New iMacs - now with SSD option

[Calxoddity]

Hi,
Too much leftover cash lying around? Nowhere to rest your cereal bowl? There is a solution....

A refresh of the iMac product line has taken place overnight, and apart from the usual faster processor and bigger graphics card, you can now get an internal SSD in addition to your normal internal hard disk.

More info here: http://www.apple.com/au/imac/

Also the Mac Pros are upgraded, but OMG they're not cheap...

Regards,
Calx

[mikec]

Yep saw that this morning too. I really like the idea of SSD, they are just too expensive for the storage size they provide at the moment, give it a few years I guess.

[nisstrust]

If the new imacs had an epress card slot or PCI expansion i'd be onto them like a bat out of hell. But alaw, my only viable option forward it a mac pro for HDD expansion.

[maccaroneski]

Yep saw that this morning too. I really like the idea of SSD, they are just too expensive for the storage size they provide at the moment, give it a few years I guess.

Although at the moment, they are apparently being utilised to great effect speed-wise amongst PC users not for "storage" per se, but rather to run o/s and programs off say a 128GB SSD (about $400), and then have a conventional hard drive for file storage.

[JM Tran]

haha I already have a SSD in my macbook pro, and yes it flies! Not using it for storage either as photos and files usually go towards an external drive later for archiving

I would shoot, then put the raw files onto the SSD, edit, move the finished products to 2 externals, and delete raw files on SSD after, love the almost zero loading time. Takes me about 10 seconds from a cold start on laptop to opening a raw file on CS5:):):):)

[Wayne]

I have been waiting for the refresh and more so waiting for Apple to release that 27" cinema display, because I like having 2 screens, and it made no sense to get a 27" imac, and a 24" second display.

The disappointment is that the new imac has no USB3 support, and the $600USD for the SSD only option is bloody exe, looks like Apple are charging $150USD to fit the SSD if you opt for it in addition to the standard SATA drive @ $750USD.

I think I'll skip this version and see what the next update has to offer.

[arthurking83]

Yeah.. SSD's are not really for storage. They're for things like separate cache file location, or OS installation where the speed of the computer system is the main benefit.

I was contemplating running my main OS(Win7), program files and temp data directories off a couple of dedicated SSD's with the resulting left over HDD's as storage only drives.. all for the sake of a few extra micro seconds saved with the general running of the PC.

The (current) prices of these SSD's are not really at decent a value for money point yet:

MSY are generally considered to be one of the best for prices vs reliable retailers and they're prices for SSD's are ....

cheapest 64Gig drive ... $179
mid priced 64G drive .... ~$200
decent 128G drive ..... $350-400
bigger than 200G drive ... >$800!

The problem is that to run the OS and programs off the SSD(for maximum benefit) is that my curently new installation of the OS and programs stands at 58G's .. 64G is pushing the friendship a little and 128G SSD is just too expensive :( ... for now!

So I opted for two normal HDD's @ 1Tb each for the princely sum of $180/pair! :D

Something that I think I've read about SSD's is that they have a limited write lifetime.. where they may eventually fail after (say) 100K write cycles to the same data block?
Does anyone know if this is true?
If so, makes them even worse value for money, and another reason I chose the normal HDD route for now.

Ooooh!.... and now I'm itching to install a SATA drive into my recently purchased eSATA external drive enclosure too.
Having to totally backup my older 1Tb drive onto another 1Tb drive via the USB2 interface was a week long PITA(with a constantly rebooting PC that I had to endure back then).

[JM Tran]

Something that I think I've read about SSD's is that they have a limited write lifetime.. where they may eventually fail after (say) 100K write cycles to the same data block?
Does anyone know if this is true?
If so, makes them even worse value for money, and another reason I chose the normal HDD route for now.

I havent heard that one before, so I cant validate that

I went the SSD route as it has proven to be more reliable as there is no moving part ie. spinning things like a normal hard drive, and much much more secure and less prone to data corruption, write failure, mechanical break down etc, I deemed it to be an invaluable feature for my work laptop if Im using it on the road a lot for photo editing and temp storage

[arthurking83]

OK, the correct term is write endurance.

it is limited to some extent, due to the nature of flash based SSD's.

It used to be 100K, but now I see some manufacturers are quoting 2million cycles.

I had a quick Google(because everyone else seems to be too busy too :p .. even tho I currently have the slowest PC in the country!... don't worry Jackie!.. I'll look after 'ya :D)

.. lifetime expectancy of a 64G SSD with 24hr/day use...


The end result is 51 years! :lol:

Here's the reference (http://www.storagesearch.com/ssdmyths-endurance.html)

get the bigger 128G SSD, just to be sure it last you 102 years instead! ... you just never know how long you end up keeping the lappy :p

ie. it doesn't appear to be the issue I thought it was.