or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple's Fusion Drive cuts Mac startup time in half, triples read/write speeds
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's Fusion Drive cuts Mac startup time in half, triples read/write speeds - Page 2

post #41 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post


I would love for that to happen. The densities of NAND keeps doubling so perhaps what you describe will come to pass. I use a pure SSD solution today and I only wish for more capacity, but I also remember a time when flash based MP3 players were a joke with only 128KB of flash ram and serious music players had 15GB HDDs. Once it becomes practical, no one will miss HDDs.
I guess I agree with you, LOL.

 

Well, prediction is hard.  Perhaps we are both wrong and some other tech will come out of left field.  

post #42 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac_128 View Post

 
What you don't have a coal-fired, steam-powered HDD on your Mac?
 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7K_hWuPwv0

 

(at 24 sec mark) Really funny ad.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #43 of 107

Don't SSD's have a problem over time with failures based on number of time data is written to them? Therefore they would be a bad choice for Servers. Maybe they've resovled the problems with SSD's 'wearing out' faster than HDDs...

post #44 of 107

Dear Announcer: Turn down your input volume from the mic when you record. It's effin' annoying.
 

post #45 of 107

Yes, it appears as a single drive to the OS as well as TimeMachine and Superduper.  This is first hand info as I am using BYO Fusion on my MBP and have backed up using TM as well as SuperDuper and actually restored from a SuperDuper clone.

 

David

post #46 of 107

By all means don't widen your width of web content so you can see the full scaled down view for YouTube.
 

post #47 of 107

I got a Momentus XT 750 in my MBP. It works fine and fast. However, I've never tested it with Time Machine.
I'm looking forward to a new version with more SSD capacity. The 8GB in the Seagate after Apple's launch of the Fusion Drive with 128GB SSD annoys me a bit.

It's a pity Apple has chosen the 1TB capacity that exists only with 5400 rpm speed.

I just found this page (on seagate's site), it doesn't say too much I know but there are also some links there with more details, reviews:
http://storageeffect.media.seagate.com/2012/10/storage-effect/apple-fusion-drive-or-seagate-sshd-is-there-a-difference/
 

post #48 of 107

Which apps does Apple consider "core application" which will be kept on the SSD pemanently? I certainly don't need any of Apple's apps except Mail and Safari taking up space. Do they give their apps preferential treatment?

 

Just wondering out loud...  :)

post #49 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by John.B View Post

I'm torn about the Fusion drives.  On one hand, it's nice that it's baked into the OS.  On the other, you have to backup/clone the entire drive as a unit.  I'd like to see what happens when a Fusion drive is cloned to an HDD, then back to a Fusion drive using common tools like SuperDuper. 

I did it twice.  First time I created a manually fused clone of my original SSD/HDD symlinked file system first by cloning the SSD using SuperDuper, then removing symlinks in the clone, then copying actual HDD directories back to the symlinked locations (ie created a single HDD version of my SSD/HDD setup).  Then I created the Fusion Drive, did a clean install of ML followed by a restoration from the Super Duper Clone.  Worked perfectly!

 

Second time, I did a fresh, complete SuperDuper clone of the newly created Fusion drive (SuperDuper sees it as a single drive BTW).  Then I wiped the SSD/HDD Fusion drive followed by a SuperDuper restore in its entirety.  Worked Perfectly!

 

Fusion simply appears and works as a single drive that SuperDuper is quite happy handling.

 

FYI,I have also successfully used Alsoft's Disk Warrior on the Fusion drive.  In addition, OSX's Disk Utility found some minor errors in the Fusion drive, so I booted off my SuperDuper clone, ran Disk Utility Repair Disk on the Fusion Volume to fix the issues (typical HFS+ crap) and Disk Utility had NO issues working with the Fusion Drive (I am of course running 10.8.2 OSX)

 

David

 

David

post #50 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post

Which apps does Apple consider "core application" which will be kept on the SSD pemanently? I certainly don't need any of Apple's apps except Mail and Safari taking up space. Do they give their apps preferential treatment?

 

Just wondering out loud...  :)

I believe we were told that the Fusion system learns. As you use it, the most frequent apps and documents are moved to the SSD and the least used get copied to the HDD.

 

EDIT: I see it does say core apps are permanent but I probably use iTunes, App Store Calendar, QuickTime quite a bit. Ironically I do not use mail at all.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #51 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac_128 View Post
... And of course the more coal you add, the faster it spins ... You want more speed, just shovel on some more fuel. Why I once got it up to 88.8 MPH ...

