My gripe is with software creators that insist on locking data caching and in some cases data files to the ~ Library. In this day and age of small, fast SSDs as boots the user should be able to select an external drive for the apps uses. I realize certain things always will have to remain in the ~Lib but I have many Applications that dump a ton of stuff there that could easily be elsewhere.
You can always move your entire home directory to the external drive. (right click on user name in System Preferences/Users&Groups to get Advanced Options, select new location). This way you could get away with 256GB flash storage and put the money into a large RAID. I haven't tried this but having your home directory on the RAID should(?) allow you to carry your RAID to a different Mac and have everything except applications. I know you can run FileVault on an external drive so all your data would be protected as well. If you configure the RAID properly, you could have faster access than the internal storage.
They aren't as fast as SSDs, and the speed is ONLY on the SSD portion of the drive which is very small at 128GB if I remember correctly. So if you have lots of stuff, you may not even experience the speed as Apple's technology would move it to the rotational hard drive which is slower. It also still has rotational storage internally. Fusion drives simply provide Apple time to install flash storage in all of its products when prices get cheaper. I personally wouldn't ever get any computer with a flash storage anymore. If you need more storage, connect an external hard drive up.
True but.....
On a Fusion drive, all initial access is on the SSD except when loading a file off the hard drive onto the SSD. Once the file is on the SSD, all edits are done on the SSD and the hard drive is accessed a bit at a time when there's write cycles available. Of course, when the SSD fills up with edited files, it has to write (off-load) to the hard drive, slowing things down until the SSD has room again. Supposedly, the SSD portion keeps track of recently used files, leaving them on the SSD, while off-loading files that aren't used very often to the hard disk for permanent storage. The SSD isn't used for permanent storage like the hard disk.
They aren't as fast as SSDs, and the speed is ONLY on the SSD portion of the drive which is very small at 128GB if I remember correctly. So if you have lots of stuff, you may not even experience the speed as Apple's technology would move it to the rotational hard drive which is slower. It also still has rotational storage internally. Fusion drives simply provide Apple time to install flash storage in all of its products when prices get cheaper. I personally wouldn't ever get any computer with a flash storage anymore.
1) The SSD is as fast as the SSD and the HDD is as fast as the HDD. The point of Fusion Drive is to allow HDD-like storage at SSD-liek speeds without the cost. It's a brilliant solution, and it does this by knowing which file types are better suited or being on the SSD, based on type and usage.
2) Fusion Drive can you any size drives you want. I made my own with an 80GB Intel SSD and 1TB HDD in a 2010 MBP, after removing the ODD. You could use a 1TB SSD and 2 x 4TB HDDs if that suited your needs.
3) A lesser known trick is to include a small SD Card or USB drive into the Fusion Drive setup, this way, the quick removable of this small "drive" will render the rest of the drives inoperable. Add to that File Vault 2 and you probably could have a system that you could render inoperable for whatever security reasons you seem fit.
If you need more storage, connect an external hard drive up.
And then you have SSD, which is what you rallied against. You also have no intelligent pairing of the drives (i.e.: Fusion Drive), although you can make it a Fusion Drive if you wish. The speed and capacity has been tested. There is no skullduggery involved.
I understand Apple created the iMac as an all-in-one computer but times have swung back to the individual, specialized component design. Apple can't pack the largest 3.5" drives in an iMac anymore because of heat and power so they are providing a I/O port that's just as fast as the internal PCIe bus. Yes, you'll pay more for an external drive but you'll have the opportunity for faster access and larger data storage while maintaining speed. I agree about getting the flash storage (512GB) then adding either a disk-based RAID or SSD RAID. I presume your internal storage is for music, movies, TV shows and photos? You can always move these to external storage.
And data integrity I would add, because there's no way any computer, let alone an all in one can replicate a good hardware raid. And let's not forget time capsule and any NAS (synology are my favourites) with wifi ac enabled can be great for backups and using them to serve large iTunes libraries and the like.
Ended up sending mine back. Had it setup next to my existing thunderbolt monitor, and while it was a little sharper, it was not even close to the 'wow' range. That said, if I needed a iMac this would be the one, or, it it would work as an external monitor for my MPB Retina, we could talk.
Here we go, after every Apple product review, troll fantasy land.
1) The SSD is as fast as the SSD and the HDD is as fast as the HDD. The point of Fusion Drive is to allow HDD-like storage at SSD-liek speeds without the cost. It's a brilliant solution, and it does this by knowing which file types are better suited or being on the SSD, based on type and usage.
