1- Where the hell is the text from the quote gone. AppleInsider, your quote feature sucks.
2- "Now are product choices are low end and crazy high end. Very disappointing."
_Really._
Low end: Mini.
Medium range: 21 iMac, lowest 27 iMac
High range: maxed out iMac (3300€, that's starting to be serious money, you can buy a few camels for that price and start your own visit-the-egyptian-temples business for that money. Or something else.)
Very high-range: Maxed out MacPro.
Super high-range: Maxed out MacPro2013, super-secret-please-do-not-mention-before-announcement.
I think they'll get this resolved before the end of the quarter. I bought my iMac and it came earlier than original expected. It was scheduled to be delivered between the 26th and 31st of the December, but I received it on the 18th. Even UPS delivered it a day ahead of their original projections, which was on the 19th. Go figure.
I've talked to local Apple Store reps that I gotten to know pretty well and they told me that they sell out every day from their daily shipments, the demand is fairly high for these products. So whatever production problems they have will get resolved.
Now, some of them are being assembled in the US and some in China. Mine was assembled in China.
Can you actually in any way influence that? I'd be ready to pay a little more (not upto 50% more, though) to get not-assembled-in-China stuff.
Useless benchmark. I can't wait to get my 27" iMac. I'm going to do the first (and ONLY) review on a 3TB fusion drive talking about drive performance AFTER it's been filled up with well over 128GB of apps and the drive is actually forced to pull up rarely used apps that aren't already sitting on the SSD!!!
Every fusion drive benchmark out there simply puts a few apps on their iMac and runs a test. This is useless because the SSD can hold 128GB. That means if you have less than 128GB of stuff on your hard drive (which happens to be the case with all these benchmarks), it's all gonna be on the SSD. Of course your benchmarks are gonna run fast! It's not pulling anything from the HDD.
They don't actually fill up their computers with 1TB of apps and THEN run the test like I'm going to do. And my test is actually going to run intensive apps that aren't going to be touched in a long time. This will be a true test of the fusion drive performance.
No, that's a silly test of Fusion Drive performance. You're intentionally filling the computer (which few people do) and then intentionally choosing the apps that would have the least benefit. That's the same error that the people cited above make. They're intentionally choosing a worst case scenario (obviously, working with a massive drive that is on the 5400 rpm drive rather than on the SSD is going to be slow).
The best test is always to try to mimic what you do most of the time. By definition, the things that you do most of the time will be on the SSD drive and the things you rarely do will be on the platter. So if you want to find out how much it speeds up things that you do every day, you're mostly going to be hitting the SSD (after the system becomes familiar enough with your usage patterns to have reached equilibrium). When you run an app that hasn't been used for a long time, it is NOT representative of your normal usage.
Now, there might be scenarios where your situation is relevant. Let's say that you run a very computer-intensive app only once a month or once a quarter -- perhaps some scientific app that requires massive resources. Fusion would not really help in that case. Fortunately, very few people actually operate like that. And even if you do, you can get around it by simply getting a small SSD Thunderbolt disk and using it when you need to run that app.
Here is BareFeats testing on the new iMac against machines with and without Fusion Drive. Note this is the 27" iMac so the drive is 3.5" and therefore 7200 RPM.
That's just about what I would have expected. Fusion is going to be faster than a platter drive for the things people do routinely. If you are in the group that uses a wide variety of apps and data (> 128 GB worth) or have a data-intensive app that you use so infrequently that it's downgraded to the 5400 rpm drive, then fusion probably won't help as much (although it will still be faster than just the platter drive because the OS will be on SSD).
It looks like the slimming of the new iMacs allowed them to slim the stand by half of an inch on the 21.5" model. The 27" model has a current stand depth of 8". It was probably 9" in the last model.
That's actually wise. Even on the MBA, pulling from a 100% flash disk can feel slow (but it might be Mountain Lion that sucks). Switching from Office to Photoshop to XCode to Firefox to Excel to Eclipse -- possibly to EVE if I feel so inclined -- yes, I do that routinely) can feel annoyingly slow.
You're using all those apps on an MBA and complaining that the SSD is slow? Did it ever occur to you that it might simply be that you're overloading the system so much that even blazing fast SSD can't make up for all the additional swapping you're doing?
It's not a miracle worker. It is, however, far faster than anything else. If you were to try doing all those tasks on a different system with the same processor and same RAM as your MBA but with a platter drive, I think you'd understand just how much time the SSD is saving you.
Amazing screen cap. Shows the clear editorial independance of C|net. I mean, who else has dared shake the Apple theocracy and tell the truth on the iPhone 5, the iPad, the iMac and warned that MBA isn't up the Lenovo's ultrabook?
Ahemf.
