For the majority of users' MacBooks I've checked it is, though 256GB would be a safer option. SSD advantage has little to do with boot or application load times and more to do with the fact either system only partially loads and when you hit an SSD with multiple jobs it's performance drops to 50%, not 1% like an HDD does. Multiple jobs? VM paging, spotlight indexing, OS & Application component loads, background downloads, background software updates it all going on. Ever notice a colour wheel on a MacBook Air?
Fusion Drives for Macs perhaps but HDDs must go.
I think Apple should give a choice, because for some people, like me, a mechanical Hard drive of at least 500 GB is essential. For a lot of people 256 is just too little, especially after a bootcamp installation. However I think we could both agree that Fusion drives should be standard for the non retina Macbook Pro, iMac and Mac Mini. Or at the very least 7200 RPM drives (Which is what I've upgraded my Macbook with)
Still use only a Mac but having the ability to boot up your computer from a disk or even a USB Thumbnail (which they did once) was a huge advantage over Microsoft. It was often a lifesaver. Yes Apple is not perfect.
I think Apple should give a choice, because for some people, like me, a mechanical Hard drive of at least 500 GB is essential. For a lot of people 256 is just too little, especially after a bootcamp installation. However I think we could both agree that Fusion drives should be standard for the non retina Macbook Pro, iMac and Mac Mini. Or at the very least 7200 RPM drives (Which is what I've upgraded my Macbook with)
Not at all, when given a choice consumers will always screw themselves, Android and Windows proves it. Why bulk up a product to suit the exception? Anyone with a decent information mgt regime can reduce the amount of local data to reap the benefits of SSDs. With OSX Photos being iCloud-based next year the requirement for bulk local storage is negated.
Still use only a Mac but having the ability to boot up your computer from a disk or even a USB Thumbnail (which they did once) was a huge advantage over Microsoft. It was often a lifesaver. Yes Apple is not perfect.
This is still possible, you can boot from external optical drives, USB pens/HDDs/SSDs.
Not at all, when given a choice consumers will always screw themselves, Android and Windows proves it. Why bulk up a product to suit the exception? Anyone with a decent information mgt regime can reduce the amount of local data to reap the benefits of SSDs. With OSX Photos being iCloud-based next year the requirement for bulk local storage is negated.
I don't think that we should all be forced onto SSDs... I laugh the thought of having my photos in the cloud. I'd love my personal stuff stored somewhere else, and having to have an internet connection to view them, and having to pay a fee to store them monthly.
For a lot of people including myself, 500 GB is a minimum. Boot camp usually takes up at least 50 GB, then theres HD movies, device backups, Applications....
I can't see anything wrong with Apple ditching standard HDDs and moving to Hybrid drives, they're fast enough for most people. Maybe Apple should put some effort into making OSX run better on HDs.
Not at all, when given a choice consumers will always screw themselves, Android and Windows proves it. Why bulk up a product to suit the exception? Anyone with a decent information mgt regime can reduce the amount of local data to reap the benefits of SSDs. With OSX Photos being iCloud-based next year the requirement for bulk local storage is negated.
I don't think that we should all be forced onto SSDs... I laugh the thought of having my photos in the cloud. I'd love my personal stuff stored somewhere else, and having to have an internet connection to view them, and having to pay a fee to store them monthly.
For a lot of people including myself, 500 GB is a minimum. Boot camp usually takes up at least 50 GB, then theres HD movies, device backups, Applications....
I can't see anything wrong with Apple ditching standard HDDs and moving to Hybrid drives, they're fast enough for most people. Maybe Apple should put some effort into making OSX run better on HDs.
You'd have to find a space for a HDD first:
Going backwards would mean making the whole machine thicker again in order to stack components. There is no possibility to go back at this point.
This issue is not a lack of options, you can get a 1TB SSD just as you can get a 1TB HDD, the problem is just how much that costs. For the time being, for people who can't afford that internally, the route is cheaper external SSDs or HDDs. The following 1TB SSD is still a bit expensive at $430 but when that comes down to under $200, the storage issue with SSD won't be a problem:
Going backwards would mean making the whole machine thicker again in order to stack components. There is no possibility to go back at this point.
This issue is not a lack of options, you can get a 1TB SSD just as you can get a 1TB HDD, the problem is just how much that costs. For the time being, for people who can't afford that internally, the route is cheaper external SSDs or HDDs. The following 1TB SSD is still a bit expensive at $430 but when that comes down to under $200, the storage issue with SSD won't be a problem:
There is a space for a HDD, in the Non Retina Macbook Pro, the iMac and the Mac Mini. All I'm saying is that there is still a need for large Hard drives at lower prices, and the Fusion drive does that very well. Its not about going backwards, its about improving what is already there to continue to suit the needs of large storage space at affordable prices in machines where the thickness is not a massive issue.