2) Fusion Drive can you any size drives you want. I made my own with an 80GB Intel SSD and 1TB HDD in a 2010 MBP, after removing the ODD. You could use a 1TB SSD and 2 x 4TB HDDs if that suited your needs.
3) A lesser known trick is to include a small SD Card or USB drive into the Fusion Drive setup, this way, the quick removable of this small "drive" will render the rest of the drives inoperable. Add to that File Vault 2 and you probably could have a system that you could render inoperable for whatever security reasons you seem fit.
And then you have SSD, which is what you rallied against. You also have no intelligent pairing of the drives (i.e.: Fusion Drive), although you can make it a Fusion Drive if you wish. The speed and capacity has been tested. There is no skullduggery involved.
Maybe it works for you, but its just a gimmick to me. Get the flash storage and be done with it. Use external storage whether its cloud based or external HD if you need more space to store things.
Is the hard drive noise noticeable? I don't know whether to upgrade to pure SSD just for quietness reasons.
I would upgrade any iMac to SSD simply so there's really nothing inside it other than a fan to fail prematurely. Its also noticeably faster. Fusion drives are crap!
I agree the fewer moving parts the better. But don't forget that the discrete GPU can fail too (well anything can fail). Of course the macbook pros that suffer from failing GPU's live in a much smaller space by volume. But imacs are basically made of laptop components and anything is possible.
Good succinct write up in my opinion. As far as the cons go, it seems like $700 is a good value for the upgrade to retina.
And data integrity I would add, because there's no way any computer, let alone an all in one can replicate a good hardware raid. And let's not forget time capsule and any NAS (synology are my favourites) with wifi ac enabled can be great for backups and using them to serve large iTunes libraries and the like.
I'm looking at a RAID5 TB2, 6-drive setup. I know WiFi enabled things are all the rage but I have my computers hardwired for speed and integrity. As for Time Capsule, I would like to know how many people actually use it for grabbing a deleted file or a previous version. I don't use it (I use SuperDuper! to sync my drive every night) so I'm asking for a show of hands. This article is a review of the iMac 5K, not Time Capsule, so people can tell me its not appropriate to highjack the article but I would like to know.
(In the 25 years I managed a large in-house system, I only had to get an old file a couple of times.)
Here we go, after every Apple product review, troll fantasy land.
"I bought one and sent it back . . . Honest."
We all believe you of course.
I would believe him. Its not as great as it seems. The 5k yes its awesome, but the quality of the panel, no. Thats the most important part of the entire 5k iMac is the 5k panel. I'm sure I sound like a troll too, but so be it. The truth hurts sometimes...Some people here just can't take Apple criticism.
Maybe it works for you, but its just a gimmick to me. Get the flash storage and be done with it. Use external storage whether its cloud based or external HD if you need more space to store things.
It's only a gimmick to you because you don't understand the technology behind it. You're "only use an SSD" comment followed up by "use an external HDD" is simply foolish, and absurdly ironic. These are separate drives now. This means you have to manually place unused files or files that won't benefit from an SSD on the HDD, and vice versa. You have no idea what will or won't benefit from the increased speed of the SSD. Sure, you know some of the obvious things, but you don't know what most of them are so your productivity is hindered by your refusal to see the benefit in Fusion Drive. Which is fine, I have no issue with you not wanting to use it, but when you tell people to don't use this "gimmick" despite making them less productive and using their equipment as effectively as possible I take offense. You're doing no one any good by spreading ignorant bias as fact.
PS: Did you know that iCloud Drive requires the boot drive to work? Did you know that if you have a 256GB SSD + 3TB HDD, but pay for a 1TB iCloud Drive, that iCloud Drive will be maxed out at less than 256GB for that machine? The solution: Create a Fusion Drive where you can 1) boost your overall performance, and 2) use the fill 1TB iCloud Drive that some AI users wish to enjoy. I think [@]digitalclips[/@] is one of them.
Frankly, Apple might just as well stop all their R&D spending now, unless it’s related to battery technology or the usual incremental improvements. There's no point in trying to invent the next big thing until energy management gets sorted out.
The 5K iMac is neither about battery tech nor an incremental improvement, so, according to you, they shouldn't have spend R&D on an amazing TCON to control a display with 4x as many pixels as the previous iMac.
Frankly, Apple might just as well stop all their R&D spending now, unless it’s related to battery technology or the usual incremental improvements. There's no point in trying to invent the next big thing until energy management gets sorted out.