That's not too impressive ... unless you have a flux capacitor ;)

 

Wait, a fusion drive with a flux capacitor? Where have I seen that before?

post #52 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by saarek View Post

 

The fusion drive is hardware and the software required for it is Mountain Lion 10.8.2. No reason whatsoever that the fusion drive would not work in an older Mac. 

 

As to the previous poster, no way will Apple sell you just the drive. No sir, you need to purchase a new Mac, can't have one upgrading their old machine when you could buy a new one!

This gets tiring.  Name ONE computer manufacturer that comes out with new technology and will tell you that you can bring in your PC  and they'll upgrade it for you?  Name one.  HP won't do it.  Dell won't do it.  3rd-party service shops will do it and obviously, tech-guys like us will do it.  Here's the kicker, you have anyone do it, and kiss your warranty goodbye if it's damaged by anyone outside of the manufacturer doing it.  3rd-party or us tinkerers.

Obviously, the iMac is not one that is easily opened up by the average Joe.  Here's a shocker for you know-it-alls:  Most will NEVER upgrade their iMacs on any level after they purchase it.  NEVER!  Apple knows this and designs their products based on that and I do not fault Apple for doing it.  I think it's great.  I've opened up my iMac a few times just for kicks.  It's an extra 10 minutes compared to a regular PC and most of that is prep-work so as not to scratch-up this pretty baby.  I don't recommend it for the joe-consumer, but any halfway-technical person can do it.

Now, NOTHING is stopping you from doing it yourself.  There's even a how-to out there of folks that have done it.  Go right ahead and do it yourself.  You're on your own just like any other PC you crack open.  Why is that concept so difficult for you to grasp?

Do you guys honestly expect Apple to not only include new tech in their iMacs, but demand that they put it in their "old" machines?  Come-on, get real.  Do it yourself and be done with it.  If you're not technically-inclined, or clueless.. find someone else to do it.  Don't be surprised though if they actually expect to be paid to do that work too, unless you're expecting Apple to upgrade old machines for free right?

edit: I'm asking this to everyone in general, not flaming you Saarek.  :)


Edited by sflocal - 11/9/12 at 11:43am
post #53 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by mac-user View Post

I got a Momentus XT 750 in my MBP. It works fine and fast. However, I've never tested it with Time Machine.
I'm looking forward to a new version with more SSD capacity. The 8GB in the Seagate after Apple's launch of the Fusion Drive with 128GB SSD annoys me a bit.

 

The Momentus is just using that SSD as cache.  The Apple Fusion solution actually shifts the most used files on a more permanent basis.  This is a consumer grade version of something that has been happening in the corporate data center for a long time, but really no one else does this at the consumer level.

post #54 of 107

I wonder how the automated 'fusion drive' process compares to handling this manually. I removed the optical drive from my MacBook Pro, moved the HDD into its bay, and installed a SSD into the old HDD bay. I have the OS installed on the SSD. I also have my most frequently used applications stored there. I have my Windows 7 VM on the SSD. Everything else I store on the HDD and use some symlinks to create some transparency. I choose which apps I want sped up, and my keeping my Windows VM on the SSD it also boots lightening fast. As I've run out of room on my SSD, I created a second virtual drive in my VM and stored it on the HDD. This is where I store my Outlook pst and ost files.

 

I've got a nearly identical setup on a Mac Mini.

 

Apple's fusion drive clearly is a no-brainer, maintenance free solution in comparison to my manually having to move things around when needed, but I wonder if the more manual, static solution I've got actually nets a performance boost over the fusion drive?

post #55 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by djames4242 View Post

I wonder how the automated 'fusion drive' process compares to handling this manually. I removed the optical drive from my MacBook Pro, moved the HDD into its bay, and installed a SSD into the old HDD bay. I have the OS installed on the SSD. I also have my most frequently used applications stored there. I have my Windows 7 VM on the SSD. Everything else I store on the HDD and use some symlinks to create some transparency. I choose which apps I want sped up, and my keeping my Windows VM on the SSD it also boots lightening fast. As I've run out of room on my SSD, I created a second virtual drive in my VM and stored it on the HDD. This is where I store my Outlook pst and ost files.

 

I've got a nearly identical setup on a Mac Mini.

 

Apple's fusion drive clearly is a no-brainer, maintenance free solution in comparison to my manually having to move things around when needed, but I wonder if the more manual, static solution I've got actually nets a performance boost over the fusion drive?