I don't think that we should all be forced onto SSDs... I laugh the thought of having my photos in the cloud. I'd love my personal stuff stored somewhere else, and having to have an internet connection to view them, and having to pay a fee to store them monthly.
For a lot of people including myself, 500 GB is a minimum. Boot camp usually takes up at least 50 GB, then theres HD movies, device backups, Applications....
I can't see anything wrong with Apple ditching standard HDDs and moving to Hybrid drives, they're fast enough for most people. Maybe Apple should put some effort into making OSX run better on HDs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by McDave
Not at all, when given a choice consumers will always screw themselves, Android and Windows proves it. Why bulk up a product to suit the exception? Anyone with a decent information mgt regime can reduce the amount of local data to reap the benefits of SSDs. With OSX Photos being iCloud-based next year the requirement for bulk local storage is negated.
I don't have a problem being forced onto SSDs when they come in storage amounts equivalent to what you can get on an HD and when they're close in price. I've switched out the hard drive twice on my late-2008 MBP. It now has a 750MB HD of which I've used 475MB, but if I were doing it again, I'd go with either 1 or 2 TB and I'm pretty good about getting rid of redundant files, old versions, etc.
For people who don't create much of their own content, a smaller SSD is fine. But for photographers, videographers and those with large audio libraries, the space is needed and I want my data stored locally, not in the Cloud. A 10-minute MP4 1080p edited video can take 1GB with the source files taking another GB. And once people start shooting in 4K, that's going to geometrically increase storage needs. And if I have to use external drives, it negates the advantages of a laptop. And since you can no longer switch out storage on a MacBook, I'd want a machine that has more storage than I think I need, since when you need more, it's not a matter of buying a drive, it's a matter of having to purchase a new computer.
Apple is currently charging $300 to upgrade from a 256GB SSD drive to 512GB and $500 to go from 512GB to 1TB. So if a 256GB drive is worth $200, they're charging $1000 for 1TB. You can get a 1TB 7200rpm hard drive with a 64Mb cache for $70. You can get a 6TB drive with a 128Mb cache for $290. The cost benefit of SSD is not yet worth it - for the difference in price, I can buy another computer or two iPads. I'm not saying Apple shouldn't offer it - I'm saying we should have a choice. The top of the line MBP that was released on 7/29 could probably have been priced at no more than $1800 instead of $2500 if it had a hard drive in it. Imagine how many they'd sell at that price.
Personally, I wouldn't mind a slightly thicker machine if that's the cost of getting large storage - giving up all that capability to have a machine that is about 1/8" thinner is insanity IMO. It's form over function.
I don't have a problem being forced onto SSDs when they come in storage amounts equivalent to what you can get on an HD and when they're close in price. I've switched out the hard drive twice on my late-2008 MBP. It now has a 750MB HD of which I've used 475MB, but if I were doing it again, I'd go with either 1 or 2 TB and I'm pretty good about getting rid of redundant files, old versions, etc.
For people who don't create much of their own content, a smaller SSD is fine. But for photographers, videographers and those with large audio libraries, the space is needed and I want my data stored locally, not in the Cloud. A 10-minute MP4 1080p edited video can take 1GB with the source files taking another GB. And once people start shooting in 4K, that's going to geometrically increase storage needs. And if I have to use external drives, it negates the advantages of a laptop. And since you can no longer switch out storage on a MacBook, I'd want a machine that has more storage than I think I need, since when you need more, it's not a matter of buying a drive, it's a matter of having to purchase a new computer.
Apple is currently charging $300 to upgrade from a 256GB SSD drive to 512GB and $500 to go from 512GB to 1TB. So if a 256GB drive is worth $200, they're charging $1000 for 1TB. You can get a 1TB 7200rpm hard drive with a 64Mb cache for $70. You can get a 6TB drive with a 128Mb cache for $290. The cost benefit of SSD is not yet worth it - for the difference in price, I can buy another computer or two iPads. I'm not saying Apple shouldn't offer it - I'm saying we should have a choice. The top of the line MBP that was released on 7/29 could probably have been priced at no more than $1800 instead of $2500 if it had a hard drive in it. Imagine how many they'd sell at that price.