The 5K iMac is neither about battery tech nor an incremental improvement, so, according to you, they shouldn't have spend R&D on an amazing TCON to control a display with 4x as many pixels as the previous iMac.
It's still an incremental improvement, albeit an impressive one.
The iMac is still a desktop computer in the same form factor with the same working methods.
When Apple achieve a jump on the scale of the iPhone or iPad, they will have made a revolutionary leap. Whilst it's very impressive of Apple to cram the tech into the Apple Watch, I don't regard that as a worthwhile leap.
It sure is a lovely design, but usability is also part of design. Having multiple cables sticking out because they're inconvenient to remove is also ugly, adding a hub defeats the purpose of the 4 USBs in the back, besides hubs are as fast as a single port. As for the side, Apple can create an elegant way to expose the ports when needed, I'm sure Jony can come up with a witty way to do it.
I don't agree that it mars usability. I think side ports would mean a recipe for disaster for toppling on it's side. And front ports are unseemly.
At these stage of tehcnology a hub for any person that uses a lot of peripheral devices photography and/or camera equipment should be a thunderbolt port which will be as fast as internal storage, let you arrange everything on one side, be able to add a raid enclosure as well for the storage to go along with any photography/camera use.
Try it out if/when you can afford it and see how it works for you.
And you still have your usb ports at the back for anyone who want's non bluetooth keyboards/mice for security reasons, any one dangling extension cable for usb for quick plug in and out.
In addition a fast sdhc card at the back is safely tucked away from view and serves as an extra super fast storage (sd cards nowadays sandisk and others, are extremely fast, soon you 'll have an extra 256gb expansion option for another drive, and one you can slip in and out of your mac and keep in your pocket... how technology has evolved...)
I think they've thought it over really really thoroughly. My only gripe used to be the ergonomics of the foot, but I 'll opt for a vesa enabled iMac when I can afford one.
Again, stunning machine. This and the new iPad epitomise Steve's greatest creations nearing perfection. (well close to, because I think the next step is the haptic engine of the watch, looks great btw, I really "got" it yesterday watching the add. What fine attention to detail, ui, purpose, functionality, customisation, self expression etc.) while the competition is again shooting itself on the feet with the fugly band.
And still you get, in 2014 idiots who voice the following:
This guy btw:
Quote:
I work at Andreessen Horowitz in San Francisco (blog post, LinkedIn). I write about the strategic and operating issues of consumer technology, ecosystems and mobile platforms. Mostly, I try to work out what's going on and what will happen next. I also do a weekly newsletter with 23,000 subscribers, a podcast, and talk about tech and mobile a lot on twitter.
Emphasis mine.
These are their offices:
Apparently fancy offices don't make up for sheer idiocy.
1) The SSD is as fast as the SSD and the HDD is as fast as the HDD. The point of Fusion Drive is to allow HDD-like storage at SSD-liek speeds without the cost. It's a brilliant solution, and it does this by knowing which file types are better suited or being on the SSD, based on type and usage.
2) Fusion Drive can you any size drives you want. I made my own with an 80GB Intel SSD and 1TB HDD in a 2010 MBP, after removing the ODD. You could use a 1TB SSD and 2 x 4TB HDDs if that suited your needs.
3) A lesser known trick is to include a small SD Card or USB drive into the Fusion Drive setup, this way, the quick removable of this small "drive" will render the rest of the drives inoperable. Add to that File Vault 2 and you probably could have a system that you could render inoperable for whatever security reasons you seem fit.
And then you have SSD, which is what you rallied against. You also have no intelligent pairing of the drives (i.e.: Fusion Drive), although you can make it a Fusion Drive if you wish. The speed and capacity has been tested. There is no skullduggery involved.
I am super happy with the Fusion drive in my iMac but in my old MB I installed two SSD's instead of the optical and the old HDD. I intended to create my own Fusion drive but chickened out when it seemed more complicated than I first thought - so I bought two SSD's. Do you know if it is possible to create a fusion drive using two SSD's? I'd love not have to waste time juggling files between drives.
They aren't as fast as SSDs, and the speed is ONLY on the SSD portion of the drive which is very small at 128GB if I remember correctly. So if you have lots of stuff, you may not even experience the speed as Apple's technology would move it to the rotational hard drive which is slower. It also still has rotational storage internally. Fusion drives simply provide Apple time to install flash storage in all of its products when prices get cheaper. I personally wouldn't ever get any computer with a flash storage anymore. If you need more storage, connect an external hard drive up.
The 90/10 rule is that you spend 90% of the time accessing only 10% of your drive. Fusion caches that 10%. It's a sound idea.