Here is the anti-Apple pathology in stark relief, assuming you are serious.
How is Apple a theocracy? Do you see yourself in the heroic role of "shaking" that theocracy?
No, no, the Macbook and the iPad are completely different from the iMac. I understand why those are getting thinner, they are mobile devices. I don't understand the iMac getting thinner because a) it is a desktop and b) it was already very thin. Yes they did lower performance, the 21" model has a laptop drive in it now rather then the 7800 drives that were in the previous version. I used the 21" version in the store and it was painfully slow the 27" was moderately better.
Also, the 2.5" drives are much less reliable than 3.5" drives, even if they are used in a desktop. And when that drive fails, it might be cheaper to just throw away the iMac and get an equivalent used Mac Mini and 21" display. The new 21" iMac wasn't designed to be serviced. So it's thin and disposable versus less than an inch thicker and repairable/upgradable, I'd choose the latter.
pik80: 7800 should be 7200
p.s. With the Thunderbolt port as an input, you can use the iMac with a dead hard drive as a display. So that's why they designed it that way.
1- Where the hell is the text from the quote gone. AppleInsider, your quote feature sucks.
He screwed up his post tabbing, so it screwed up your quote. Nothing to do with Huddler.
Originally Posted by Phone-UI-Guy
Pretty sure he is referencing over all size including the stand.
And I'm referencing the size of the device because the stand doesn't matter. It's specifically designed to be as out of the way in this regard as possible. All that matters is the thickness of the device.
Originally Posted by Flaneur
How is Apple a theocracy? Do you see yourself in the heroic role of "shaking" that theocracy?
Well it certainly can't be a demand issue. I mean c|net is telling us the new Mac is only compelling for "Mac loyalists", and we know there's not many of those around anymore.
LOL, those cnet site headlines read like Fandroid posts.
LOL, those cnet site headlines read like Fandroid posts.
I'm not surprised about this sort of thing when I see it, I just wish the people responsible would be jailed, fined, or have their websites shut down.
Video game companies pay their industry's review sites for better reviews. Many have been caught at it, and the only price they pay is player outrage for as long as the event is remembered. No tangible or repeatedly quantifiable repercussion.
I expect some players within the tech industry to do the same. So it's not surprising, it's just disgusting.
Also, the 2.5" drives are much less reliable than 3.5" drives, even if they are used in a desktop. And when that drive fails, it might be cheaper to just throw away the iMac and get an equivalent used Mac Mini and 21" display. The new 21" iMac wasn't designed to be serviced. So it's thin and disposable versus less than an inch thicker and repairable/upgradable, I'd choose the latter.
That is basically the reason why I always get a Mac Pro. They seems expensive, but actually they're cheaper.
That's just about what I would have expected. Fusion is going to be faster than a platter drive for the things people do routinely. If you are in the group that uses a wide variety of apps and data (> 128 GB worth) or have a data-intensive app that you use so infrequently that it's downgraded to the 5400 rpm drive, then fusion probably won't help as much (although it will still be faster than just the platter drive because the OS will be on SSD).
I don't understand how one can complain about Fusion when it's filled when HDDs slow down as they are filled. At least with Fusion you have the OS, all frequently used apps or all apps if you have the space, and other files that would benefit from being on the SSD along with a designated area for caching on the SSD.
As I'm sure you've seen me write before I've been using dual drives in my 13' MBP for years. My OS and apps on the SSD and my ~/User folder on the HDD. Fast boots and app launches with 1.08TB capacity. Only in the last few months did I combine the drives into a single Fusion Drive. Works great!
During those years of two separate volumes I've never filled more than half the drive with the OS and apps. I do have MS Office and Xcode but I don't have any professional Adobe products installed. I'm sure there are users that would benefit from a 256GB SSD because 128GB isn't enough for all their apps but they are atypical users. Even more atypical would be users that would frequently need access to all 128GB+ of apps on the SSD which makes me wonder why one would want to design a test that isn't real world but designed to make Fusion Drive look bad.
That is basically the reason why I always get a Mac Pro. They seems expensive, but actually they're cheaper.
I have noticed that too. I am currently writing this comment on a nine year old PowerMac G5 since it has lasted so long. If Apple ever comes out with a mid-range machine I would be interested in buying that but in the mean time I shall wait.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
I'm not surprised about this sort of thing when I see it, I just wish the people responsible would be jailed, fined, or have their websites shut down.
I respect Cnet for doing this rather than just praising everything Apple puts out. I think reviews on Apple products have gotten a little overly positive recently so it is good to have them come along and ground us back to reality.
I have noticed that too. I am currently writing this comment on a nine year old PowerMac G5 since it has lasted so long. If Apple ever comes out with a mid-range machine I would be interested in buying that but in the mean time I shall wait.....