Personally, I wouldn't mind a slightly thicker machine if that's the cost of getting large storage - giving up all that capability to have a machine that is about 1/8" thinner is insanity IMO. It's form over function.
I completely agree with you. I've got no problems with SSDs but they are much more expensive than traditional HDDs. Also agree with form over function. I have a 2012 Macbook Pro non retina and have upgraded the HD myself - to a 1 TB 7200rpm drive. It meant the price of the Macbook, $1200 AUD + $95 AUD + $70 or so for the 8GB ram upgrade. That totals to $1365. A Retina Macbook Pro 13 inch with 1 TB of storage is
$2,799.00 AUD...
I agree also with form over function... Carrying around external Hard drives for a laptop would be plain annoying. In addition to this, Apple should offer the Macbook Pro non retina in 15 inch as well still.
For people who don't create much of their own content, a smaller SSD is fine. But for photographers, videographers and those with large audio libraries, the space is needed and I want my data stored locally, not in the Cloud. A 10-minute MP4 1080p edited video can take 1GB with the source files taking another GB. And once people start shooting in 4K, that's going to geometrically increase storage needs. And if I have to use external drives, it negates the advantages of a laptop.
An external portable drive doesn't negate the advantages of a laptop but you have to think about performance. You can't work with 4K footage or heavy image files on a laptop hard drive because it's too slow. Saving files takes forever. Every time you save or open a 1GB project to a HDD, it'll take about 20 seconds vs 2 seconds on an SSD. If you have to work with files like this, chances are you can afford to get the larger drives.
To move the base 15" MBP to 1TB SSD costs $800. To someone dealing with 4K footage or high-res photographs, that expense should be comparable to the rest of the equipment budget.
Externals are necessary for everyone anyway because of backups.
And since you can no longer switch out storage on a MacBook, I'd want a machine that has more storage than I think I need, since when you need more, it's not a matter of buying a drive, it's a matter of having to purchase a new computer.
You can switch the storage out but you have to get the replacements from 3rd parties:
I wouldn't mind a slightly thicker machine if that's the cost of getting large storage - giving up all that capability to have a machine that is about 1/8" thinner is insanity IMO. It's form over function.
SSD performance is function, not form as is being able to put a laptop into standby and having physical durability.
To move the base 15" MBP to 1TB SSD costs $800. To someone dealing with 4K footage or high-res photographs, that expense should be comparable to the rest of the equipment budget.
Externals are necessary for everyone anyway because of backups.
You can switch the storage out but you have to get the replacements from 3rd parties:
It's unlikely that editing 4K footage off your laptop's drive is typical. I don't know of anyone that would do it that way. The use of HDDs would require some type of RAID, in which case you wouldn't be working off the internal drive anyway. I remember when it was typical to connect digital cameras (and backs) to a G4 by firewire, which means that at this point I would probably be justified in ordering people off my lawn.
They won't be huge files as they'll be short sequences at a time and they could well be on external SSDs but if they have to chop a rough edit, it could be putting strain on the internal.
The main point is the performance aspect shouldn't be overlooked with SSD, it's not just a desire to get things thinner.
I'd like to see them move all the computers to SSD-only, even the larger ones. Fusion drives are a poor compromise, when they fill up, you drop back to HDD speed for sequential transfers, the spin up/down times affect the whole machine and you still have a mechanical drive that will mechanically wear out stuck inside the machine.
SSDs have a limited number of writes, just as mechanical hard drives have a limited life . Fusion drives are not a 'poor compromise'... The poor compromise would be Apple not offering high capacity storage solutions. Just because SSDs suit your needs doesn't mean they suit everyone else's needs.
You make fusion drives sound like they operate at floppy drive speeds. There is no reason Apple shouldn't continue offering fusion drives on its Macs. If people want an SSD that should be an option as well.
Different people have different needs, and some need large storage space thus why Apple has kept the old Macbook Pro around.
SSDs have a limited number of writes, just as mechanical hard drives have a limited life.
Write endurance is rarely the cause of failure in either one. An SSD can write petabytes of data. Mechanical parts are more prone to failure than solid state, which is why the Apple TV no longer has a hard drive in it.
You make fusion drives sound like they operate at floppy drive speeds.
They operate at hard drive speeds for large sequential transfers. The SSD part of a Fusion drive is only 128GB so in a 1TB Fusion drive, 872GB of data is transferred at speeds no better than an HDD. There are still advantages with random writes but it's far better to have even a 256-512GB SSD and supplement it with 512-1000GB externally. This way you ensure that all OS files and core apps and files run at full speed all the time.
