It might just be the 21" iMac users are generally not the kind that are power users. Non-power users generally don't need a lot of memory.
Affordable SSD sizes have been dropped not only from the 21'' iMac, but also the 28'' iMac, leaving the whole iMac line without reasonable SSD options. Then, no wonder the Fusion is the way to go, if you drop all the affordable SSDs.
Honestly, I'm waiting for the new Mac Pro (because the Mac Mini lacks a good GPU, and the iMac lacks reasonable SSDs, includes a monitor -I already have a couple of good monitors here-, and its thin enclosure doesn't look designed for continuous intense CPU/GPU use such as gaming, video encoding, or rendering).
If the new Mac Pro disappoints me (for example if it's just another Xeon elephant), then it will be obvious there's no Mac desktop for users who want a computer for continuous intense CPU/GPU use without having an elephant over the desk, and my days with Apple will be over (although I might consider a Hackintosh because I wish to continue using OSX --so if there's no reasonable Apple hardware for the work I do, I'll do it myself).
Affordable SSD sizes have been dropped not only from the 21'' iMac, but also the 28'' iMac, leaving the whole iMac line without reasonable SSD options. Then, no wonder the Fusion is the way to go, if you drop all the affordable SSDs.
We still don't have a CTO page for new iMac, so I still think there is some reasonable hope that they just haven't outlined all the options yet. I don't think they covered all the CTO options for the mini in the presentation either, yet there's more there than I remember was covered in the presentation.
Honestly, I'm waiting for the new Mac Pro (because the Mac Mini lacks a good GPU, and the iMac lacks reasonable SSDs, includes a monitor -I already have a couple of good monitors here-, and its thin enclosure doesn't look designed for continuous intense CPU/GPU use such as gaming, video encoding, or rendering).
Did previous flat panel iMacs have reliability problems due to heat? Most of that new thinness is due to making the panel thinner. The old panel + front glass was about 1" thick all said, I don't think the volume of the rest of the computer changed that much. The new CPU model used also runs cooler than those the previous model.
If the new Mac Pro disappoints me (for example if it's just another Xeon elephant),
I don't think Apple will make the next Mac Pro with anything other than Xeon. It's possible, but don't build up too much hope.
I think "hope" is the wrong word if the association is for a non-Xeon Mac Pro. "Failure" sounds more correct.
I find both are extremes. Unlikely is better. Having watched Apple for nearly a decade, I don't think it makes sense to rule out anything. Didn't you used to say that Apple wouldn't make a mid-tablet?
I set up Fusion drive yesterday. There were a few hiccups because of other actions i took to use one account seamlessly across two discs but nothing that couldn't be dealt with. All backups are restored with my 1.08 TB logical drive is now running smoothly. Very happy.
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
You're comparing it wrong. With Apple SSD prices, you shouldn't be comparing it to 'a SD supplier in Europe'. Better to get factual $, straight from Apple's site:
Hard Drive - Bay 1
Your Mac Pro includes four drive bays, allowing you to configure it with up to 8 terabytes of storage using 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s drives, up to 2 terabytes of storage using high-performance solid-state drives, or any combination of each type of drive. Configure each drive bay separately.
Learn more (Hard Drive - Bay 1)
1TB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s hard drive
2TB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s hard drive [Add $100.00]
512GB solid-state drive [Add $850.00]
I set up Fusion drive yesterday. There were a few hiccups because of other actions i took to use one account seamlessly across two discs but nothing that couldn't be dealt with. All backups are restored with my 1.08 TB logical drive is now running smoothly. Very happy.
Wow, just for the 12 remaining days before your iMac comes? Did you order FD for your new desktop?
I boot off a PCIeSSD and the large files are on HDD. Even though I like the FD software tech I don't think I'm inclined to create a FD on my machine, but if you're on an 80GB SSD I can understand and would've done the same.
Wow, just for the 12 remaining days before your iMac comes? Did you order FD for your new desktop?
I boot off a PCIeSSD and the large files are on HDD. Even though I like the FD software tech I don't think I'm inclined to create a FD on my machine, but if you're on an 80GB SSD I can understand and would've done the same.
1) I'm buying the 27" iMac which means some time in December. Can't even order it yet.
2) I've been using the 80GB SSD+HDD for years. First a 500GB HDD and now a 1TB HDD. I've had my ~/User folder point to /Volumes/Home, Home is the name of the HDD. This worked out very well as my OS and apps came out to about 1/3 of the SSD, and all my user data was on the HDD. This allowed for a sub-15s boot up and apps that bounce once then open. The problem is that if I did move something from the HDD to the SSD (or vice verse) t was a copy, not a move, which took extra time and made a duplicate. There were also some files and file types (like things in ~/User/Preferences/ that would benefit from being on the SSD. It was a great solution for speed + capacity but was missing that last piece that allowed the OS to manage which needs to be where for optimal performance and usability. IOW, even when I get my iMac I have no intention of getting rid of my 13" MBP so it's not just of r12 days or a month.
