Not Saying Apple is not sometime using better components, however, your statemnet are not 100% true, most time Apple is using the exact same components like Memory and HDD as any other OEM out there. The difference some time is the firmware loaded on the HDD and SSD and the extra testing that Apple may require. The bottom feeders usually get what Apple and the few other Large OEM do not want.
I managed this types of technologies and very familiar with standard and custom products and what Apple is using, and for the most part everyone is using the exact same products. Apple just charges 2x to 3x more than what it really costs.
BTW, NAND has been in the $0.50/GB range for a while, and for a 1TB HDD is running in the $0.05/GB and 2T and 3TB are are just a little less because they are two and 3 platter and the platters are the cost driver. The real secret with NAND and SSD is the firmware for wear leveling and extenting the life of memory. The smaller and more denses you go the less reliable the memory becomes. NAND is this death nail which HDD do not. Lucky for Apple unlike PC they do not write and erase as many files so SSD will last longer in a OSX environment than in a PC.
They also use higher priced components. Apple charges $300 to move to 512GB from 256GB SSD and they use boards with the same components as the following:
$458 for 512GB. $227 for 256GB. The upgrade by deducting the 256GB and adding 512GB going by the retail price would be $231 so Apple's $300 isn't too bad.
The much less expensive SATA drives are using TLC NAND. Consumers might not notice the difference but using the more expensive parts is something Apple does quite often.
There are rumors about Intel/Micron coming out with very competitive 3D NAND at the end of this year:
It's been described as having disruptive pricing. If Intel manages to hit $0.50/GB then it will be competitive with current MLC SATA drives but I wouldn't say that was necessarily disruptive but it could half the upgrade costs for Apple as 512GB would be $256 and 256GB would be $128 so upgrade = $128 and Apple can charge $150. The upgrade to 1TB ($512) would be $384, Apple can charge $400 vs $800 just now. Hopefully they can rival the performance and durability of Samsung's drives.
If Intel can go even further to $0.25/GB, that would be really disruptive because even large hard drives can be left out of machines altogether. They have to recoup investment in their plants so they probably won't have really low prices to begin with but Anandtech shows the density improvement:
50% better than Samsung so they could rival them in price but make more profit or undercut them or a little of both.
Still not cheap enough for 3TB, which is $150 or $350 for Fusion but they can push that externally like they do with the Mac Pro. $0.10/GB is the point where it gets interesting for price, which is why $0.25/GB would be a good step in the right direction.
If it was $0.25/GB, Apple could forget Fusion and just ship a 1TB SSD plus a 2TB HDD and leave them separate. Then just keep the HDD turned off until the user fills up the SSD but power the HDD up every day to keep the drive active and avoid mechanical failure.
Lucky for Apple unlike PC they do not write and erase as many files so SSD will last longer in a OSX environment than in a PC.
Can you explain that? OSX has its own equivalent to pagefile.sys, and it can write significant data to that. Updates are often bundled better on OSX, but they still involve a non-trivial amount of data.
ATENTION, mine HD just failed last week. Unfortunately had no backup. Apple pays for replacement under APLLE CARE but the cost if sending the HD to sea gate to recover the data is mine.
So, make backup urgently if you have an IMac between these dates. Then send for repair
So at least one of the drives is confirmed to be Seagate.
Can you explain that? OSX has its own equivalent to pagefile.sys, and it can write significant data to that. Updates are often bundled better on OSX, but they still involve a non-trivial amount of data.
I have no idea why, but Windows seems to be constantly reading/writing to its disk. No matter how long you leave it idle, its still rattling away. Turning off superfetch seems to help but still, it never seems to be truly idle.
I have no idea why, but Windows seems to be constantly reading/writing to its disk. No matter how long you leave it idle, its still rattling away. Turning off superfetch seems to help but still, it never seems to be truly idle.
That still doesn't really say anything, and I haven't found it to entirely be the case with recent versions of Windows. Reasons I can think of for disk access include freeing up ram via swaps, downloading updates, and general disk maintenance. Both OSX and Windows compensate for block level fragmentation behind the scenes. None of this really provides justification of the statement that Windows writes out significantly more data than OSX. It does allocate significant space for a pagefile whereas OSX seems to reserve less initially, but reserving that would not produce any significant level of wear on an ssd.