Different people have different needs, and some need large storage space thus why Apple has kept the old Macbook Pro around.
You are saying some people need large internal storage space. I fully agree that people need large storage space, I don't agree they need it internally, some just prefer it internally. In its current form, the Retina Macbook Pro has 2 moving mechanical parts remaining - the fans. The ideal for all computers is like the iPad with no moving parts. You can see how reliable those are.
They won't be huge files as they'll be short sequences at a time and they could well be on external SSDs but if they have to chop a rough edit, it could be putting strain on the internal.
Well in any case I would expect them to have more than just the internal. It's very costly to lose footage, so they are probably backing up as they go. With HDDs you would capture to Raid. It's ridiculous for anyone to suggest a large internal 2.5" HDD would be used for video capture, especially when considering their sensitivity to vibration. Given that they'll need on set backup anyway, I'm skeptical that many of them would opt to work off the internal drive, even on a shoestring budget.
Quote:
The main point is the performance aspect shouldn't be overlooked with SSD, it's not just a desire to get things thinner.
I'd like to see them move all the computers to SSD-only, even the larger ones. Fusion drives are a poor compromise, when they fill up, you drop back to HDD speed for sequential transfers, the spin up/down times affect the whole machine and you still have a mechanical drive that will mechanically wear out stuck inside the machine.
You overstate mechanical wear somewhat, given that SSDs can wear out too. In notebooks SSDs have the additional advantage that they won't be damaged if the notebook is moved while turned on. Just to clarify, I'm not referring to an issue of blocks going bad and the ssd running out of free memory cells. There are still controller failures and things that can cause drive failure. Overall they haven't been shown to be much more reliable than HDDs, but as I mentioned they are significantly better for anything non-stationary. Decently built DAS storage tends to absorb a lot of vibration so as to ensure against drive damage, and if you're keeping one or more of them on set, they are less likely to move while in operation than a notebook due to much greater weight.
You overstate mechanical wear somewhat, given that SSDs can wear out too. There are still controller failures and things that can cause drive failure. Overall they haven't been shown to be much more reliable than HDDs
It's hard to compare them accurately because SSDs can read/write data at 5-10x the speed so in a server environment, they'll be handling a higher workload. Plus some of the data available will include older drives where they were still figuring out how to make the drives reliable. OCZ had higher failure rates and they sold their SSD business to Toshiba.
HDDs are more affected by movement, temperature and power outages.
Apple offers a 3TB option in the iMac which wouldn't be possible to offer with SSD but the Mac Pro offered 12TB and it made sense to ditch the internal HDD. Consumers especially don't use that much data so I could see a Retina iMac moving to SSD. It depends on how many people it affects. Apple could have service records showing usage stats where most aren't using anywhere near the HDD capacities in which case, they'd be better off with SSD only. If loads of people are filling the internal HDDs, it would make sense to keep offering HDDs.
I don't think that we should all be forced onto SSDs... I laugh the thought of having my photos in the cloud. I'd love my personal stuff stored somewhere else, and having to have an internet connection to view them, and having to pay a fee to store them monthly.
For a lot of people including myself, 500 GB is a minimum. Boot camp usually takes up at least 50 GB, then theres HD movies, device backups, Applications....
I can't see anything wrong with Apple ditching standard HDDs and moving to Hybrid drives, they're fast enough for most people. Maybe Apple should put some effort into making OSX run better on HDs.
Then don't use the cloud, stick them on a NAS device. You should have something in place for backup anyway. HDDs are a bad idea for any portable device and they hold back the design and performance of the entire Mac range. An iMac could go paper thin and spin indicators would be a thing of the past if not for the damn HDD.
I don't mind being 'forced' into better, that's why I buy Apple products.
Then don't use the cloud, stick them on a NAS device. You should have something in place for backup anyway. HDDs are a bad idea for any portable device and they hold back the design and performance of the entire Mac range. An iMac could go paper thin and spin indicators would be a thing of the past if not for the damn HDD.
I don't mind being 'forced' into better, that's why I buy Apple products.
I already backup to a Time Capsule + a manual backup and archived to Bluray for long term storage. I have no need for shelling out massive amounts of money for more rubbish when I already have a perfectly good solution. My photos stay on my internal HD, and are backed up elsewhere.
Oh yes lets have an even thin iMac for no reason. Who the hell moves their iMac that regularly. The iMac should have fusion as standard.