3) As noted in point 2 I never used much of my SSD.
I just wish the Fusion drive was the default config for the desktop Macs. It would give people a really positive impression.
That means the default config is a few dollars more expensive then the current default config. From a marketing perspective it's not easy to start with $1049 as the default and then say you can configure it for $799 if you wish (using the Mac mini since we know their prices). You really need to have the default be the base config be the same and I don't think a $1049 Mac mini as the base model would fly.
That means the default config is a few dollars more expensive then the current default config. From a marketing perspective it's not easy to start with $1049 as the default and then say you can configure it for $799 if you wish (using the Mac mini since we know their prices). You really need to have the default be the base config be the same and I don't think a $1049 Mac mini as the base model would fly.
His implication being that there wouldn't even be an option of JUST a regular hard drive. So the "default" option would still be the cheapest option.
1) I'm buying the 27" iMac which means some time in December. Can't even order it yet.
2) I've been using the 80GB SSD+HDD for years. First a 500GB HDD and now a 1TB HDD. I've had my ~/User folder point to /Volumes/Home, Home is the name of the HDD. This worked out very well as my OS and apps came out to about 1/3 of the SSD, and all my user data was on the HDD. This allowed for a sub-15s boot up and apps that bounce once then open. The problem is that if I did move something from the HDD to the SSD (or vice verse) t was a copy, not a move, which took extra time and made a duplicate. There were also some files and file types (like things in ~/User/Preferences/ that would benefit from being on the SSD. It was a great solution for speed + capacity but was missing that last piece that allowed the OS to manage which needs to be where for optimal performance and usability. IOW, even when I get my iMac I have no intention of getting rid of my 13" MBP so it's not just of r12 days or a month.
3) As noted in point 2 I never used much of my SSD.
Still, it's pretty brave.
I have a 2011 iMac that I've added an SSD to, but I don't know if I'll do this. I paid the long dollar to get a 480GB SSD so everything for that computer is on one drive, then I found some duplicated and some unnecessary files where I could have been very comfortable with 240GB. I think I installed it the weekend before this announcement.
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.
We've seen a lot of speculation on the long term feasibility of NAND if storage requirements continue to climb. I can't find the anandtech article. Here is one from Forbes.
It is true that several years ago NAND flash memory costs were coming down faster than 60% per year with key transitions to 300 mm wafers, leading-edge lithography and new mega fabs with high volumes and hence improved yields, as well as a shift from SLC (single bit per cell) to MLC (2 bit per cell). However, those changes were mostly one-time events, and there are few comparable evolutionary changes coming. In fact, the opposite is true, as flash memory is facing challenges in scaling as the lithography goes below 34 nm.
1) I'm buying the 27" iMac which means some time in December. Can't even order it yet.
Could've sworn I saw a post where you stated yours was coming the day after Thanksgiving. Obviously I am mistaken as there not even on sale
2) I've been using the 80GB SSD+HDD for years. First a 500GB HDD and now a 1TB HDD. I've had my ~/User folder point to /Volumes/Home, Home is the name of the HDD. This worked out very well as my OS and apps came out to about 1/3 of the SSD, and all my user data was on the HDD. This allowed for a sub-15s boot up and apps that bounce once then open. The problem is that if I did move something from the HDD to the SSD (or vice verse) t was a copy, not a move, which took extra time and made a duplicate. There were also some files and file types (like things in ~/User/Preferences/ that would benefit from being on the SSD. It was a great solution for speed + capacity but was missing that last piece that allowed the OS to manage which needs to be where for optimal performance and usability. IOW, even when I get my iMac I have no intention of getting rid of my 13" MBP so it's not just of r12 days or a month.
3) As noted in point 2 I never used much of my SSD.
With 80GB you are bound to put restrictions on the config, which you have done very well by putting your ~ on the HDD. I'm lucky to have a 256GB so I put the whole shebang (I like that word) ~ folder on SSD.
Could've sworn I saw a post where you stated yours was coming the day after Thanksgiving. Obviously I am mistaken as there not even on sale
With 80GB you are bound to put restrictions on the config, which you have done very well by putting your ~ on the HDD. I'm lucky to have a 256GB so I put the whole shebang (I like that word) ~ folder on SSD.
Hmm, SSD, strange name for a non-disc 'disc'.
Stopgap or not, it's a nice option. Any Apple action can be explained by asking, "Is this what's best for our users?" while staying in the realm of profitability.
Mac_128
What you don't have a coal-fired, steam-powered HDD on your Mac?
