Programmers and photographers could easily go past 256GB of space and as this is a "Pro" machine they could be part of the target market.
The truth is that regardless of how much space we have we'll use it all up. I have a 2TB external to go with my 500GB internal and I'm getting full because of all the extra VMs, DBs and crap I haven't bothered to dispose of. If you look at what I need for the current project I can easily fit everything into 256GB. Photographers working with RAW on a long shoot maybe not so much.
For actual data on some jobs we pull in 800GB per day of raw data. For that we have a 12 bay RAID. For big jobs you simply need to haul the gear required to do so.
In this case, if I were going to get this machine, I would start with the minimal SSD, max the RAM and save the extra for an OWC SSD upgrade later. With OWC, you know you'll get the Sandforce controller, Apple might give you a card with a Samsung controller or the Sandforce, it's a crap shoot. The Sandforce one being the better performing chip.
Yes Apple is definitely tasting some delectable margins, but two things...
The speed of the SSD that you get from Apple is top notch (especially the controller).
Second, the compatibility with OS X is also tighter.
I have my own simple SSD I upgraded myself, and while it is fine and snappy, the MBP retina getting 300MB/s and 400MB/s plus in Blackmagic benches is very impressive. Also a lot of third party SSDs work with OS X, some don't.
Just some points, curious as to what you think.
You talking about this specific SSD or all from Apple? The SSD in my MBA only gets around 140 write and 180 read, I wouldn't call that top notch at all.
Oh, well, yeah if you're comparing against Monster trash.
Monoprice, though, blows anything by Apple away. No Thunderbolt stuff yet, though.
I love Monoprice, but no, they don't. I cannot think of a single thing sold at Monoprice which is higher quality than the original Apple part. In addition to the quality difference, there's usually also a usability difference. For example, Monoprice sells some pretty sturdy sync cables, but the connector is so large that it doesn't even fit into an iPhone with one of the newer bumpers. As another example, Monoprice sells some fantastic chargers (including a 4-port USB charger with 2.1 amp support on one port; great for the new iPad) but it is nowhere near the quality of the charger that came with the iPad.
As far as I'm concerned, they're the only place to buy things like HDMI cables, but their products aren't premium quality like Apple's.
It depend. My hobby is photography. My plan next year is to visit , the great canyon, monument valley ... with my family. As we come from France by air plane, I do not plan to carry heavy stuff. So for me it's important to have more than 256 GB of storage. That's why I ordered the 512 GBytes model.
Hmm, what happens for instance with running a Windows XP in Parallels? Windows XP will be unusable at retina resolution, so the app must double the pixels. How is that user experience? Is that worse than having the larger pixels in the first place? Same is true of course for other non-adapted apps. How is that pixel-doubling in practice? Worse than a low density screen? Better?
Hmm, what happens for instance with running a Windows XP in Parallels? Windows XP will be unusable at retina resolution, so the app must double the pixels. How is that user experience? Is that worse than having the larger pixels in the first place? Same is true of course for other non-adapted apps. How is that pixel-doubling in practice? Worse than a low density screen? Better?
From what I can tell, it's going to be like using a pre-Retina iPad app on a Retina iPad. It will simply multiply the pixels to keep the app size the same as anything else. I don't think Apple is dumb enough to leave the apps tiny/unscaled.
It will probably look the same as before, though it will look relatively worse than a Retina enabled app.
In this case, if I were going to get this machine, I would start with the minimal SSD, max the RAM and save the extra for an OWC SSD upgrade later. With OWC, you know you'll get the Sandforce controller, Apple might give you a card with a Samsung controller or the Sandforce, it's a crap shoot. The Sandforce one being the better performing chip.
Ram wouldn't be as important as disk space. Unless your running a lot of heavy apps you would never need the extra ram as SSD enabled computers don't rely on disk swapping. Generally, I find you can get away with about half as much ram if you have an SSD.
In this case, if I were going to get this machine, I would start with the minimal SSD, max the RAM and save the extra for an OWC SSD upgrade later. With OWC, you know you'll get the Sandforce controller, Apple might give you a card with a Samsung controller or the Sandforce, it's a crap shoot. The Sandforce one being the better performing chip.