Considering only the Mac Mini, iMac and non retina Macbook have HDDs I don't see how they hold back the design of the Mac line.. For the Mac Mini and iMac they are small enough as they are. For the Macbook Pro non retina it is there as the Macbook with a mechanical hard drive for those who want it. Apple is fine to go ahead and thin the Retina pro and air.
Your definition of 'Better' does not suit everyone. For me better is having the storage space I need, and I'm not the only one. I have had to deal with a heap of annoyed MBA users who have filled up their SSD very quickly and then they've got to use external Hard drives and it becomes cumbersome and annoying to them. Again different people different needs. You may favour speed over storage, but some favour convenience and space over speed.
Your definition of 'Better' does not suit everyone. For me better is having the storage space I need, and I'm not the only one. I have had to deal with a heap of annoyed MBA users who have filled up their SSD very quickly and then they've got to use external Hard drives and it becomes cumbersome and annoying to them. Again different people different needs. You may favour speed over storage, but some favour convenience and space over speed.
You're right, no one approach can be better for everyone but this one is better for almost everyone. Take those MBA owners for example; once their photos and video media are backed by iCloud they can enjoy their current/favorite media cached at full speed on their SSDs with no management required. All physical storage eventually fills up requiring the headache the MBA users are experiencing so you get there sooner or later unless you move to a better Info Mgmt concept. Sure I'd like to see a re-purposed timecapsule used as a private cloud but we'll see how open the Photos App will be. Either way SSD + infinite logical storage is way better than an onboard HDD. For almost everyone.
Comments
For the majority of users' MacBooks I've checked it is, though 256GB would be a safer option. SSD advantage has little to do with boot or application load times and more to do with the fact either system only partially loads and when you hit an SSD with multiple jobs it's performance drops to 50%, not 1% like an HDD does. Multiple jobs? VM paging, spotlight indexing, OS & Application component loads, background downloads, background software updates it all going on. Ever notice a colour wheel on a MacBook Air?
Fusion Drives for Macs perhaps but HDDs must go.
I think Apple should give a choice, because for some people, like me, a mechanical Hard drive of at least 500 GB is essential. For a lot of people 256 is just too little, especially after a bootcamp installation. However I think we could both agree that Fusion drives should be standard for the non retina Macbook Pro, iMac and Mac Mini. Or at the very least 7200 RPM drives (Which is what I've upgraded my Macbook with)
Still use only a Mac but having the ability to boot up your computer from a disk or even a USB Thumbnail (which they did once) was a huge advantage over Microsoft. It was often a lifesaver. Yes Apple is not perfect.
Not at all, when given a choice consumers will always screw themselves, Android and Windows proves it. Why bulk up a product to suit the exception? Anyone with a decent information mgt regime can reduce the amount of local data to reap the benefits of SSDs. With OSX Photos being iCloud-based next year the requirement for bulk local storage is negated.
This is still possible, you can boot from external optical drives, USB pens/HDDs/SSDs.
Not at all, when given a choice consumers will always screw themselves, Android and Windows proves it. Why bulk up a product to suit the exception? Anyone with a decent information mgt regime can reduce the amount of local data to reap the benefits of SSDs. With OSX Photos being iCloud-based next year the requirement for bulk local storage is negated.
I don't think that we should all be forced onto SSDs... I laugh the thought of having my photos in the cloud. I'd love my personal stuff stored somewhere else, and having to have an internet connection to view them, and having to pay a fee to store them monthly.
For a lot of people including myself, 500 GB is a minimum. Boot camp usually takes up at least 50 GB, then theres HD movies, device backups, Applications....
I can't see anything wrong with Apple ditching standard HDDs and moving to Hybrid drives, they're fast enough for most people. Maybe Apple should put some effort into making OSX run better on HDs.
You'd have to find a space for a HDD first:
Going backwards would mean making the whole machine thicker again in order to stack components. There is no possibility to go back at this point.
This issue is not a lack of options, you can get a 1TB SSD just as you can get a 1TB HDD, the problem is just how much that costs. For the time being, for people who can't afford that internally, the route is cheaper external SSDs or HDDs. The following 1TB SSD is still a bit expensive at $430 but when that comes down to under $200, the storage issue with SSD won't be a problem:
http://www.amazon.com/Crucial-9-5mm-adapter-Internal-CT1024M550SSD1/dp/B00IRRDHW6
The
You'd have to find a space for a HDD first:
Going backwards would mean making the whole machine thicker again in order to stack components. There is no possibility to go back at this point.