1) The SSD is as fast as the SSD and the HDD is as fast as the HDD. The point of Fusion Drive is to allow HDD-like storage at SSD-liek speeds without the cost. It's a brilliant solution, and it does this by knowing which file types are better suited or being on the SSD, based on type and usage.
2) Fusion Drive can you any size drives you want. I made my own with an 80GB Intel SSD and 1TB HDD in a 2010 MBP, after removing the ODD. You could use a 1TB SSD and 2 x 4TB HDDs if that suited your needs.
3) A lesser known trick is to include a small SD Card or USB drive into the Fusion Drive setup, this way, the quick removable of this small "drive" will render the rest of the drives inoperable. Add to that File Vault 2 and you probably could have a system that you could render inoperable for whatever security reasons you seem fit.
And then you have SSD, which is what you rallied against. You also have no intelligent pairing of the drives (i.e.: Fusion Drive), although you can make it a Fusion Drive if you wish. The speed and capacity has been tested. There is no skullduggery involved.
The issue is for video editing, a Fusion cannot sustain the initial speed. It isn't skullduggery it's just a fact. Once the system has determined the SSD cache is filled it has to relocate that data to the HD. If maintaining a maximum write is required to capture video you are going to hit a brick wall pretty quickly. I have a friend who bought an iMac and went by the initial read write figures to believe it was all he needed for HD video editing, only to learn the hard way.
Comments
My gripe is with software creators that insist on locking data caching and in some cases data files to the ~ Library. In this day and age of small, fast SSDs as boots the user should be able to select an external drive for the apps uses. I realize certain things always will have to remain in the ~Lib but I have many Applications that dump a ton of stuff there that could easily be elsewhere.
You can always move your entire home directory to the external drive. (right click on user name in System Preferences/Users&Groups to get Advanced Options, select new location). This way you could get away with 256GB flash storage and put the money into a large RAID. I haven't tried this but having your home directory on the RAID should(?) allow you to carry your RAID to a different Mac and have everything except applications. I know you can run FileVault on an external drive so all your data would be protected as well. If you configure the RAID properly, you could have faster access than the internal storage.
Just as the iPad was Jobs's last great gift to us, so the iMac marked the beginning of the revitalization of Apple under his second life.
The iPad Air 2 and the Retina iMac are a testament to Apple's greatest qualities, which Cook has done so well to honour.
May they mark the phoenix of Apple's third life.
They aren't as fast as SSDs, and the speed is ONLY on the SSD portion of the drive which is very small at 128GB if I remember correctly. So if you have lots of stuff, you may not even experience the speed as Apple's technology would move it to the rotational hard drive which is slower. It also still has rotational storage internally. Fusion drives simply provide Apple time to install flash storage in all of its products when prices get cheaper. I personally wouldn't ever get any computer with a flash storage anymore. If you need more storage, connect an external hard drive up.
True but.....
On a Fusion drive, all initial access is on the SSD except when loading a file off the hard drive onto the SSD. Once the file is on the SSD, all edits are done on the SSD and the hard drive is accessed a bit at a time when there's write cycles available. Of course, when the SSD fills up with edited files, it has to write (off-load) to the hard drive, slowing things down until the SSD has room again. Supposedly, the SSD portion keeps track of recently used files, leaving them on the SSD, while off-loading files that aren't used very often to the hard disk for permanent storage. The SSD isn't used for permanent storage like the hard disk.
I'd throw the nMP in there as well. An engineering marvel.
1) The SSD is as fast as the SSD and the HDD is as fast as the HDD. The point of Fusion Drive is to allow HDD-like storage at SSD-liek speeds without the cost. It's a brilliant solution, and it does this by knowing which file types are better suited or being on the SSD, based on type and usage.
2) Fusion Drive can you any size drives you want. I made my own with an 80GB Intel SSD and 1TB HDD in a 2010 MBP, after removing the ODD. You could use a 1TB SSD and 2 x 4TB HDDs if that suited your needs.
3) A lesser known trick is to include a small SD Card or USB drive into the Fusion Drive setup, this way, the quick removable of this small "drive" will render the rest of the drives inoperable. Add to that File Vault 2 and you probably could have a system that you could render inoperable for whatever security reasons you seem fit.
And then you have SSD, which is what you rallied against. You also have no intelligent pairing of the drives (i.e.: Fusion Drive), although you can make it a Fusion Drive if you wish. The speed and capacity has been tested. There is no skullduggery involved.