That still doesn't really say anything, and I haven't found it to entirely be the case with recent versions of Windows. Reasons I can think of for disk access include freeing up ram via swaps, downloading updates, and general disk maintenance. Both OSX and Windows compensate for block level fragmentation behind the scenes. None of this really provides justification of the statement that Windows writes out significantly more data than OSX. It does allocate significant space for a pagefile whereas OSX seems to reserve less initially, but reserving that would not produce any significant level of wear on an ssd.
I mean that if Windows (I've observed this on 7 at least) is constantly reading/writing, its overall activity is more than OS X. I know OS X does maintenance too, but now for example, there's no activity going on at all, whereas if I start a Windows VM, it seems to never stop reading/writing.
I mean that if Windows (I've observed this on 7 at least) is constantly reading/writing, its overall activity is more than OS X. I know OS X does maintenance too, but now for example, there's no activity going on at all, whereas if I start a Windows VM, it seems to never stop reading/writing.
Ah you may have starved your vm of memory, or it may be set to dynamically allocate disk space for the hosted os as needed. If it's both this behavior would be normal. It depends on your hypervisor, settings, and version of windows. OSX still probably has the most memory available to it, as most people only allocate 2GB or less to a vm, whereas OSX retains a larger share. If you boot natively into Windows, take a look at not just how often the disk sees activity, but how much is written outside of downloading updates. The updates are still something, but they're intermittent.
Comments
I managed this types of technologies and very familiar with standard and custom products and what Apple is using, and for the most part everyone is using the exact same products. Apple just charges 2x to 3x more than what it really costs.
BTW, NAND has been in the $0.50/GB range for a while, and for a 1TB HDD is running in the $0.05/GB and 2T and 3TB are are just a little less because they are two and 3 platter and the platters are the cost driver. The real secret with NAND and SSD is the firmware for wear leveling and extenting the life of memory. The smaller and more denses you go the less reliable the memory becomes. NAND is this death nail which HDD do not. Lucky for Apple unlike PC they do not write and erase as many files so SSD will last longer in a OSX environment than in a PC.
Lucky for Apple unlike PC they do not write and erase as many files so SSD will last longer in a OSX environment than in a PC.
Can you explain that? OSX has its own equivalent to pagefile.sys, and it can write significant data to that. Updates are often bundled better on OSX, but they still involve a non-trivial amount of data.
So at least one of the drives is confirmed to be Seagate.
I have no idea why, but Windows seems to be constantly reading/writing to its disk. No matter how long you leave it idle, its still rattling away. Turning off superfetch seems to help but still, it never seems to be truly idle.
I have no idea why, but Windows seems to be constantly reading/writing to its disk. No matter how long you leave it idle, its still rattling away. Turning off superfetch seems to help but still, it never seems to be truly idle.
That still doesn't really say anything, and I haven't found it to entirely be the case with recent versions of Windows. Reasons I can think of for disk access include freeing up ram via swaps, downloading updates, and general disk maintenance. Both OSX and Windows compensate for block level fragmentation behind the scenes. None of this really provides justification of the statement that Windows writes out significantly more data than OSX. It does allocate significant space for a pagefile whereas OSX seems to reserve less initially, but reserving that would not produce any significant level of wear on an ssd.
I mean that if Windows (I've observed this on 7 at least) is constantly reading/writing, its overall activity is more than OS X. I know OS X does maintenance too, but now for example, there's no activity going on at all, whereas if I start a Windows VM, it seems to never stop reading/writing.
I mean that if Windows (I've observed this on 7 at least) is constantly reading/writing, its overall activity is more than OS X. I know OS X does maintenance too, but now for example, there's no activity going on at all, whereas if I start a Windows VM, it seems to never stop reading/writing.
Ah you may have starved your vm of memory, or it may be set to dynamically allocate disk space for the hosted os as needed. If it's both this behavior would be normal. It depends on your hypervisor, settings, and version of windows. OSX still probably has the most memory available to it, as most people only allocate 2GB or less to a vm, whereas OSX retains a larger share. If you boot natively into Windows, take a look at not just how often the disk sees activity, but how much is written outside of downloading updates. The updates are still something, but they're intermittent.