This issue is not a lack of options, you can get a 1TB SSD just as you can get a 1TB HDD, the problem is just how much that costs. For the time being, for people who can't afford that internally, the route is cheaper external SSDs or HDDs. The following 1TB SSD is still a bit expensive at $430 but when that comes down to under $200, the storage issue with SSD won't be a problem:
http://www.amazon.com/Crucial-9-5mm-adapter-Internal-CT1024M550SSD1/dp/B00IRRDHW6
There is a space for a HDD, in the Non Retina Macbook Pro, the iMac and the Mac Mini. All I'm saying is that there is still a need for large Hard drives at lower prices, and the Fusion drive does that very well. Its not about going backwards, its about improving what is already there to continue to suit the needs of large storage space at affordable prices in machines where the thickness is not a massive issue.
I don't think that we should all be forced onto SSDs... I laugh the thought of having my photos in the cloud. I'd love my personal stuff stored somewhere else, and having to have an internet connection to view them, and having to pay a fee to store them monthly.
For a lot of people including myself, 500 GB is a minimum. Boot camp usually takes up at least 50 GB, then theres HD movies, device backups, Applications....
I can't see anything wrong with Apple ditching standard HDDs and moving to Hybrid drives, they're fast enough for most people. Maybe Apple should put some effort into making OSX run better on HDs.
Not at all, when given a choice consumers will always screw themselves, Android and Windows proves it. Why bulk up a product to suit the exception? Anyone with a decent information mgt regime can reduce the amount of local data to reap the benefits of SSDs. With OSX Photos being iCloud-based next year the requirement for bulk local storage is negated.
I don't have a problem being forced onto SSDs when they come in storage amounts equivalent to what you can get on an HD and when they're close in price. I've switched out the hard drive twice on my late-2008 MBP. It now has a 750MB HD of which I've used 475MB, but if I were doing it again, I'd go with either 1 or 2 TB and I'm pretty good about getting rid of redundant files, old versions, etc.
For people who don't create much of their own content, a smaller SSD is fine. But for photographers, videographers and those with large audio libraries, the space is needed and I want my data stored locally, not in the Cloud. A 10-minute MP4 1080p edited video can take 1GB with the source files taking another GB. And once people start shooting in 4K, that's going to geometrically increase storage needs. And if I have to use external drives, it negates the advantages of a laptop. And since you can no longer switch out storage on a MacBook, I'd want a machine that has more storage than I think I need, since when you need more, it's not a matter of buying a drive, it's a matter of having to purchase a new computer.
Apple is currently charging $300 to upgrade from a 256GB SSD drive to 512GB and $500 to go from 512GB to 1TB. So if a 256GB drive is worth $200, they're charging $1000 for 1TB. You can get a 1TB 7200rpm hard drive with a 64Mb cache for $70. You can get a 6TB drive with a 128Mb cache for $290. The cost benefit of SSD is not yet worth it - for the difference in price, I can buy another computer or two iPads. I'm not saying Apple shouldn't offer it - I'm saying we should have a choice. The top of the line MBP that was released on 7/29 could probably have been priced at no more than $1800 instead of $2500 if it had a hard drive in it. Imagine how many they'd sell at that price.
Personally, I wouldn't mind a slightly thicker machine if that's the cost of getting large storage - giving up all that capability to have a machine that is about 1/8" thinner is insanity IMO. It's form over function.
I don't have a problem being forced onto SSDs when they come in storage amounts equivalent to what you can get on an HD and when they're close in price. I've switched out the hard drive twice on my late-2008 MBP. It now has a 750MB HD of which I've used 475MB, but if I were doing it again, I'd go with either 1 or 2 TB and I'm pretty good about getting rid of redundant files, old versions, etc.
For people who don't create much of their own content, a smaller SSD is fine. But for photographers, videographers and those with large audio libraries, the space is needed and I want my data stored locally, not in the Cloud. A 10-minute MP4 1080p edited video can take 1GB with the source files taking another GB. And once people start shooting in 4K, that's going to geometrically increase storage needs. And if I have to use external drives, it negates the advantages of a laptop. And since you can no longer switch out storage on a MacBook, I'd want a machine that has more storage than I think I need, since when you need more, it's not a matter of buying a drive, it's a matter of having to purchase a new computer.
Apple is currently charging $300 to upgrade from a 256GB SSD drive to 512GB and $500 to go from 512GB to 1TB. So if a 256GB drive is worth $200, they're charging $1000 for 1TB. You can get a 1TB 7200rpm hard drive with a 64Mb cache for $70. You can get a 6TB drive with a 128Mb cache for $290. The cost benefit of SSD is not yet worth it - for the difference in price, I can buy another computer or two iPads. I'm not saying Apple shouldn't offer it - I'm saying we should have a choice. The top of the line MBP that was released on 7/29 could probably have been priced at no more than $1800 instead of $2500 if it had a hard drive in it. Imagine how many they'd sell at that price.