Hmmm.. The lowest price PowerMac G5 was $2,000. The lowest priced Mac Pro is $2500. Not sure how they're in such different categories.
And Apple DOES have a mid-range machine. It's call the iMac. Whether or not it meets your needs, it is certainly mid-range (above the Mini and below the Mac Pro - although the iMac can easily beat a low end Mac Pro at many tasks).
I respect Cnet for doing this rather than just praising everything Apple puts out. I think reviews on Apple products have gotten a little overly positive recently so it is good to have them come along and ground us back to reality.
"back to reality"? More like "back to the 90s when it was apparently illegal to say anything positive about Apple or Apple products".
Apple's reviews have been so positive because they've been so far ahead of the competition at most things. Posting a ridiculously negative, error-filled review does not provide balance.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
Yeah me too. But I thought that screen shot was good for a laugh, 3 hits on Apple all on the front page.
4. The left article is a MBA hit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by isaidso
Dude... I know you're trying to make a point, but publishing that screen shot is really not so cool. Just kinda obnoxious.
1_ I disagree.
2- You work at C|net?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pik80
1- Where the hell is the text from the quote gone. AppleInsider, your quote feature sucks.
2- "Now are product choices are low end and crazy high end. Very disappointing."
_Really._
Low end: Mini.
Medium range: 21 iMac, lowest 27 iMac
High range: maxed out iMac (3300€, that's starting to be serious money, you can buy a few camels for that price and start your own visit-the-egyptian-temples business for that money. Or something else.)
Very high-range: Maxed out MacPro.
Super high-range: Maxed out MacPro2013, super-secret-please-do-not-mention-before-announcement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank
I think they'll get this resolved before the end of the quarter. I bought my iMac and it came earlier than original expected. It was scheduled to be delivered between the 26th and 31st of the December, but I received it on the 18th. Even UPS delivered it a day ahead of their original projections, which was on the 19th. Go figure.
I've talked to local Apple Store reps that I gotten to know pretty well and they told me that they sell out every day from their daily shipments, the demand is fairly high for these products. So whatever production problems they have will get resolved.
Now, some of them are being assembled in the US and some in China. Mine was assembled in China.
Can you actually in any way influence that? I'd be ready to pay a little more (not upto 50% more, though) to get not-assembled-in-China stuff.
No, that's a silly test of Fusion Drive performance. You're intentionally filling the computer (which few people do) and then intentionally choosing the apps that would have the least benefit. That's the same error that the people cited above make. They're intentionally choosing a worst case scenario (obviously, working with a massive drive that is on the 5400 rpm drive rather than on the SSD is going to be slow).
The best test is always to try to mimic what you do most of the time. By definition, the things that you do most of the time will be on the SSD drive and the things you rarely do will be on the platter. So if you want to find out how much it speeds up things that you do every day, you're mostly going to be hitting the SSD (after the system becomes familiar enough with your usage patterns to have reached equilibrium). When you run an app that hasn't been used for a long time, it is NOT representative of your normal usage.
Now, there might be scenarios where your situation is relevant. Let's say that you run a very computer-intensive app only once a month or once a quarter -- perhaps some scientific app that requires massive resources. Fusion would not really help in that case. Fortunately, very few people actually operate like that. And even if you do, you can get around it by simply getting a small SSD Thunderbolt disk and using it when you need to run that app.
That's just about what I would have expected. Fusion is going to be faster than a platter drive for the things people do routinely. If you are in the group that uses a wide variety of apps and data (> 128 GB worth) or have a data-intensive app that you use so infrequently that it's downgraded to the 5400 rpm drive, then fusion probably won't help as much (although it will still be faster than just the platter drive because the OS will be on SSD).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Originally Posted by pik80
The last iMac wasn't nine inches. What are you talking about?
How silly it would be to make the iMac thicker. What are YOU talking about?
Pretty sure he is referencing over all size including the stand.
Last 21.5" iMac
Depth: 7.42 inches
http://store.apple.com/us/product/FC812LL/A
New 21.5" iMac
Stand depth: 6.9 inches
http://www.apple.com/imac/specs/
It looks like the slimming of the new iMacs allowed them to slim the stand by half of an inch on the 21.5" model. The 27" model has a current stand depth of 8". It was probably 9" in the last model.
You're using all those apps on an MBA and complaining that the SSD is slow? Did it ever occur to you that it might simply be that you're overloading the system so much that even blazing fast SSD can't make up for all the additional swapping you're doing?
It's not a miracle worker. It is, however, far faster than anything else. If you were to try doing all those tasks on a different system with the same processor and same RAM as your MBA but with a platter drive, I think you'd understand just how much time the SSD is saving you.