You obviously more technically-inclined that the average user.  I'd be the same way in terms of getting the most speed from my setup as well.  So perhaps the Fusion drive may not be the absolute fastest way to get that extra i/o compared to your setup, but if one can get "almost" the same speed, and remove all the technical headaches of doing a manual setup than it's a win-win for everyone right?
 

post #56 of 107
Fast System.
post #57 of 107

OK, a little help here. I don't see that an iMac can have both a SSD and an HDD in the case. To the extent a third party mades a fusion drive that is part SDD and HDD that has a single plug and mounts in a single "bay" space, that might be rather spiffy and worth an upgrade.

 

But...I've seen the video of pulling the galss and doing internal surgery. Possible yes. Possible to break something irreparably: yes too. I'm an engineer, not a technician.

 

But is this possible: mount an internal SSD and put an external FW HDD and ask Mountain Lion to do it's magic to turn that combination into a single fusion drive? I'm guessing not, but you guys and gals are a lot smarter (and adventurous) than I am.

post #58 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff View Post


Since this is in the SW now, I'd be curious if anyone has built up a MacPro with a 'Fusion' configuration.

I'd never bother, after getting 800MB/s on my PCISSD from OWC
http://eshop.macsales.com/search/Pci+SSD

Supposedly you're better of with 2 HDD's than the Fusion Drive
http://macperformanceguide.com/macmini2012-dual-drives-vs-fusion.html
post #59 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by eightzero View Post

OK, a little help here. I don't see that an iMac can have both a SSD and an HDD in the case.

OH YES YOU CAN!  You just pull the optical drive out, install a 2.5" drive carrier such as OWC's Data Doubler, install a 2.5" form factor SSD in the Data Doubler that is then installed where the removed optical drive resided and finally put the removed optical drive in an external, USB case.  Yes, there is the issue of getting to get to the iMac internals, but I have done it and it is NOT all the difficult NOR prone to damaging ANYTHING.  Just go out on iFixit and watch the appropriate video for your imac.  FYI, I will be doing this exact thing on my daughter's mid 2012 iMac over the christmas holidays.  I had planned on doing the symlink manual split, but after rolling my own Fusion drive on my MBP, I suspect that I will config hers as a Fusion Drive as well.

 

David

post #60 of 107

Bring the Fusion Drive with SSD & 7200 RPM HD.

post #61 of 107

Apple isn't being fair with the Fusion Drive. Yes, it's a cool invention, but they're not saying all the truth here: It looks like they've a huge stock of 128GB SSD and they don't know how to sell them. Otherwise, they'd allow you to choose between the Fusion Drive and 256/512GB SSD on the new iMac. But no, the new iMac (the 21inch model) is either Fusion Drive or 1TB HDD.

 

Or maybe they've better margins with the Fusion Drive than with 256/512GB SSD. I don't know, but they're not being fair here.

 

This policy isn't nice Apple. Yes, the Fusion is cool, but allow also pure 256/512 GB SSD for customers who just want SSD.

post #62 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal View Post


You obviously more technically-inclined that the average user.  I'd be the same way in terms of getting the most speed from my setup as well.  So perhaps the Fusion drive may not be the absolute fastest way to get that extra i/o compared to your setup, but if one can get "almost" the same speed, and remove all the technical headaches of doing a manual setup than it's a win-win for everyone right?
 

I think speed is relative. If you want your machine to be as fast as possible so you can carry out your work on that machine as efficiently (and frustration free) as possible, then I'd argue the Fusion drive is as fast as you are going to get. The time you waste playing with your set up (not what you REALLY are supposed to be doing, right?) will prevent you from doing what you should be doing.

 

If you want speed above all, for the sake of speed, no matter how long it takes to get there, well then the manual approach may well be better.

post #63 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by paxman View Post

I think speed is relative. If you want your machine to be as fast as possible so you can carry out your work on that machine as efficiently (and frustration free) as possible, then I'd argue the Fusion drive is as fast as you are going to get. The time you waste playing with your set up (not what you REALLY are supposed to be doing, right?) will prevent you from doing what you should be doing.

 

If you want speed above all, for the sake of speed, no matter how long it takes to get there, well then the manual approach may well be better.


I'm for the less-headache approach.  In my younger years, I used to tinker with things on such a low level, nowadays my time is more important for other things.

post #64 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by saarek View Post

And what is a HDD and SSD if they are not hardware? lol

That's like saying iTunes isn't software because it's stored on a drive, needs a CPU, RAM, etc. to work.

Fusion is OS level software.