Personally, I wouldn't mind a slightly thicker machine if that's the cost of getting large storage - giving up all that capability to have a machine that is about 1/8" thinner is insanity IMO. It's form over function.
I completely agree with you. I've got no problems with SSDs but they are much more expensive than traditional HDDs. Also agree with form over function. I have a 2012 Macbook Pro non retina and have upgraded the HD myself - to a 1 TB 7200rpm drive. It meant the price of the Macbook, $1200 AUD + $95 AUD + $70 or so for the 8GB ram upgrade. That totals to $1365. A Retina Macbook Pro 13 inch with 1 TB of storage is
$2,799.00 AUD...
I agree also with form over function... Carrying around external Hard drives for a laptop would be plain annoying. In addition to this, Apple should offer the Macbook Pro non retina in 15 inch as well still.
An external portable drive doesn't negate the advantages of a laptop but you have to think about performance. You can't work with 4K footage or heavy image files on a laptop hard drive because it's too slow. Saving files takes forever. Every time you save or open a 1GB project to a HDD, it'll take about 20 seconds vs 2 seconds on an SSD. If you have to work with files like this, chances are you can afford to get the larger drives.
To move the base 15" MBP to 1TB SSD costs $800. To someone dealing with 4K footage or high-res photographs, that expense should be comparable to the rest of the equipment budget.
Externals are necessary for everyone anyway because of backups.
You can switch the storage out but you have to get the replacements from 3rd parties:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1TB-PCIE-Apple-Samsung-SSD-Drive-Fits-Macbook-Retina-Macbook-Air-and-Mac-Pro-/201144753098
Apple should really have an upgrade service to let you upgrade the SSD later. Maybe if you asked in store they'd do it for you.
SSD performance is function, not form as is being able to put a laptop into standby and having physical durability.
To move the base 15" MBP to 1TB SSD costs $800. To someone dealing with 4K footage or high-res photographs, that expense should be comparable to the rest of the equipment budget.
Externals are necessary for everyone anyway because of backups.
You can switch the storage out but you have to get the replacements from 3rd parties:
It's unlikely that editing 4K footage off your laptop's drive is typical. I don't know of anyone that would do it that way. The use of HDDs would require some type of RAID, in which case you wouldn't be working off the internal drive anyway. I remember when it was typical to connect digital cameras (and backs) to a G4 by firewire, which means that at this point I would probably be justified in ordering people off my lawn.
This has been happening on movie sets where they are previewing footage they've just shot to make sure it looks ok:
https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/uk/products/blackmagicproductioncamera4k/technology
They won't be huge files as they'll be short sequences at a time and they could well be on external SSDs but if they have to chop a rough edit, it could be putting strain on the internal.
The main point is the performance aspect shouldn't be overlooked with SSD, it's not just a desire to get things thinner.
I'd like to see them move all the computers to SSD-only, even the larger ones. Fusion drives are a poor compromise, when they fill up, you drop back to HDD speed for sequential transfers, the spin up/down times affect the whole machine and you still have a mechanical drive that will mechanically wear out stuck inside the machine.
SSDs have a limited number of writes, just as mechanical hard drives have a limited life . Fusion drives are not a 'poor compromise'... The poor compromise would be Apple not offering high capacity storage solutions. Just because SSDs suit your needs doesn't mean they suit everyone else's needs.
You make fusion drives sound like they operate at floppy drive speeds. There is no reason Apple shouldn't continue offering fusion drives on its Macs. If people want an SSD that should be an option as well.
Different people have different needs, and some need large storage space thus why Apple has kept the old Macbook Pro around.
Write endurance is rarely the cause of failure in either one. An SSD can write petabytes of data. Mechanical parts are more prone to failure than solid state, which is why the Apple TV no longer has a hard drive in it.
They operate at hard drive speeds for large sequential transfers. The SSD part of a Fusion drive is only 128GB so in a 1TB Fusion drive, 872GB of data is transferred at speeds no better than an HDD. There are still advantages with random writes but it's far better to have even a 256-512GB SSD and supplement it with 512-1000GB externally. This way you ensure that all OS files and core apps and files run at full speed all the time.