Here is the anti-Apple pathology in stark relief, assuming you are serious.
How is Apple a theocracy? Do you see yourself in the heroic role of "shaking" that theocracy?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pik80
No, no, the Macbook and the iPad are completely different from the iMac. I understand why those are getting thinner, they are mobile devices. I don't understand the iMac getting thinner because a) it is a desktop and b) it was already very thin. Yes they did lower performance, the 21" model has a laptop drive in it now rather then the 7800 drives that were in the previous version. I used the 21" version in the store and it was painfully slow the 27" was moderately better.
Also, the 2.5" drives are much less reliable than 3.5" drives, even if they are used in a desktop. And when that drive fails, it might be cheaper to just throw away the iMac and get an equivalent used Mac Mini and 21" display. The new 21" iMac wasn't designed to be serviced. So it's thin and disposable versus less than an inch thicker and repairable/upgradable, I'd choose the latter.
pik80: 7800 should be 7200
p.s. With the Thunderbolt port as an input, you can use the iMac with a dead hard drive as a display. So that's why they designed it that way.
Originally Posted by lightknight
1- Where the hell is the text from the quote gone. AppleInsider, your quote feature sucks.
He screwed up his post tabbing, so it screwed up your quote. Nothing to do with Huddler.
Originally Posted by Phone-UI-Guy
Pretty sure he is referencing over all size including the stand.
And I'm referencing the size of the device because the stand doesn't matter. It's specifically designed to be as out of the way in this regard as possible. All that matters is the thickness of the device.
Originally Posted by Flaneur
How is Apple a theocracy? Do you see yourself in the heroic role of "shaking" that theocracy?
That would explain a little.
LOL, those cnet site headlines read like Fandroid posts.
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
LOL, those cnet site headlines read like Fandroid posts.
I'm not surprised about this sort of thing when I see it, I just wish the people responsible would be jailed, fined, or have their websites shut down.
Video game companies pay their industry's review sites for better reviews. Many have been caught at it, and the only price they pay is player outrage for as long as the event is remembered. No tangible or repeatedly quantifiable repercussion.
I expect some players within the tech industry to do the same. So it's not surprising, it's just disgusting.
That is basically the reason why I always get a Mac Pro. They seems expensive, but actually they're cheaper.
I don't understand how one can complain about Fusion when it's filled when HDDs slow down as they are filled. At least with Fusion you have the OS, all frequently used apps or all apps if you have the space, and other files that would benefit from being on the SSD along with a designated area for caching on the SSD.
As I'm sure you've seen me write before I've been using dual drives in my 13' MBP for years. My OS and apps on the SSD and my ~/User folder on the HDD. Fast boots and app launches with 1.08TB capacity. Only in the last few months did I combine the drives into a single Fusion Drive. Works great!
During those years of two separate volumes I've never filled more than half the drive with the OS and apps. I do have MS Office and Xcode but I don't have any professional Adobe products installed. I'm sure there are users that would benefit from a 256GB SSD because 128GB isn't enough for all their apps but they are atypical users. Even more atypical would be users that would frequently need access to all 128GB+ of apps on the SSD which makes me wonder why one would want to design a test that isn't real world but designed to make Fusion Drive look bad.
Here is AnandTech's review of Fusion Drive: http://www.anandtech.com/show/6679/a-month-with-apples-fusion-drive
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie
That is basically the reason why I always get a Mac Pro. They seems expensive, but actually they're cheaper.
I have noticed that too. I am currently writing this comment on a nine year old PowerMac G5 since it has lasted so long. If Apple ever comes out with a mid-range machine I would be interested in buying that but in the mean time I shall wait.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
I'm not surprised about this sort of thing when I see it, I just wish the people responsible would be jailed, fined, or have their websites shut down.
I respect Cnet for doing this rather than just praising everything Apple puts out. I think reviews on Apple products have gotten a little overly positive recently so it is good to have them come along and ground us back to reality.
Originally Posted by pik80
I think reviews on Apple products have gotten a little overly positive recently…
So you're ignoring the past three years or so?
Hmmm.. The lowest price PowerMac G5 was $2,000. The lowest priced Mac Pro is $2500. Not sure how they're in such different categories.
And Apple DOES have a mid-range machine. It's call the iMac. Whether or not it meets your needs, it is certainly mid-range (above the Mini and below the Mac Pro - although the iMac can easily beat a low end Mac Pro at many tasks).
"back to reality"? More like "back to the 90s when it was apparently illegal to say anything positive about Apple or Apple products".
Apple's reviews have been so positive because they've been so far ahead of the competition at most things. Posting a ridiculously negative, error-filled review does not provide balance.