"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 #65 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by dtidmore View Post

OH YES YOU CAN!  You just pull the optical drive out, install a 2.5" drive carrier such as OWC's Data Doubler, install a 2.5" form factor SSD in the Data Doubler that is then installed where the removed optical drive resided and finally put the removed optical drive in an external, USB case.  Yes, there is the issue of getting to get to the iMac internals, but I have done it and it is NOT all the difficult NOR prone to damaging ANYTHING.  Just go out on iFixit and watch the appropriate video for your imac.  FYI, I will be doing this exact thing on my daughter's mid 2012 iMac over the christmas holidays.  I had planned on doing the symlink manual split, but after rolling my own Fusion drive on my MBP, I suspect that I will config hers as a Fusion Drive as well.

 

David

 Well, I'd beleive this. But as sflocal points out, time is Kruggerrands. To those that feel comfortable cracking cases (and I did this successfully to an original mac mini without breaking anything, replaced the drive and felt pretty clever) I say bravo. But the mac mini I worked on had a dead drive, and ol PowerPC chip, and if I broke it, little was lost. It was due for the recycle bin, having served it purpose well. Value received.

 

My iMac is still going strong. If I break it trying to make an upgrade I dont "need" I'll be pissed. To the extent a technician would drop a fusion drive in for $50 plus parts, I might be interested. I don;t want another box on the desk to hold the optical drive, but fairly I think I might be beyond CDs and DVDs now. More plugs, more wires, more costs, more screwing around.

 

But for those tinkerers out there, I am curious - could a SSD go in the internal bay, and an external FW HDD be combined into a single fusion drive on 10.8?

post #66 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


That's like saying iTunes isn't software because it's stored on a drive, needs a CPU, RAM, etc. to work.
Fusion is OS level software.

 

Speaking of iTunes... [looks at calendar]

post #67 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSquirrel View Post

 

The Momentus is just using that SSD as cache.  The Apple Fusion solution actually shifts the most used files on a more permanent basis.  This is a consumer grade version of something that has been happening in the corporate data center for a long time, but really no one else does this at the consumer level.

what does it mean? Fusion Drive has (roughly) 1TB+128GB capacity?
And whether the SSD part is 0-provision? Does the performance of it depend on how much of the capacity is used (as most SSDs do)?

post #68 of 107
Originally Posted by eightzero View Post
Speaking of iTunes... [looks at calendar]

 

21 days left.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #69 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecs View Post

Apple isn't being fair with the Fusion Drive. Yes, it's a cool invention, but they're not saying all the truth here: It looks like they've a huge stock of 128GB SSD and they don't know how to sell them. Otherwise, they'd allow you to choose between the Fusion Drive and 256/512GB SSD on the new iMac. But no, the new iMac (the 21inch model) is either Fusion Drive or 1TB HDD.

Or maybe they've better margins with the Fusion Drive than with 256/512GB SSD. I don't know, but they're not being fair here.

This policy isn't nice Apple. Yes, the Fusion is cool, but allow also pure 256/512 GB SSD for customers who just want SSD.

Unless you somehow access every file on your Mac with equal frequency over time, the Fusion Drive, as kludgey as it sounds, is actually a pretty good solution. Unless your running a huge database, which would benefit from a block-level SSD caching scheme (like the Momentus XT drives), the majority of people use something like 10% of their drive's files like 90% of the time, so Fusion should give users near-SSD like performance. The cost of going to a full SSD solution in equal capacity to a modern HDD is very expensive. Fusion is a great way to put 128GB to use without requiring that you pay for pure SSD storage.

"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 #70 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

Unless you somehow access every file on your Mac with equal frequency over time, the Fusion Drive, as kludgey as it sounds, is actually a pretty good solution. Unless your running a huge database, which would benefit from a block-level SSD caching scheme (like the Momentus XT drives), the majority of people use something like 10% of their drive's files like 90% of the time, so Fusion should give users near-SSD like performance. The cost of going to a full SSD solution in equal capacity to a modern HDD is very expensive. Fusion is a great way to put 128GB to use without requiring that you pay for pure SSD storage.

There are also certain types of file access affect HDDs and SSDs very differently. For instance, note the random read performance trouncing the very fast, for an HDD, WD VelociRapter drive, but for sequential writes SSDs are worse than traditional HDDs. Note that controllers and SSD tech has evolved quite a bit and personal HDDs are likely not has fast the VelociRapter tested but the point stands.