You are saying some people need large internal storage space. I fully agree that people need large storage space, I don't agree they need it internally, some just prefer it internally. In its current form, the Retina Macbook Pro has 2 moving mechanical parts remaining - the fans. The ideal for all computers is like the iPad with no moving parts. You can see how reliable those are.
This has been happening on movie sets where they are previewing footage they've just shot to make sure it looks ok:
https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/uk/products/blackmagicproductioncamera4k/technology
They won't be huge files as they'll be short sequences at a time and they could well be on external SSDs but if they have to chop a rough edit, it could be putting strain on the internal.
Well in any case I would expect them to have more than just the internal. It's very costly to lose footage, so they are probably backing up as they go. With HDDs you would capture to Raid. It's ridiculous for anyone to suggest a large internal 2.5" HDD would be used for video capture, especially when considering their sensitivity to vibration. Given that they'll need on set backup anyway, I'm skeptical that many of them would opt to work off the internal drive, even on a shoestring budget.
I'd like to see them move all the computers to SSD-only, even the larger ones. Fusion drives are a poor compromise, when they fill up, you drop back to HDD speed for sequential transfers, the spin up/down times affect the whole machine and you still have a mechanical drive that will mechanically wear out stuck inside the machine.
You overstate mechanical wear somewhat, given that SSDs can wear out too. In notebooks SSDs have the additional advantage that they won't be damaged if the notebook is moved while turned on. Just to clarify, I'm not referring to an issue of blocks going bad and the ssd running out of free memory cells. There are still controller failures and things that can cause drive failure. Overall they haven't been shown to be much more reliable than HDDs, but as I mentioned they are significantly better for anything non-stationary. Decently built DAS storage tends to absorb a lot of vibration so as to ensure against drive damage, and if you're keeping one or more of them on set, they are less likely to move while in operation than a notebook due to much greater weight.
Some tests show SSDs to be more reliable:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-reliability-failure-rate,2923-5.html
It's hard to compare them accurately because SSDs can read/write data at 5-10x the speed so in a server environment, they'll be handling a higher workload. Plus some of the data available will include older drives where they were still figuring out how to make the drives reliable. OCZ had higher failure rates and they sold their SSD business to Toshiba.
HDDs are more affected by movement, temperature and power outages.
Apple offers a 3TB option in the iMac which wouldn't be possible to offer with SSD but the Mac Pro offered 12TB and it made sense to ditch the internal HDD. Consumers especially don't use that much data so I could see a Retina iMac moving to SSD. It depends on how many people it affects. Apple could have service records showing usage stats where most aren't using anywhere near the HDD capacities in which case, they'd be better off with SSD only. If loads of people are filling the internal HDDs, it would make sense to keep offering HDDs.
Then don't use the cloud, stick them on a NAS device. You should have something in place for backup anyway. HDDs are a bad idea for any portable device and they hold back the design and performance of the entire Mac range. An iMac could go paper thin and spin indicators would be a thing of the past if not for the damn HDD.
I don't mind being 'forced' into better, that's why I buy Apple products.
Then don't use the cloud, stick them on a NAS device. You should have something in place for backup anyway. HDDs are a bad idea for any portable device and they hold back the design and performance of the entire Mac range. An iMac could go paper thin and spin indicators would be a thing of the past if not for the damn HDD.
I don't mind being 'forced' into better, that's why I buy Apple products.
I already backup to a Time Capsule + a manual backup and archived to Bluray for long term storage. I have no need for shelling out massive amounts of money for more rubbish when I already have a perfectly good solution. My photos stay on my internal HD, and are backed up elsewhere.
Oh yes lets have an even thin iMac for no reason. Who the hell moves their iMac that regularly. The iMac should have fusion as standard.
Considering only the Mac Mini, iMac and non retina Macbook have HDDs I don't see how they hold back the design of the Mac line.. For the Mac Mini and iMac they are small enough as they are. For the Macbook Pro non retina it is there as the Macbook with a mechanical hard drive for those who want it. Apple is fine to go ahead and thin the Retina pro and air.
Your definition of 'Better' does not suit everyone. For me better is having the storage space I need, and I'm not the only one. I have had to deal with a heap of annoyed MBA users who have filled up their SSD very quickly and then they've got to use external Hard drives and it becomes cumbersome and annoying to them. Again different people different needs. You may favour speed over storage, but some favour convenience and space over speed.
Apple is really blinded by the iPhone success.
Their computers are stuck in the mud.
If they are going to change Mac OS X to look like IOS, I want a touch screen iMac.
How hard is that ? And, it's way over due !!!
They can keep the black tunnel thingy - nobody knows what to do with it, anyway.