I understand Apple created the iMac as an all-in-one computer but times have swung back to the individual, specialized component design. Apple can't pack the largest 3.5" drives in an iMac anymore because of heat and power so they are providing a I/O port that's just as fast as the internal PCIe bus. Yes, you'll pay more for an external drive but you'll have the opportunity for faster access and larger data storage while maintaining speed. I agree about getting the flash storage (512GB) then adding either a disk-based RAID or SSD RAID. I presume your internal storage is for music, movies, TV shows and photos? You can always move these to external storage.
And data integrity I would add, because there's no way any computer, let alone an all in one can replicate a good hardware raid. And let's not forget time capsule and any NAS (synology are my favourites) with wifi ac enabled can be great for backups and using them to serve large iTunes libraries and the like.
That almost sounds like a compliment. I thought you wanted Apple to stop doing anything else until they invented some much improved battery tech.
Here we go, after every Apple product review, troll fantasy land.
"I bought one and sent it back . . . Honest."
We all believe you of course.
1) The SSD is as fast as the SSD and the HDD is as fast as the HDD. The point of Fusion Drive is to allow HDD-like storage at SSD-liek speeds without the cost. It's a brilliant solution, and it does this by knowing which file types are better suited or being on the SSD, based on type and usage.
2) Fusion Drive can you any size drives you want. I made my own with an 80GB Intel SSD and 1TB HDD in a 2010 MBP, after removing the ODD. You could use a 1TB SSD and 2 x 4TB HDDs if that suited your needs.
3) A lesser known trick is to include a small SD Card or USB drive into the Fusion Drive setup, this way, the quick removable of this small "drive" will render the rest of the drives inoperable. Add to that File Vault 2 and you probably could have a system that you could render inoperable for whatever security reasons you seem fit.
And then you have SSD, which is what you rallied against. You also have no intelligent pairing of the drives (i.e.: Fusion Drive), although you can make it a Fusion Drive if you wish. The speed and capacity has been tested. There is no skullduggery involved.
Maybe it works for you, but its just a gimmick to me. Get the flash storage and be done with it. Use external storage whether its cloud based or external HD if you need more space to store things.
I agree the fewer moving parts the better. But don't forget that the discrete GPU can fail too (well anything can fail). Of course the macbook pros that suffer from failing GPU's live in a much smaller space by volume. But imacs are basically made of laptop components and anything is possible.
Good succinct write up in my opinion. As far as the cons go, it seems like $700 is a good value for the upgrade to retina.
And data integrity I would add, because there's no way any computer, let alone an all in one can replicate a good hardware raid. And let's not forget time capsule and any NAS (synology are my favourites) with wifi ac enabled can be great for backups and using them to serve large iTunes libraries and the like.
I'm looking at a RAID5 TB2, 6-drive setup. I know WiFi enabled things are all the rage but I have my computers hardwired for speed and integrity. As for Time Capsule, I would like to know how many people actually use it for grabbing a deleted file or a previous version. I don't use it (I use SuperDuper! to sync my drive every night) so I'm asking for a show of hands. This article is a review of the iMac 5K, not Time Capsule, so people can tell me its not appropriate to highjack the article but I would like to know.
(In the 25 years I managed a large in-house system, I only had to get an old file a couple of times.)
Here we go, after every Apple product review, troll fantasy land.
"I bought one and sent it back . . . Honest."
We all believe you of course.
I would believe him. Its not as great as it seems. The 5k yes its awesome, but the quality of the panel, no. Thats the most important part of the entire 5k iMac is the 5k panel. I'm sure I sound like a troll too, but so be it. The truth hurts sometimes...Some people here just can't take Apple criticism.
You thought wrong.
It's only a gimmick to you because you don't understand the technology behind it. You're "only use an SSD" comment followed up by "use an external HDD" is simply foolish, and absurdly ironic. These are separate drives now. This means you have to manually place unused files or files that won't benefit from an SSD on the HDD, and vice versa. You have no idea what will or won't benefit from the increased speed of the SSD. Sure, you know some of the obvious things, but you don't know what most of them are so your productivity is hindered by your refusal to see the benefit in Fusion Drive. Which is fine, I have no issue with you not wanting to use it, but when you tell people to don't use this "gimmick" despite making them less productive and using their equipment as effectively as possible I take offense. You're doing no one any good by spreading ignorant bias as fact.