I plan on setting up Fusion Drive this weekend. I removed my ODD long ago and replaced it with an 80GB ntel X25 G2 and 1TB 7200RPM HDD so I've been wanting this for a very long time.

"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 #71 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post


Unless you somehow access every file on your Mac with equal frequency over time, the Fusion Drive, as kludgey as it sounds, is actually a pretty good solution. Unless your running a huge database, which would benefit from a block-level SSD caching scheme (like the Momentus XT drives), the majority of people use something like 10% of their drive's files like 90% of the time, so Fusion should give users near-SSD like performance. The cost of going to a full SSD solution in equal capacity to a modern HDD is very expensive. Fusion is a great way to put 128GB to use without requiring that you pay for pure SSD storage.

 

That's right, but many users (me included) are fine with a 256 GB SSD (the one on my late 2010 MBA is about 50% full and I put on it everything I need), and the price of a 256GB SSD is not much higher than the Fusion. Many users who can afford the Fusion, would also be able to afford a 256 GB SSD (or even a 300 or 500 GB). So, why is Apple forcing everybody to go the Fusion instead on the new iMac? There's no technical reason, and there's no market reason either because I've seen a number of users complaining about the lack of SSD on the new iMac.

 

So, if there's neither a technical nor a market reason, the only reasons that come to my mind is what I said: Either Apple has plenty of 128 GB SSD stock and they don't know how to get rid of it, or (very likely) they have wider margins with the Fusion: the Fusion components are really cheap (128 SSD and 1T low speed HDD), and they're charging you a price closer to what they use to charge for a 256 GB SSD.

 

So, yes, your post is right about the benefits of the Fusion, but still, dropping pure SSD support from the iMac isn't nice from Apple, and it certainly must be because of a reason similar to what I said. Apple isn't playing fair with this.


Edited by ecs - 11/10/12 at 1:20am
post #72 of 107

To be honest I don't get all this moaning and groaning about Time Machine and Fusion Drive.

 

I was also a pro thinking that I can do all better manually until I had to take the responsibility for not only my data but also the data of my family members, employees and some hundreds of additional users.

 

In the following I want to provide some experience, excluding enterprise SAN solution because they are out of reach for most users and SMB customers.

 

I use Time Machine for Macs and the "equivalent" on Windows through external RAID drives hooked to the servers and didn't loose any data in the past years.

This doesn't mean that there were no issues but most of them can be avoided with some foresight.

 

First to drive failures. I normally replace drives in servers, hard pressed workstations or storage systems every three years. For normal clients I have defined a five year lifespan.

The replacement cycle of 3,5,6 years is also necessary to cover the average data growth between 200 % and 300 % in three years in my case.

 

In the past six years I had three failed drives, one in a RAID (bad production batch-  RAID rebuild failed), one mobile drive (shock destruction) and one SSD (early model with weak controller firmware). All these issues were solved with Time Machine.

In addition I use it for the case users accidentally wipe or overwrite files or discover after weeks that the earlier version was much better.

In order to hold enough versions I use backup volumes with one and a half up to four times the space the device has. So Time Machine is a huge time saver and covers most of the common issues with the benefit that switching a Mac is also pretty painless especially because it's possible to clone TM-volumes and you can add e.g. a second backup volume for the same data at another location. 

 

Of course there are some scenarios Time Machine (or similar solutions) doesn't cover and you need additional failover and backup scenarios in place. I just name a few I had in the past. Examples are a crashed SQL database, an ill running Exchange Server stumbling because of incompatibilities between the service pack and third party components, a defect distributed Active directory after a failed schema update and much more. In addition you might have to consider some additional backups at another location for cases like flood, fire, earth quakes etc.

 

Now some words to Fusion Drive. I think it also covers a specific but pretty common scenario.

I use mainly an i7 MBP with 256 GB SSD and an i7 iMac with 256 GB SSD and 1TB hdd.

I'm an early adopter of SSDs using them since 2008 and I'd never ever consider to go back to an hdd only equipped Mac.

The problem is that switching to SSD breaks the doubling space in two years scenario which was a huge pain in the a** for me. I have constantly to manage my files on the MBP because both volumes (Bootcamp and OSX) are getting out of space.

I have the same problem with the iMac. First it was OK to put some rarely used libraries and virtual machines on the hdd but by the time I got really annoyed by this time wasting actions.

 

In my opinion FD is the best solution for the common user wanting SSD speed but don't want's to go through all the hassles necessary fighting the "data growth cycle". It's a hands off solution and combined with Time Machine backups It should cover > 90 % of their needs.