I checked all 6 RMBPs in my local Apple Store and they all used a Samsung SSD card. This covered two of the three capacity options. I have no idea if Apple Stores specifically choose machines with those SSD cards because they are faster than say Toshiba SSD cards or if it's luck or if they all use the same SSD cards.
It also doesn't say what controller it uses but I assume it's Samsung since the card is Samsung and that is what AnandTech discovered.
That said, what you say still holds water because Apple makes absolutely no promises about what SSD NAND or controllers will be used so they can change it at any time. All they promise is a capacity.
Ram wouldn't be as important as disk space. Unless your running a lot of heavy apps you would never need the extra ram as SSD enabled computers don't rely on disk swapping. Generally, I find you can get away with about half as much ram if you have an SSD.
I think what he might be getting at is that the RAM is soldered, the SSD is not. And since the additional 8GB RAM is only $200 you might as well invest in that to extend the lifetime of the machine, which also means a higher return when you go to sell it.
Ram wouldn't be as important as disk space. Unless your running a lot of heavy apps you would never need the extra ram as SSD enabled computers don't rely on disk swapping. Generally, I find you can get away with about half as much ram if you have an SSD.
SSD has a limited number of write cycles, relying on it so heavily as swap is risky, given that people are finding through the drive's diagnostics say that their estimated drive life goes down quicker than they had expected. Also, flash is still nowhere nearly as fast as RAM. Given both factors, you're best off trying to minimize swapping. At the time of this post, I don't even have any pro apps running on my Mac Pro, and I'm finding I have just a tick over 8GB in use.
SolipsismX is right on his assumption of why I advocated my position. The fact that RAM is soldered means you really want to get it if you think there's a chance of needing it. You don't know what you'll be running next year. I think it's relatively certain that SSD can be upgradable later through first and third party upgrades. But if you do need the storage now, then by all means, get it too.
No we don't balk at the price, we balk at the price when it's base configured with 256gb of storage and 8gbs soldered ram, we balk at the fact that apple drop the optical but won't include a hard drive, and we balk at the fact that apple via soldering memory on and tightly controlling storage via flash and maxing it out at 756gb (and that only if one pays and ridiculously large sum of cash) are turning a pro machine into an ipod, via controlling storage and memory which are the components they make all these high margins from. A pro machine these days shouldn't max out at 756gbs period, and the user should be able to upgrade the ram on their pro machine if they wish to in the future.
Btw, is the storage a user replacable component or does it void the warranty? That's well worth asking now.
They did bundle several things at the starting price point. Given that they're included, you don't really pay the hidden configuration charge that every oem charges for making custom changes. Adding in a second thunderbolt port and ssd standard + providing the bumped vram configuration makes it compare well, and they can shoehorn it reasonably well into a standard configuration. It also means that when refurbs start to appear, they'll be under the $2k mark. While it's still an expensive machine, this does overcome a psychological price barrier. I agree with your concerns though. I'm not buying one unless they prove to hold up remarkably well over long periods of use. (even then not anytime soon as I don't need a new laptop)
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
In this case, if I were going to get this machine, I would start with the minimal SSD, max the RAM and save the extra for an OWC SSD upgrade later. With OWC, you know you'll get the Sandforce controller, Apple might give you a card with a Samsung controller or the Sandforce, it's a crap shoot. The Sandforce one being the better performing chip.
I thought Samsung was known for top quality controllers there? I don't mean strictly in terms of performance, but performance, reliability, lack of firmware problems.
SSD has a limited number of write cycles, relying on it so heavily as swap is risky, given that people are finding through the drive's diagnostics say that their estimated drive life goes down quicker than they had expected. Also, flash is still nowhere nearly as fast as RAM. Given both factors, you're best off trying to minimize swapping. At the time of this post, I don't even have any pro apps running on my Mac Pro, and I'm finding I have just a tick over 8GB in use.
SolipsismX is right on his assumption of why I advocated my position. The fact that RAM is soldered means you really want to get it if you think there's a chance of needing it. You don't know what you'll be running next year. I think it's relatively certain that SSD can be upgradable later through first and third party upgrades. But if you do need the storage now, then by all means, get it too.