It really helps extend my MacBook's battery life, keeps my coffee warm in the Summer and warms my hands in the Winter. 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 ...
Reminds me of the classic: "If you open your XBox and pour coffee beans on the hard drive, it makes Master Chief run faster!"
razorpit
I have an inside track on one of the reactors from the recently decommissioned USS Enterprise. This should be able to blow a Fusion drive out of the water... ;-)
Isolinear chips, you mean.
If you activated a warp reactor, it would blow your Fusion drive out of the water, along with you and everything else in a hundred kilometer radius.
Suddenly Newton
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.
IIRC, Ars determined that Fusion drives use a block-level system via Core Storage.
Just ordered a Mini last night with 2.6 GHz i7 and Fusion drive. I plan to use it as a home server, Indigo automation server, iPad file converter and a web video source into my home theater receiver via HDMI. I probably will install Server so I can host stuff too. Yay, big fun in a little box.
Just ordered a Mini last night with 2.6 GHz i7 and Fusion drive. I plan to use it as a home server, Indigo automation server, iPad file converter and a web video source into my home theater receiver via HDMI. I probably will install Server so I can host stuff too. Yay, big fun in a little box.
Sweet!
I got one last week to serve as a render machine and it will be on duty full time from tomorrow. Even connected my BluRay burner to it to handle all burning needs, too.
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:
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
It might just be the 21" iMac users are generally not the kind that are power users. Non-power users generally don't need a lot of memory.
Affordable SSD sizes have been dropped not only from the 21'' iMac, but also the 28'' iMac, leaving the whole iMac line without reasonable SSD options. Then, no wonder the Fusion is the way to go, if you drop all the affordable SSDs.
Honestly, I'm waiting for the new Mac Pro (because the Mac Mini lacks a good GPU, and the iMac lacks reasonable SSDs, includes a monitor -I already have a couple of good monitors here-, and its thin enclosure doesn't look designed for continuous intense CPU/GPU use such as gaming, video encoding, or rendering).
If the new Mac Pro disappoints me (for example if it's just another Xeon elephant), then it will be obvious there's no Mac desktop for users who want a computer for continuous intense CPU/GPU use without having an elephant over the desk, and my days with Apple will be over (although I might consider a Hackintosh because I wish to continue using OSX --so if there's no reasonable Apple hardware for the work I do, I'll do it myself).
We still don't have a CTO page for new iMac, so I still think there is some reasonable hope that they just haven't outlined all the options yet. I don't think they covered all the CTO options for the mini in the presentation either, yet there's more there than I remember was covered in the presentation.
Did previous flat panel iMacs have reliability problems due to heat? Most of that new thinness is due to making the panel thinner. The old panel + front glass was about 1" thick all said, I don't think the volume of the rest of the computer changed that much. The new CPU model used also runs cooler than those the previous model.
I don't think Apple will make the next Mac Pro with anything other than Xeon. It's possible, but don't build up too much hope.
Originally Posted by JeffDM
I don't think Apple will make the next Mac Pro with anything other than Xeon. It's possible, but don't build up too much hope.
I think "hope" is the wrong word if the association is for a non-Xeon Mac Pro. "Failure" sounds more correct.
I find both are extremes. Unlikely is better. Having watched Apple for nearly a decade, I don't think it makes sense to rule out anything. Didn't you used to say that Apple wouldn't make a mid-tablet?
Originally Posted by JeffDM
Didn't you used to say that Apple wouldn't make a mid-tablet?
That what they're callin' 'em these days? I consider the iPad to be a 'mid-range' tablet, itself.
You're comparing it wrong. With Apple SSD prices, you shouldn't be comparing it to 'a SD supplier in Europe'. Better to get factual $, straight from Apple's site:
Hard Drive - Bay 1
Your Mac Pro includes four drive bays, allowing you to configure it with up to 8 terabytes of storage using 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s drives, up to 2 terabytes of storage using high-performance solid-state drives, or any combination of each type of drive. Configure each drive bay separately.
Learn more (Hard Drive - Bay 1)
1TB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s hard drive
2TB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s hard drive [Add $100.00]
512GB solid-state drive [Add $850.00]
Wow, just for the 12 remaining days before your iMac comes? Did you order FD for your new desktop?
I boot off a PCIeSSD and the large files are on HDD. Even though I like the FD software tech I don't think I'm inclined to create a FD on my machine, but if you're on an 80GB SSD I can understand and would've done the same.
1) I'm buying the 27" iMac which means some time in December. Can't even order it yet.