 

I'm currently testing Fusion Drive and I can't wait to switch to it in order to skip the nasty data management obstacles preventing users from enjoying SSD speed. I don't care whether there will be cheaper, better SSDs in five years.

I want the performance and space now. In addition I'm sure that until then I'll need a three TB SSD.

It's more likely this will be a three or four TB Fusion Drive then. 

post #73 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecs View Post

That's right, but many users (me included) are fine with a 256 GB SSD (the one on my late 2010 MBA is about 50% full and I put on it everything I need), and the price of a 256GB SSD is not much higher than the Fusion. Many users who can afford the Fusion, would also be able to afford a 256 GB SSD (or even a 300 or 500 GB). So, why is Apple forcing everybody to go the Fusion instead on the new iMac? There's no technical reason, and there's no market reason either because I've seen a number of users complaining about the lack of SSD on the new iMac.

So, if there's neither a technical nor a market reason, the only reasons that come to my mind is what I said: Either Apple has plenty of 128 GB SSD stock and they don't know how to get rid of it, or (very likely) they have wider margins with the Fusion: the Fusion components are really cheap (128 SSD and 1T low speed HDD), and they're charging you a price closer to what they use to charge for a 256 GB SSD.

So, yes, your post is right about the benefits of the Fusion, but still, dropping pure SSD support from the iMac isn't nice from Apple, and it certainly must be because of a reason similar to what I said. Apple isn't playing fair with this.

It's great that you can many users are fine with a 256GB SSD, but what about people that want more than 256GB? I want more than 256GB. I want my 1TB HDD (might even upgrade to 1.5GB) for data but I also want fast boot and app launch times which is why I have removed my ODD and have an 80GB SSD+1TB HDD in my 13' MBP. FInally, after years of wishing I'll no longer have to put my ~/User folder on the HDD volume and get other files booting faster which should increase my overall performance.

Why should I not be able to have this simply because you don't want it?

Why state that Apple is forcing you to get the Fusion drive "on the new Mac"

Here is a screenshot from the Mac Mini page:




Here is one from upcoming 27" iMac:




The only place it's not a pre-order option for just an SSD if for the 21.5" iMac but that's most likely due to it have the SSD card so 128GB is the maximum they can put on the stick. That does not mean you can't go get a 2.5" SSD to put in the space unused by the HDD in a 21.5" iMac if you want, but I suggest just doing the smart thing buy just buying Fusion fro the start. It's the best of both world and you're complaining about it.

Apple could have offered their own 2.5" SSD but they seem to be moving away from that and going with the SSD cards. If you really don't want to have any HDD, again, you can install your own. It'll be released this month and iFixit will have detailed instructions on how to get into it.

PS: Why would you want to pay Apple $50 more for less space? As previously noted there are plenty of files that simply aren't going to get a reasonable benefit from being on an SSD. The only advantage is from the HDD being more likely to break in the first year but you should be backing up your data anyway and not just assume that it's all going to work fine just because you are using an SSD.

"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 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


It's great that you can many users are fine with a 256GB SSD, but what about people that want more than 256GB? I want more than 256GB. I want my 1TB HDD (might even upgrade to 1.5GB) for data but I also want fast boot and app launch times which is why I have removed my ODD and have an 80GB SSD+1TB HDD in my 13' MBP. FInally, after years of wishing I'll no longer have to put my ~/User folder on the HDD volume and get other files booting faster which should increase my overall performance.
Why should I not be able to have this simply because you don't want it?
Why state that Apple is forcing you to get the Fusion drive "on the new Mac"
Here is a screenshot from the Mac Mini page:

Here is one from upcoming 27" iMac:

The only place it's not a pre-order option for just an SSD if for the 21.5" iMac but that's most likely due to it have the SSD card so 128GB is the maximum they can put on the stick. That does not mean you can't go get a 2.5" SSD to put in the space unused by the HDD in a 21.5" iMac if you want, but I suggest just doing the smart thing buy just buying Fusion fro the start. It's the best of both world and you're complaining about it.
Apple could have offered their own 2.5" SSD but they seem to be moving away from that and going with the SSD cards. If you really don't want to have any HDD, again, you can install your own. It'll be released this month and iFixit will have detailed instructions on how to get into it.
PS: Why would you want to pay Apple $50 more for less space? As previously noted there are plenty of files that simply aren't going to get a reasonable benefit from being on an SSD. The only advantage is from the HDD being more likely to break in the first year but you should be backing up your data anyway and not just assume that it's all going to work fine just because you are using an SSD.