SSD enabled computers should not be using any swap at all unless your loading something huge. When you have an SSD you should not see any disk swapping. Your mac will also expand its memory usage to utilize as much ram as possible, even keeping applications in ram when they are not running so you should always see a high memory utilization regardless of how much ram you have.
On my iMac I only have 4GB ram, however the OS only appears to use about half of that since I installed an SSD and I keep a lot of apps open. Unless your using some heavy professional applications, like DAW apps or heavy video editing you would never use that ram.
SSD enabled computers should not be using any swap at all unless your loading something huge. When you have an SSD you should not see any disk swapping. Your mac will also expand its memory usage to utilize as much ram as possible, even keeping applications in ram when they are not running so you should always see a high memory utilization regardless of how much ram you have.
On my iMac I only have 4GB ram, however the OS only appears to use about half of that since I installed an SSD and I keep a lot of apps open. Unless your using some heavy professional applications, like DAW apps or heavy video editing you would never use that ram.
The RAM caching scenario you described happens with HDD based systems too. I don't think the tendency to avoid swapping changes when an SSD is installed.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredaroony
Programmers and photographers could easily go past 256GB of space and as this is a "Pro" machine they could be part of the target market.
The truth is that regardless of how much space we have we'll use it all up. I have a 2TB external to go with my 500GB internal and I'm getting full because of all the extra VMs, DBs and crap I haven't bothered to dispose of. If you look at what I need for the current project I can easily fit everything into 256GB. Photographers working with RAW on a long shoot maybe not so much.
For actual data on some jobs we pull in 800GB per day of raw data. For that we have a 12 bay RAID. For big jobs you simply need to haul the gear required to do so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008
Yes Apple is definitely tasting some delectable margins, but two things...
The speed of the SSD that you get from Apple is top notch (especially the controller).
Second, the compatibility with OS X is also tighter.
I have my own simple SSD I upgraded myself, and while it is fine and snappy, the MBP retina getting 300MB/s and 400MB/s plus in Blackmagic benches is very impressive. Also a lot of third party SSDs work with OS X, some don't.
Just some points, curious as to what you think.
You talking about this specific SSD or all from Apple? The SSD in my MBA only gets around 140 write and 180 read, I wouldn't call that top notch at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Oh, well, yeah if you're comparing against Monster trash.
Monoprice, though, blows anything by Apple away. No Thunderbolt stuff yet, though.
I love Monoprice, but no, they don't. I cannot think of a single thing sold at Monoprice which is higher quality than the original Apple part. In addition to the quality difference, there's usually also a usability difference. For example, Monoprice sells some pretty sturdy sync cables, but the connector is so large that it doesn't even fit into an iPhone with one of the newer bumpers. As another example, Monoprice sells some fantastic chargers (including a 4-port USB charger with 2.1 amp support on one port; great for the new iPad) but it is nowhere near the quality of the charger that came with the iPad.
As far as I'm concerned, they're the only place to buy things like HDMI cables, but their products aren't premium quality like Apple's.
It depend. My hobby is photography. My plan next year is to visit , the great canyon, monument valley ... with my family. As we come from France by air plane, I do not plan to carry heavy stuff. So for me it's important to have more than 256 GB of storage. That's why I ordered the 512 GBytes model.
Hmm, what happens for instance with running a Windows XP in Parallels? Windows XP will be unusable at retina resolution, so the app must double the pixels. How is that user experience? Is that worse than having the larger pixels in the first place? Same is true of course for other non-adapted apps. How is that pixel-doubling in practice? Worse than a low density screen? Better?
From what I can tell, it's going to be like using a pre-Retina iPad app on a Retina iPad. It will simply multiply the pixels to keep the app size the same as anything else. I don't think Apple is dumb enough to leave the apps tiny/unscaled.
It will probably look the same as before, though it will look relatively worse than a Retina enabled app.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
In this case, if I were going to get this machine, I would start with the minimal SSD, max the RAM and save the extra for an OWC SSD upgrade later. With OWC, you know you'll get the Sandforce controller, Apple might give you a card with a Samsung controller or the Sandforce, it's a crap shoot. The Sandforce one being the better performing chip.