PS: Did you know that iCloud Drive requires the boot drive to work? Did you know that if you have a 256GB SSD + 3TB HDD, but pay for a 1TB iCloud Drive, that iCloud Drive will be maxed out at less than 256GB for that machine? The solution: Create a Fusion Drive where you can 1) boost your overall performance, and 2) use the fill 1TB iCloud Drive that some AI users wish to enjoy. I think [@]digitalclips[/@] is one of them.
You wrote this over the weekend...
The 5K iMac is neither about battery tech nor an incremental improvement, so, according to you, they shouldn't have spend R&D on an amazing TCON to control a display with 4x as many pixels as the previous iMac.
It's still an incremental improvement, albeit an impressive one.
The iMac is still a desktop computer in the same form factor with the same working methods.
When Apple achieve a jump on the scale of the iPhone or iPad, they will have made a revolutionary leap. Whilst it's very impressive of Apple to cram the tech into the Apple Watch, I don't regard that as a worthwhile leap.
It sure is a lovely design, but usability is also part of design. Having multiple cables sticking out because they're inconvenient to remove is also ugly, adding a hub defeats the purpose of the 4 USBs in the back, besides hubs are as fast as a single port. As for the side, Apple can create an elegant way to expose the ports when needed, I'm sure Jony can come up with a witty way to do it.
I don't agree that it mars usability. I think side ports would mean a recipe for disaster for toppling on it's side. And front ports are unseemly.
At these stage of tehcnology a hub for any person that uses a lot of peripheral devices photography and/or camera equipment should be a thunderbolt port which will be as fast as internal storage, let you arrange everything on one side, be able to add a raid enclosure as well for the storage to go along with any photography/camera use.
And you still have your usb ports at the back for anyone who want's non bluetooth keyboards/mice for security reasons, any one dangling extension cable for usb for quick plug in and out.
In addition a fast sdhc card at the back is safely tucked away from view and serves as an extra super fast storage (sd cards nowadays sandisk and others, are extremely fast, soon you 'll have an extra 256gb expansion option for another drive, and one you can slip in and out of your mac and keep in your pocket... how technology has evolved...)
I think they've thought it over really really thoroughly. My only gripe used to be the ergonomics of the foot, but I 'll opt for a vesa enabled iMac when I can afford one.
Again, stunning machine. This and the new iPad epitomise Steve's greatest creations nearing perfection. (well close to, because I think the next step is the haptic engine of the watch, looks great btw, I really "got" it yesterday watching the add. What fine attention to detail, ui, purpose, functionality, customisation, self expression etc.) while the competition is again shooting itself on the feet with the fugly band.
And still you get, in 2014 idiots who voice the following:
This guy btw:
Emphasis mine.
These are their offices:
Apparently fancy offices don't make up for sheer idiocy.
Some people will never, ever, ever, ever get it.
Now I 'll get back to my Swift.
1) The SSD is as fast as the SSD and the HDD is as fast as the HDD. The point of Fusion Drive is to allow HDD-like storage at SSD-liek speeds without the cost. It's a brilliant solution, and it does this by knowing which file types are better suited or being on the SSD, based on type and usage.
2) Fusion Drive can you any size drives you want. I made my own with an 80GB Intel SSD and 1TB HDD in a 2010 MBP, after removing the ODD. You could use a 1TB SSD and 2 x 4TB HDDs if that suited your needs.
3) A lesser known trick is to include a small SD Card or USB drive into the Fusion Drive setup, this way, the quick removable of this small "drive" will render the rest of the drives inoperable. Add to that File Vault 2 and you probably could have a system that you could render inoperable for whatever security reasons you seem fit.
And then you have SSD, which is what you rallied against. You also have no intelligent pairing of the drives (i.e.: Fusion Drive), although you can make it a Fusion Drive if you wish. The speed and capacity has been tested. There is no skullduggery involved.
I am super happy with the Fusion drive in my iMac but in my old MB I installed two SSD's instead of the optical and the old HDD. I intended to create my own Fusion drive but chickened out when it seemed more complicated than I first thought - so I bought two SSD's. Do you know if it is possible to create a fusion drive using two SSD's? I'd love not have to waste time juggling files between drives.
The 90/10 rule is that you spend 90% of the time accessing only 10% of your drive. Fusion caches that 10%. It's a sound idea.
The issue is for video editing, a Fusion cannot sustain the initial speed. It isn't skullduggery it's just a fact. Once the system has determined the SSD cache is filled it has to relocate that data to the HD. If maintaining a maximum write is required to capture video you are going to hit a brick wall pretty quickly. I have a friend who bought an iMac and went by the initial read write figures to believe it was all he needed for HD video editing, only to learn the hard way.