I think his point is why simply one or the other. Which is a problem that many of us are coming back to with the iMac. Although the new design is sexy, it does sacrifice the ability to upgrade RAM on the 21.5 in model and it removed the ODD (not a problem for me, but some are upset about that). And why simply 1tb, or 3tb, or a 1tb fusion or 3tb fusion or 768gb of flash (which is going to be REALLY pricey.

 

Personally, I would prefer a 256 straight SSD drive, but I am also happy with the Fusion. I would also like to buy as little RAM as possible from Apple and then pay ~$200 less to upgrade it from somewhere else. *Note: I don't have the space for a 27in in my apartment #NYProblems

post #75 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


It's great that you can many users are fine with a 256GB SSD, but what about people that want more than 256GB? I want more than 256GB.

 

You can buy Fusion then, which I consider a good idea. Another alternative would be to plug as many external HDDs as you wish. You can really have a Petabyte of external storage if you wish so, and external ports are quite fast nowadays, btw.

 

 

Why should I not be able to have this simply because you don't want it?

 

It's the opposite: I'm happy the Fusion is there.

I (and others) just complain that they removed all SSD from the 21.5'' iMac, and all affordable SSD from the 28'' iMac, leaving only the 768 GB SSD.

 

As I said it's just the opposite: It's fine to have the Fusion option, but... why shouldn't we be able to have affordable SSD? It certainly looks like Apple has some interest here. 

 

 

Why state that Apple is forcing you to get the Fusion drive "on the new Mac"
Here is a screenshot from the Mac Mini page:

 

I said the "new iMac", not the "new Mac". Yes, I'm aware the new Mac Mini has the 256GB SSD option.

 

Unfortunately, Apple decided not to put a discrete GPU on the 2012 Mac Mini, which makes me discard the Mini, and look at the iMac. But then, although the iMac has a decent GPU, it has worse disk options (at least for people who wants pure SSD).

 

 

If you really don't want to have any HDD, again, you can install your own. It'll be released this month and iFixit will have detailed instructions on how to get into it.

 

Too complicated. When I buy a Mac I expect it to come in its final form out of the box. If I've to buy a new super-thin iMac just to open it, lose money by throwing its HDD, and putting an SSD inside (while having the risk of causing damage to a brand-new iMac), then I certainly prefer the Hackintosh way. 

 

 

PS: Why would you want to pay Apple $50 more for less space? 

 

Because:  

 

a) SSD is perfect for my use

b) I prefer 256GB more than 128GB+Slow-1T (If I've 256GB SSD, I can always buy a fast external HDD if I really need it -which is unlikely, but I always have such option)

c) Fusion is just a temporal compromise solution.

d) I prefer to not have any mechanical device at all on my computer (yes, there's a least one fan, and I lament it, but the HDD can be discarded, while the fan is more difficult to discard).

 

In conclusion, I'm happy with Apple releasing Fusion. But why is Apple forcing to go Fusion by dropping affordable SSD disks on the iMac is not fair.

 

post #76 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by saarek View Post

 

The fusion drive is hardware and the software required for it is Mountain Lion 10.8.2. No reason whatsoever that the fusion drive would not work in an older Mac. 

 

As to the previous poster, no way will Apple sell you just the drive. No sir, you need to purchase a new Mac, can't have one upgrading their old machine when you could buy a new one!

I put a fusion drive in my late 2008 MacBook Pro laptop last year.   It's a Seagate Momentus XT 750GB drive.  Not sure if mine has a 16MB or 32MB cache.  I'm also not sure whether the Apple OS is making use of it the same way the new Macs do, but it does seem faster than the 7200RPM smaller drive that I had purchased with the machine.  I bought it primarily because I needed more disc space, but since I was buying a new drive anyway, decided to go with the hybrid.

 

This was an incredibly easy installation and I think that Apple has made a big mistake making drives (and batteries/memory) non user-replaceable, simply in the name of making a slightly thinner laptop.   (Frankly, I think they do it so that you're forced to buy a new machine when the battery dies or you need a larger HDD or more memory).   I will defer buying a new laptop as long as I possibly can as a result.     For people who do real work and need the storage, it's crazy to pay the price of a large SSD drive.   Why would I want to double my cost (or more) in order to get a slight increase in performance?    To "upgrade" from a 750GB HDD to a 512GB SSD in a new MacBook costs an extra $900.      That's nuts IMO.    I think I paid only $200 for the hybrid.  

