a special controller. This is where the speeds comes in as NAND is remarkably slow on its own.

6) What "wheel" did they reinvent? What are they offering that already existed on Macs? Surely not Fusion Drive as it was only just announced this week. What about this bothers you as you don't have to buy it as it is an option and you are so damn adamant that a Hybrid HDD is the same thing and yet don't appear to have invested in that at this point?

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #79 of 115

Just so, it was just announced. Calm down. You are making the statement of what it is. I don't know what it is and what it isn't yet. I'm waiting to find out.

 

I said "sounds like a Momentus XT" It does.

 

 

Have you used it? Had you hands on it? Read the reviews of the testers? Its strengths and limitations? Form factor? What if anything else it can be adapted to?

 

 

Bare Feats doesn't appear to know what it is or what it isn't yet. iFixit has no tear down review yet. How is it you are so adamant what it is and what it isn't yet?


Edited by Gary54 - 10/27/12 at 12:01pm
post #80 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary54 View Post

Just so, it was just announced. Calm down. You are making the statement of what it is. I don't know what it is and what it isn't yet. I'm waiting to find out.

I said "sounds like a Momentus XT" It does.
 

Have you used it? Had you hands on it? Read the reviews of the testers? Its strengths and limitations? Form factor? What if anything else it can be adapted to?


Bare Feats doesn't appear to know what it is or what it isn't yet. iFixit has no tear down review yet. How is it you are so adamant what it is and what it isn't yet?

No, it doesn't sound anything like a hybrid HDD. If anything could be compared to it would be a massive evolution of MS's ReadyBoost that first appeared in Vista.

So where again did Fusion Drive already exist in Mac OS X that made this is a stupid and pointless reinvention of the wheel?

PS: I know what it isn't because I read about it instead of just making a kneejerk comments about how Apple is reinventing the wheel and claiming that some NAND caching on a HDD is the same as two separate drives working as a RAID with the SSD also acting as NAND cache is the same lackluster product we've seen from HDD makers. Apple clearly explained many of the details if you only paid attention.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple's new Fusion Drive debuts in latest iMacs, Mac minis