Ram wouldn't be as important as disk space. Unless your running a lot of heavy apps you would never need the extra ram as SSD enabled computers don't rely on disk swapping. Generally, I find you can get away with about half as much ram if you have an SSD.
It also doesn't say what controller it uses but I assume it's Samsung since the card is Samsung and that is what AnandTech discovered.
That said, what you say still holds water because Apple makes absolutely no promises about what SSD NAND or controllers will be used so they can change it at any time. All they promise is a capacity.
I think what he might be getting at is that the RAM is soldered, the SSD is not. And since the additional 8GB RAM is only $200 you might as well invest in that to extend the lifetime of the machine, which also means a higher return when you go to sell it.
SSD has a limited number of write cycles, relying on it so heavily as swap is risky, given that people are finding through the drive's diagnostics say that their estimated drive life goes down quicker than they had expected. Also, flash is still nowhere nearly as fast as RAM. Given both factors, you're best off trying to minimize swapping. At the time of this post, I don't even have any pro apps running on my Mac Pro, and I'm finding I have just a tick over 8GB in use.
SolipsismX is right on his assumption of why I advocated my position. The fact that RAM is soldered means you really want to get it if you think there's a chance of needing it. You don't know what you'll be running next year. I think it's relatively certain that SSD can be upgradable later through first and third party upgrades. But if you do need the storage now, then by all means, get it too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by myapplelove
No we don't balk at the price, we balk at the price when it's base configured with 256gb of storage and 8gbs soldered ram, we balk at the fact that apple drop the optical but won't include a hard drive, and we balk at the fact that apple via soldering memory on and tightly controlling storage via flash and maxing it out at 756gb (and that only if one pays and ridiculously large sum of cash) are turning a pro machine into an ipod, via controlling storage and memory which are the components they make all these high margins from. A pro machine these days shouldn't max out at 756gbs period, and the user should be able to upgrade the ram on their pro machine if they wish to in the future.
Btw, is the storage a user replacable component or does it void the warranty? That's well worth asking now.
They did bundle several things at the starting price point. Given that they're included, you don't really pay the hidden configuration charge that every oem charges for making custom changes. Adding in a second thunderbolt port and ssd standard + providing the bumped vram configuration makes it compare well, and they can shoehorn it reasonably well into a standard configuration. It also means that when refurbs start to appear, they'll be under the $2k mark. While it's still an expensive machine, this does overcome a psychological price barrier. I agree with your concerns though. I'm not buying one unless they prove to hold up remarkably well over long periods of use. (even then not anytime soon as I don't need a new laptop)
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
In this case, if I were going to get this machine, I would start with the minimal SSD, max the RAM and save the extra for an OWC SSD upgrade later. With OWC, you know you'll get the Sandforce controller, Apple might give you a card with a Samsung controller or the Sandforce, it's a crap shoot. The Sandforce one being the better performing chip.
I thought Samsung was known for top quality controllers there? I don't mean strictly in terms of performance, but performance, reliability, lack of firmware problems.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
SSD has a limited number of write cycles, relying on it so heavily as swap is risky, given that people are finding through the drive's diagnostics say that their estimated drive life goes down quicker than they had expected. Also, flash is still nowhere nearly as fast as RAM. Given both factors, you're best off trying to minimize swapping. At the time of this post, I don't even have any pro apps running on my Mac Pro, and I'm finding I have just a tick over 8GB in use.
SolipsismX is right on his assumption of why I advocated my position. The fact that RAM is soldered means you really want to get it if you think there's a chance of needing it. You don't know what you'll be running next year. I think it's relatively certain that SSD can be upgradable later through first and third party upgrades. But if you do need the storage now, then by all means, get it too.
SSD enabled computers should not be using any swap at all unless your loading something huge. When you have an SSD you should not see any disk swapping. Your mac will also expand its memory usage to utilize as much ram as possible, even keeping applications in ram when they are not running so you should always see a high memory utilization regardless of how much ram you have.
On my iMac I only have 4GB ram, however the OS only appears to use about half of that since I installed an SSD and I keep a lot of apps open. Unless your using some heavy professional applications, like DAW apps or heavy video editing you would never use that ram.
The RAM caching scenario you described happens with HDD based systems too. I don't think the tendency to avoid swapping changes when an SSD is installed.