 

Hopefully the capacities of SSD drives will increase and prices will substantially decrease to HDD levels within the next year or two.      You would think that with no mechanics and no motors, an SSD drive would be far less expensive to manufacture.  

post #77 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecs View Post


Because:

a) SSD is perfect for my use
b) I prefer 256GB more than 128GB+Slow-1T (If I've 256GB SSD, I can always buy a fast external HDD if I really need it -which is unlikely, but I always have such option)
c) Fusion is just a temporal compromise solution.
d) I prefer to not have any mechanical device at all on my computer (yes, there's a least one fan, and I lament it, but the HDD can be discarded, while the fan is more difficult to discard).

In conclusion, I'm happy with Apple releasing Fusion. But why is Apple forcing to go Fusion by dropping affordable SSD disks on the iMac is not fair.

It sucks that the 256GB SSD is perfect for you and Apple doesn't offer it, but in no way does that mean Apple should offer a specific configuration to suit your specific needs.

For years now I haven't been content with the ODD being included in my MBP or that until a couple weeks ago it was not possible to join my HDD and SSD into one logical drive that would intelligently manage itself but I never complained that it wasn't fair. That sounds ridiculous to me to even think that.

If you want a 21.5" iMac and you want a 256GB SSD you know what your options are. These are not inalienable rights that public corporations should be required to offer.

"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 #78 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post

I put a fusion drive in my late 2008 MacBook Pro laptop last year.   It's a Seagate Momentus XT 750GB drive.  Not sure if mine has a 16MB or 32MB cache.  I'm also not sure whether the Apple OS is making use of it the same way the new Macs do, but it does seem faster than the 7200RPM smaller drive that I had purchased with the machine.  I bought it primarily because I needed more disc space, but since I was buying a new drive anyway, decided to go with the hybrid.

This was an incredibly easy installation and I think that Apple has made a big mistake making drives (and batteries/memory) non user-replaceable, simply in the name of making a slightly thinner laptop.   (Frankly, I think they do it so that you're forced to buy a new machine when the battery dies or you need a larger HDD or more memory).   I will defer buying a new laptop as long as I possibly can as a result.     For people who do real work and need the storage, it's crazy to pay the price of a large SSD drive.   Why would I want to double my cost (or more) in order to get a slight increase in performance?    To "upgrade" from a 750GB HDD to a 512GB SSD in a new MacBook costs an extra $900.      That's nuts IMO.    I think I paid only $200 for the hybrid.  

Hopefully the capacities of SSD drives will increase and prices will substantially decrease to HDD levels within the next year or two.      You would think that with no mechanics and no motors, an SSD drive would be far less expensive to manufacture.  

A hybrid HDD is not the same as Fusion Drive. Their goal is the same but they are fundamentally different.

"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 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post

Hopefully the capacities of SSD drives will increase and prices will substantially decrease to HDD levels within the next year or two.      You would think that with no mechanics and no motors, an SSD drive would be far less expensive to manufacture.  

It's not going to happen in the next year or two. SSD prices are still far more expensive than HDDs - and are likely to stay that way for years.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #80 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


It's not going to happen in the next year or two. SSD prices are still far more expensive than HDDs - and are likely to stay that way for years.

 

No, SSD isn't expensive. In fact, it's way affordable, as of today, even with Apple pricing. Just some numbers, from a SSD supplier on Europe:

 

128 GB SSD Samsung -> 110 euro

256 GB SSD Samsung -> 200 euro

512 GB SSD OCZ Vertex4 -> 420 euro

(there're also very interesting prices for models in the 300GB range but I cannot find them now)
 
Add about 100 euro to those prices, and you'd get what Apple would ask you for such products:
 
128 GB SSD -> about 210 euro
256 GB SSD -> about 300 euro
512 GB SSD -> about 520 euro
 
Please enlighten me in what way such prices are expensive. I consider them very affordable.  (you can make a top performing machine, with discrete GPU and 512GB SSD for about 2000 euro, and that's a very affordable price IMHO). But, of course, if Apple drops all these SSDs from the iMac and keeps the 768 GB SSD only, then it's obvious the SSD becomes magically expensive. Just drop the affordable sizes and then it's expensive. LOL.
 
By forcing you to just choose between Fusion and 768 GB SSD, it's obvious that Apple really wants to sell you the Fusion. Why? Don't really know, but it's not fair, because they're trying to convince you about the benefits of the Fusion by telling you "how expensive SSD is". And they show that by dropping affordable SSD sizes. Great.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple's Fusion Drive cuts Mac startup time in half, triples read/write speeds