2) I've been using the 80GB SSD+HDD for years. First a 500GB HDD and now a 1TB HDD. I've had my ~/User folder point to /Volumes/Home, Home is the name of the HDD. This worked out very well as my OS and apps came out to about 1/3 of the SSD, and all my user data was on the HDD. This allowed for a sub-15s boot up and apps that bounce once then open. The problem is that if I did move something from the HDD to the SSD (or vice verse) t was a copy, not a move, which took extra time and made a duplicate. There were also some files and file types (like things in ~/User/Preferences/ that would benefit from being on the SSD. It was a great solution for speed + capacity but was missing that last piece that allowed the OS to manage which needs to be where for optimal performance and usability. IOW, even when I get my iMac I have no intention of getting rid of my 13" MBP so it's not just of r12 days or a month.
3) As noted in point 2 I never used much of my SSD.
I just wish the Fusion drive was the default config for the desktop Macs. It would give people a really positive impression.
That means the default config is a few dollars more expensive then the current default config. From a marketing perspective it's not easy to start with $1049 as the default and then say you can configure it for $799 if you wish (using the Mac mini since we know their prices). You really need to have the default be the base config be the same and I don't think a $1049 Mac mini as the base model would fly.
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
That means the default config is a few dollars more expensive then the current default config. From a marketing perspective it's not easy to start with $1049 as the default and then say you can configure it for $799 if you wish (using the Mac mini since we know their prices). You really need to have the default be the base config be the same and I don't think a $1049 Mac mini as the base model would fly.
His implication being that there wouldn't even be an option of JUST a regular hard drive. So the "default" option would still be the cheapest option.
No, that is just what I called it there, as an informal name for the category. Yours works, it's a more formal way to say the same thing.
Still, it's pretty brave.
I have a 2011 iMac that I've added an SSD to, but I don't know if I'll do this. I paid the long dollar to get a 480GB SSD so everything for that computer is on one drive, then I found some duplicated and some unnecessary files where I could have been very comfortable with 240GB. I think I installed it the weekend before this announcement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
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.
We've seen a lot of speculation on the long term feasibility of NAND if storage requirements continue to climb. I can't find the anandtech article. Here is one from Forbes.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ciocentral/2012/08/02/no-solid-state-drives-are-not-going-to-kill-off-hard-drives/
Quote:
It is true that several years ago NAND flash memory costs were coming down faster than 60% per year with key transitions to 300 mm wafers, leading-edge lithography and new mega fabs with high volumes and hence improved yields, as well as a shift from SLC (single bit per cell) to MLC (2 bit per cell). However, those changes were mostly one-time events, and there are few comparable evolutionary changes coming. In fact, the opposite is true, as flash memory is facing challenges in scaling as the lithography goes below 34 nm.
Could've sworn I saw a post where you stated yours was coming the day after Thanksgiving. Obviously I am mistaken as there not even on sale
With 80GB you are bound to put restrictions on the config, which you have done very well by putting your ~ on the HDD. I'm lucky to have a 256GB so I put the whole shebang (I like that word) ~ folder on SSD.
Hmm, SSD, strange name for a non-disc 'disc'.
Solid State Drive?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid-state_drive
Stopgap or not, it's a nice option. Any Apple action can be explained by asking, "Is this what's best for our users?" while staying in the realm of profitability.
Mac_128
What you don't have a coal-fired, steam-powered HDD on your Mac?
It really helps extend my MacBook's battery life, keeps my coffee warm in the Summer and warms my hands in the Winter. 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 ...
Reminds me of the classic: "If you open your XBox and pour coffee beans on the hard drive, it makes Master Chief run faster!"
razorpit
I have an inside track on one of the reactors from the recently decommissioned USS Enterprise. This should be able to blow a Fusion drive out of the water... ;-)
Isolinear chips, you mean.
If you activated a warp reactor, it would blow your Fusion drive out of the water, along with you and everything else in a hundred kilometer radius.
Suddenly Newton
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.
IIRC, Ars determined that Fusion drives use a block-level system via Core Storage.
Just ordered a Mini last night with 2.6 GHz i7 and Fusion drive. I plan to use it as a home server, Indigo automation server, iPad file converter and a web video source into my home theater receiver via HDMI. I probably will install Server so I can host stuff too. Yay, big fun in a little box.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WelshDog
Just ordered a Mini last night with 2.6 GHz i7 and Fusion drive. I plan to use it as a home server, Indigo automation server, iPad file converter and a web video source into my home theater receiver via HDMI. I probably will install Server so I can host stuff too. Yay, big fun in a little box.
Sweet!
I got one last week to serve as a render machine and it will be on duty full time from tomorrow. Even connected my BluRay burner to it to handle all burning needs, too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mac-user
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/
Replying to an old post in a recently bumped thread here but...
The new 2.5" 5400 rpm drives have higher throughput than 2.5" 7200 rpm drives because the 7200 rpm drives are single density.